Looks like they only got about an hour out and turned back to EWR. Just wondering if anyone has any info on what happened?

According to https://passportnews.co.il/ (translated from hebrew):
"according to initial reports, the behavior of two israeli passengers resulted in united airlines deciding to return the flight to new york after about an hour and a half after taking off from newark."

Here are the flight logs for UA90 (dep: EWR @ 11:24 EDT and arrived back at EWR @ 01:36 EDT). The aircraft turned around exactly at the US/Canada border:
https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?icao=a11ba0&lat=42.869&lon=-71.091&zoom=7.0&showTrace=2022-01-21&leg=2
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/ua90#2a8fb02b

According to the United flight status for UA90, the flight was scheduled to take-off again from EWR for TLV at 02:20 EDT:
https://www.united.com/en/us/flightstatus/details/90/2022-01-20/EWR/TLV/UA
but was ultimately cancelled citing:
"Your flight is canceled because of airport conditions preventing your departure. We're sorry for the inconvenience."

The aircraft was N17002 B787-10:

Two passengers attempted to self-upgrade and became unruly when the crew asked them to return to their seats. The Captain elected to return to EWR. Pilots and flight attendants were out of duty time at that point.

Surprised they didn't decide on BOS as a putdown point. As far as duty time, isn't there a second crew aboard that long a flight anyway?

RobertS975 wrote:

Surprised they didn't decide on BOS as a putdown point. As far as duty time, isn't there a second crew aboard that long a flight anyway?

Finding a crew and reaccommodating pax in BOS is a lot more difficult than at a large hub like EWR (where many of the pax originated and have means to get home if eventually cxl’d) when it’s not much further down the road…EWR will win out unless it’s an emergency where they need to get the plane on the ground ASAP.

RobertS975 wrote:

Surprised they didn't decide on BOS as a putdown point. As far as duty time, isn't there a second crew aboard that long a flight anyway?

EWR-TLV is generally crewed with 3 pilots who rotate and go on breaks during the flights. FAs will do the same. There is never a second full crew on long haul flights.

RobertS975 wrote:

Surprised they didn't decide on BOS as a putdown point. As far as duty time, isn't there a second crew aboard that long a flight anyway?

Augmented crew, yes, but they're all on the clock when they show up so they all have the same clock going. The only thing that can change is if a member of the crew decides to extend their duty. The rules get muddled a bit if this is an FRMS flight, but I can't imagine it would be. I don't have my EFB handy to check but I doubt this is long enough.

Thank you for the replies everyone! Also read they upgraded themselves to Business and refused to provide tickets proving they were indeed their seats then got unruly. UA should have just let them keep the seat and meet them with police and a credit card machine. Pay for your full fare Polaris seat you used or pay bail

psolk wrote:

Thank you for the replies everyone! Also read they upgraded themselves to Business and refused to provide tickets proving they were indeed their seats then got unruly. UA should have just let them keep the seat and meet them with police and a credit card machine. Pay for your full fare Polaris seat you used or pay bail

They should be charged for the cost of the diversion. It was due entirely to their own voluntary behavior.

The real news here is that there were two empty J seats on EWR-TLV.

psolk wrote:

Thank you for the replies everyone! Also read they upgraded themselves to Business and refused to provide tickets proving they were indeed their seats then got unruly. UA should have just let them keep the seat and meet them with police and a credit card machine. Pay for your full fare Polaris seat you used or pay bail

Negative! Theft of service and failure to follow crew members instructions. If I signed for the plane and I am responsible for the safety of the crew plane and passengers so it’s a return and prosecution. They will be charged with theft of service and financially responsible to all costs of the air return. I hope they will be forever banned from United and their names given to all other airlines. If they did that stupid move on the United flight, what else are they capable of doing. Let them swim. If you let them off easy, then it sets a pattern and invitation for others to follow.

The pilot is a friend of mine and did the right move.

Cheers

Are there air marshals on this segment? Could they be involved in disciplining the passengers- rather than causing inconvenience to the passengers for cancellations etc and airline cost?

RTW00 wrote:

Are there air marshals on this segment? Could they be involved in disciplining the passengers- rather than causing inconvenience to the passengers for cancellations etc and airline cost?

AFAIK Air Marshals aren’t going to assist in something like this, because it makes it obvious who they are and blows their cover. Plus something like this could be a diversion to distract the Air Marshals from an actual attack.

USAirKid wrote:

RTW00 wrote:

Are there air marshals on this segment? Could they be involved in disciplining the passengers- rather than causing inconvenience to the passengers for cancellations etc and airline cost?

AFAIK Air Marshals aren’t going to assist in something like this, because it makes it obvious who they are and blows their cover. Plus something like this could be a diversion to distract the Air Marshals from an actual attack.

Exactly, Air Marshalls are to counter a terrorist threat or hijack situation. They're not there to issue citations. They are not to respond to incidents like this as it may be a ruse for them to identify themselves.

I saw something similar on an Air Canada flight once, ironically also going to TLV from YYZ.

I thought the purser handled it really well. He approached them with his iPad in hand and said, “You are more than welcome to remain, can I get you some Champagne?” As they looked smugly at each other, he added, “I have your credit card information here attached to your reservation. The upgrade fee will be $2290 each. So Gentlemen, what’ll it be? Champagne or back to your (economy) seat?”

They scurried back to their seats.

ContinentalEWR wrote:

The time has come for the airlines to apply harsh penalties for this type of behavior, particularly when they trigger a diversion and it is clear that the passenger or passengers are the sole culprits. The added costs shouldered by the airline for the diversion (fuel, over time, re-accommodation for the other passengers) need to be passed on to the ones who caused the incident. The passengers triggering these types of incidents need to be fined (heavily), and prevented from flying, at minimum, that airline, for a substantial period of time, and be placed on a no fly list. There simply is no excuse for this type of behavior. Have the airlines made the flying experience challenging? Yes, to some extent, with tight legroom and like everything else in the world, a widening gulf between the haves and the have nots but people want the freedom to travel and move around, and they have it, so there's no excuse for this type of behavior.

Problem here is not harsh penalties, problem is with 150 people who got screwed up with cancelled flight. probably as many for the return flight.
OK, crew showed their powers. They will also not get those hours for the return trip. Fine with me as well.
If anything, this is very poor conflict management on behalf of airline personnel. And certainly very bad customer service at the end of the day.

kalvado wrote:

ContinentalEWR wrote:

The time has come for the airlines to apply harsh penalties for this type of behavior, particularly when they trigger a diversion and it is clear that the passenger or passengers are the sole culprits. The added costs shouldered by the airline for the diversion (fuel, over time, re-accommodation for the other passengers) need to be passed on to the ones who caused the incident. The passengers triggering these types of incidents need to be fined (heavily), and prevented from flying, at minimum, that airline, for a substantial period of time, and be placed on a no fly list. There simply is no excuse for this type of behavior. Have the airlines made the flying experience challenging? Yes, to some extent, with tight legroom and like everything else in the world, a widening gulf between the haves and the have nots but people want the freedom to travel and move around, and they have it, so there's no excuse for this type of behavior.

Problem here is not harsh penalties, problem is with 150 people who got screwed up with cancelled flight. probably as many for the return flight.
OK, crew showed their powers. They will also not get those hours for the return trip. Fine with me as well.
If anything, this is very poor conflict management on behalf of airline personnel. And certainly very bad customer service at the end of the day.

When you are talking customer service vs. safety on board a plane, safety will win out every time. If the crew felt it was necessary to have these passengers removed ASAP then sorry for everyone else who gets hosed but a diversion is what is going to happen. The fact that this flight turned around says that these passengers were exhibiting behavior that the crew felt would be a safety issue on a 10 hour flight.

ScorpioMC3 wrote:

kalvado wrote:

ContinentalEWR wrote:

The time has come for the airlines to apply harsh penalties for this type of behavior, particularly when they trigger a diversion and it is clear that the passenger or passengers are the sole culprits. The added costs shouldered by the airline for the diversion (fuel, over time, re-accommodation for the other passengers) need to be passed on to the ones who caused the incident. The passengers triggering these types of incidents need to be fined (heavily), and prevented from flying, at minimum, that airline, for a substantial period of time, and be placed on a no fly list. There simply is no excuse for this type of behavior. Have the airlines made the flying experience challenging? Yes, to some extent, with tight legroom and like everything else in the world, a widening gulf between the haves and the have nots but people want the freedom to travel and move around, and they have it, so there's no excuse for this type of behavior.

Problem here is not harsh penalties, problem is with 150 people who got screwed up with cancelled flight. probably as many for the return flight.
OK, crew showed their powers. They will also not get those hours for the return trip. Fine with me as well.
If anything, this is very poor conflict management on behalf of airline personnel. And certainly very bad customer service at the end of the day.

When you are talking customer service vs. safety on board a plane, safety will win out every time. If the crew felt it was necessary to have these passengers removed ASAP then sorry for everyone else who gets hosed but a diversion is what is going to happen. The fact that this flight turned around says that these passengers were exhibiting behavior that the crew felt would be a safety issue on a 10 hour flight.

Safety of seating in a wrong class is a pretty questionable safety item. And apparently things were nowhere near any actual hazard as return to base - as opposed to nearest suitable airport (such as BOS) was chosen.

ContinentalEWR wrote:

kalvado wrote:

ContinentalEWR wrote:

The time has come for the airlines to apply harsh penalties for this type of behavior, particularly when they trigger a diversion and it is clear that the passenger or passengers are the sole culprits. The added costs shouldered by the airline for the diversion (fuel, over time, re-accommodation for the other passengers) need to be passed on to the ones who caused the incident. The passengers triggering these types of incidents need to be fined (heavily), and prevented from flying, at minimum, that airline, for a substantial period of time, and be placed on a no fly list. There simply is no excuse for this type of behavior. Have the airlines made the flying experience challenging? Yes, to some extent, with tight legroom and like everything else in the world, a widening gulf between the haves and the have nots but people want the freedom to travel and move around, and they have it, so there's no excuse for this type of behavior.

Problem here is not harsh penalties, problem is with 150 people who got screwed up with cancelled flight. probably as many for the return flight.
OK, crew showed their powers. They will also not get those hours for the return trip. Fine with me as well.
If anything, this is very poor conflict management on behalf of airline personnel. And certainly very bad customer service at the end of the day.

The 150 remaining passengers who got screwed over a diversion and ultimately a cancelled flight were in that situation solely due to the actions of the passengers who self-upgraded and the events that ensued. The decision to divert and fly back to EWR is a question of safety over procedure and safety will always overrule. It's not poor conflict management. If the airline has a policy that does not allow someone to pay up to business class in flight, and passengers just sit there, because they see the cabin is empty and want to be there for their comfort and won't pay, that's not the crew's fault. Harsh penalties are needed as a deterrent. And if I were among the impacted passengers who ended up delayed, I'd consider suing the perpetrators for the inconvenience.

I don't buy "safety" argument. If it was safety, extra hour airborne would be a big issue.
Was it purser's or captain's wife who had a birthday next day?

kalvado wrote:

ScorpioMC3 wrote:

kalvado wrote:

Problem here is not harsh penalties, problem is with 150 people who got screwed up with cancelled flight. probably as many for the return flight.
OK, crew showed their powers. They will also not get those hours for the return trip. Fine with me as well.
If anything, this is very poor conflict management on behalf of airline personnel. And certainly very bad customer service at the end of the day.

When you are talking customer service vs. safety on board a plane, safety will win out every time. If the crew felt it was necessary to have these passengers removed ASAP then sorry for everyone else who gets hosed but a diversion is what is going to happen. The fact that this flight turned around says that these passengers were exhibiting behavior that the crew felt would be a safety issue on a 10 hour flight.

Safety of seating in a wrong class is a pretty questionable safety item. And apparently things were nowhere near any actual hazard as return to base - as opposed to nearest suitable airport (such as BOS) was chosen.

You have to consider what could happen, now what is happening. They were about to head over the Atlantic and be well away from a good divers point.
EWR is a logical diversion point as it is a UA hub where they have everything needed to take care of the passengers. Why you are being critical of there decision to land is beyond me.

Pinto wrote:

kalvado wrote:

ScorpioMC3 wrote:

When you are talking customer service vs. safety on board a plane, safety will win out every time. If the crew felt it was necessary to have these passengers removed ASAP then sorry for everyone else who gets hosed but a diversion is what is going to happen. The fact that this flight turned around says that these passengers were exhibiting behavior that the crew felt would be a safety issue on a 10 hour flight.

Safety of seating in a wrong class is a pretty questionable safety item. And apparently things were nowhere near any actual hazard as return to base - as opposed to nearest suitable airport (such as BOS) was chosen.

You have to consider what could happen, now what is happening. They were about to head over the Atlantic and be well away from a good divers point.
EWR is a logical diversion point as it is a UA hub where they have everything needed to take care of the passengers. Why you are being critical of there decision to land is beyond me.

So, lack of conflict management skills of the flight crew is not even disputed. I guess that's the take home message.

kalvado wrote:

Pinto wrote:

kalvado wrote:

Safety of seating in a wrong class is a pretty questionable safety item. And apparently things were nowhere near any actual hazard as return to base - as opposed to nearest suitable airport (such as BOS) was chosen.

You have to consider what could happen, now what is happening. They were about to head over the Atlantic and be well away from a good divers point.
EWR is a logical diversion point as it is a UA hub where they have everything needed to take care of the passengers. Why you are being critical of there decision to land is beyond me.

So, lack of conflict management skills of the flight crew is not even disputed. I guess that's the take home message.

The take home message is that the crew decided it was better to divert before something happened over the Atlantic. Someone who sits there and think that just because a seat is open they are entitled to it might not be the easiest person to try and talk to. I think that they handled it well given the circumstances. Also you can sit there and say stuff about the crew being selfish but I mean would you rather have to divert to EWR or risk a diversion to the EU where passengers might not have visas to enter the EU, or worse a fight break out midflight.

ScorpioMC3 wrote:

There is never a second full crew on long haul flights.

That's surprising. I remember my EK 77W DXB-IAH flight had a flight crew of 4. Or is that an airline-specific thing?

kalvado wrote:

ContinentalEWR wrote:

The time has come for the airlines to apply harsh penalties for this type of behavior, particularly when they trigger a diversion and it is clear that the passenger or passengers are the sole culprits. The added costs shouldered by the airline for the diversion (fuel, over time, re-accommodation for the other passengers) need to be passed on to the ones who caused the incident. The passengers triggering these types of incidents need to be fined (heavily), and prevented from flying, at minimum, that airline, for a substantial period of time, and be placed on a no fly list. There simply is no excuse for this type of behavior. Have the airlines made the flying experience challenging? Yes, to some extent, with tight legroom and like everything else in the world, a widening gulf between the haves and the have nots but people want the freedom to travel and move around, and they have it, so there's no excuse for this type of behavior.

Problem here is not harsh penalties, problem is with 150 people who got screwed up with cancelled flight. probably as many for the return flight.
OK, crew showed their powers. They will also not get those hours for the return trip. Fine with me as well.
If anything, this is very poor conflict management on behalf of airline personnel. And certainly very bad customer service at the end of the day.

I dont think this is a conflict management issue. They were unruly. Say after seating themselves in business class, they start threatening crew members who objected to them, would you take responsibility.

We live in an environment where crew members are target of attacks from people dont follow instructions. Bad for other 150 people, agree. I hope these guys be guests of federal or state facility for a year or 2 would be nice. They can get all free food they want.

Subramanian

Western727 wrote:

ScorpioMC3 wrote:

There is never a second full crew on long haul flights.

That's surprising. I remember my EK 77W DXB-IAH flight had a flight crew of 4. Or is that an airline-specific thing?

It is based on flight time. I dotm rember extact but something like under 6 hours is 2 pilots, 6 - 10 hours 3 pilots, and 10+ hours 4 pilots. While those probably aren't right it gives you a general idea of the rule. I believe these are FAA rules not company rules.

Western727 wrote:

ScorpioMC3 wrote:

There is never a second full crew on long haul flights.

That's surprising. I remember my EK 77W DXB-IAH flight had a flight crew of 4. Or is that an airline-specific thing?

It depends on flight length. EK doesnt do two crews for a DXB BOM run for example. EWR TLV has block time of 10 hrs 15 minutes, there will be extra cock pit crew. I think it is like 2 crew members for less than 8 hrs, 3 for 8-12 and 4 for more than 12. Based on my conversations with an EK pilot from 2012 flying DXB SFO

Best, Subramanian

Western727 wrote:

ScorpioMC3 wrote:

There is never a second full crew on long haul flights.

That's surprising. I remember my EK 77W DXB-IAH flight had a flight crew of 4. Or is that an airline-specific thing?

A flight crew of four for that length of flight is a single full crew. A second full crew would be a total of 8.

subramak1 wrote:

kalvado wrote:

ContinentalEWR wrote:

The time has come for the airlines to apply harsh penalties for this type of behavior, particularly when they trigger a diversion and it is clear that the passenger or passengers are the sole culprits. The added costs shouldered by the airline for the diversion (fuel, over time, re-accommodation for the other passengers) need to be passed on to the ones who caused the incident. The passengers triggering these types of incidents need to be fined (heavily), and prevented from flying, at minimum, that airline, for a substantial period of time, and be placed on a no fly list. There simply is no excuse for this type of behavior. Have the airlines made the flying experience challenging? Yes, to some extent, with tight legroom and like everything else in the world, a widening gulf between the haves and the have nots but people want the freedom to travel and move around, and they have it, so there's no excuse for this type of behavior.

Problem here is not harsh penalties, problem is with 150 people who got screwed up with cancelled flight. probably as many for the return flight.
OK, crew showed their powers. They will also not get those hours for the return trip. Fine with me as well.
If anything, this is very poor conflict management on behalf of airline personnel. And certainly very bad customer service at the end of the day.

I dont think this is a conflict management issue. They were unruly. Say after seating themselves in business class, they start threatening crew members who objected to them, would you take responsibility.

We live in an environment where crew members are target of attacks from people dont follow instructions. Bad for other 150 people, agree. I hope these guys be guests of federal or state facility for a year or 2 would be nice. They can get all free food they want.

Subramanian

That's all cool... but why then risk those unruly folks once they realized plane is turning around, and things are going to be as bad as they can, if not worse? Were they zip-tied to those business seats at that point, or what? I doubt there was anything spectacular as there are no videos..
As it turns out, disruptive passengers are not charged after all (hello, who wanted to see harsh consequences?) so things were not that bad on board. Which gives, again, little substance to "safety of flight" issue. After all, without charges, reclaiming any money would be difficult. United just lost couple tens thousands dollars and a truckload of passenger goodwill.

Has anyone ever heard of one sneaking into a premium class without getting caught? I've seen folks move to Economy Plus without anyone saying anything but I was always curious about first/business class.

LOL at actually implying that the crew wanted to divert. Self-upgrading leads to conflict between passengers, not just with the crew. If someone took an empty seat next to me because they decided to self-upgrade, I'd certainly tell them to leave and ask the crew to move them. Now it becomes my problem.

Kudos to the crew for dealing with this expeditiously, even at their own cost.

I am somehow not very surprised that this happened on a USA-based airline. Issues somehow get really overblown there. Of course, we do not get the full story, but what could have those two i*i*t pax have done? A bomb threat? Weapons onboard? Nope, the plane was not diverted to BOS. Real threat/harassment to the crew? Again, the plane was diverted conveniently to EWR, not BOS. Besides, no videos have emerged yet. By the standards of the contemporary society, there was nothing to film (most likely).
Wouldn't it have made more sense to go on to TLV and transfer the passengers to the hands of the friendly local police? After a nice talk, the passengers would have swiftly paid business full fare one way as a crime involving several thousand USD would get you some nice time in jail. For tomorrow, business one ticket EWR-TLV one way is 8288USD (just checked on unitedairlines.com).
This 'adventure' could have cost United something like 70,000 USD (fuel, aircraft amortization, meals, accommodation, crew salaries, rebooking of passengers stuck in TLV for the return flight) - and I would say this is at the lower end of my estimates. Plus - loss of image. What has United won by turning back? Nothing. What has United lost? Many people will take a second thought about the disruption of the plans of at least 300 people (including those stranded in TLV) without an adequately serious cause. I sincerely think (please, do not look for racism in my claim) that El Al (as well as any 'non-US airline' doing a connection, such as Lufthansa, British, Air France...) would have found a way, and that was a typically American thing to come back

kalvado wrote:

subramak1 wrote:

kalvado wrote:

Problem here is not harsh penalties, problem is with 150 people who got screwed up with cancelled flight. probably as many for the return flight.
OK, crew showed their powers. They will also not get those hours for the return trip. Fine with me as well.
If anything, this is very poor conflict management on behalf of airline personnel. And certainly very bad customer service at the end of the day.

I dont think this is a conflict management issue. They were unruly. Say after seating themselves in business class, they start threatening crew members who objected to them, would you take responsibility.

We live in an environment where crew members are target of attacks from people dont follow instructions. Bad for other 150 people, agree. I hope these guys be guests of federal or state facility for a year or 2 would be nice. They can get all free food they want.

Subramanian

That's all cool... but why then risk those unruly folks once they realized plane is turning around, and things are going to be as bad as they can, if not worse? Were they zip-tied to those business seats at that point, or what? I doubt there was anything spectacular as there are no videos..
As it turns out, disruptive passengers are not charged after all (hello, who wanted to see harsh consequences?) so things were not that bad on board. Which gives, again, little substance to "safety of flight" issue. After all, without charges, reclaiming any money would be difficult. United just lost couple tens thousands dollars and a truckload of passenger goodwill.

Why would it be difficult to secure reimbursement without criminal charges? UA's CoC provides for reimbursement:

Any Passenger who, by reason of engaging in the above activities in this Rule 21 [including failure to comply with crewmember instructions], causes UA any loss, damage or expense of any kind, consents and acknowledges that he or she shall reimburse UA for any such loss, damage or expense. UA has the right to refuse transport, on a permanent basis, any passenger who engages in any of the activities in this Rule. In addition, the activities enumerated in this Rule shall constitute a material breach of contract, for which UA shall be excused from performing its obligations under this contract.

Cubsrule wrote:

Why would it be difficult to secure reimbursement without criminal charges? UA's CoC provides for reimbursement:

Any Passenger who, by reason of engaging in the above activities in this Rule 21 [including failure to comply with crewmember instructions], causes UA any loss, damage or expense of any kind, consents and acknowledges that he or she shall reimburse UA for any such loss, damage or expense. UA has the right to refuse transport, on a permanent basis, any passenger who engages in any of the activities in this Rule. In addition, the activities enumerated in this Rule shall constitute a material breach of contract, for which UA shall be excused from performing its obligations under this contract.

Unless they pay voluntarily, UA will have to sue them as a first step. That has some PR risk involved. After that you then have to collect the judgement, which depending on the passenger’s financial status, may not may not be that easy. And to top it off, that monetary reward can be discharged in a bankruptcy court.

It’s a nice clause, but I’m sure that using it is fraught with potential issues.

USAirKid wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

Why would it be difficult to secure reimbursement without criminal charges? UA's CoC provides for reimbursement:

Any Passenger who, by reason of engaging in the above activities in this Rule 21 [including failure to comply with crewmember instructions], causes UA any loss, damage or expense of any kind, consents and acknowledges that he or she shall reimburse UA for any such loss, damage or expense. UA has the right to refuse transport, on a permanent basis, any passenger who engages in any of the activities in this Rule. In addition, the activities enumerated in this Rule shall constitute a material breach of contract, for which UA shall be excused from performing its obligations under this contract.

Unless they pay voluntarily, UA will have to sue them as a first step. That has some PR risk involved. After that you then have to collect the judgement, which depending on the passenger’s financial status, may not may not be that easy. And to top it off, that monetary reward can be discharged in a bankruptcy court.

It’s a nice clause, but I’m sure that using it is fraught with potential issues.

All true. But none of that has anything to do with whether or not criminal charges were filed.

Cubsrule wrote:

USAirKid wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

Why would it be difficult to secure reimbursement without criminal charges? UA's CoC provides for reimbursement:

Unless they pay voluntarily, UA will have to sue them as a first step. That has some PR risk involved. After that you then have to collect the judgement, which depending on the passenger’s financial status, may not may not be that easy. And to top it off, that monetary reward can be discharged in a bankruptcy court.

It’s a nice clause, but I’m sure that using it is fraught with potential issues.

All true. But none of that has anything to do with whether or not criminal charges were filed.

So far, this is UA decision to divert. A criminal conviction would be great proof that the person actually did something very wrong and caused that decision.
Right now, once those pax refuse to pay, UA would have to convince the court pax actually caused the loss as opposed to self-inflicted thing. And... Since such judgement may have profound effect, I don't expect UA winning, even if they tried.

kalvado wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

USAirKid wrote:

Unless they pay voluntarily, UA will have to sue them as a first step. That has some PR risk involved. After that you then have to collect the judgement, which depending on the passenger’s financial status, may not may not be that easy. And to top it off, that monetary reward can be discharged in a bankruptcy court.

It’s a nice clause, but I’m sure that using it is fraught with potential issues.

All true. But none of that has anything to do with whether or not criminal charges were filed.

So far, this is UA decision to divert. A criminal conviction would be great proof that the person actually did something very wrong and caused that decision.
Right now, once those pax refuse to pay, UA would have to convince the court pax actually caused the loss as opposed to self-inflicted thing. And... Since such judgement may have profound effect, I don't expect UA winning, even if they tried.

Sorry, I don't understand. UA will plainly have testimony that they diverted because of these passengers' failure to comply with crewmember instructions. Is there some contrary evidence?

By refusing to return to their assigned seat, they are refusing to follow crew member instruction. Period. A small initial request, but an identifier of how it will go with additional requests if the tensions were to escalate once further over the Atlantic. The term used by media outlets was that a “riot started”. Suppose they were refused a subsequent meal associated with that cabin? Pajamas? Gel pillow request? Champagne unpaid? Other customers seeking guarantees of downgrades of fare paid and compensation for the “free upgrade day”? Now you are looking at diversions in Bangor, Gander, Keflavik, Shannon… hotels, visa issues, no nonstop service to Israel with journey time now longer than the 24 hours Newark provides. But sure, blame the crew and their inexperience with Atlantic diversions.

JoseSalazar wrote:

RobertS975 wrote:

Surprised they didn't decide on BOS as a putdown point. As far as duty time, isn't there a second crew aboard that long a flight anyway?

Finding a crew and reaccommodating pax in BOS is a lot more difficult than at a large hub like EWR (where many of the pax originated and have means to get home if eventually cxl’d) when it’s not much further down the road…EWR will win out unless it’s an emergency where they need to get the plane on the ground ASAP.

Also, there are special procedures on TLV flights, in addition to EWR being a Boeing 787 base. The only real issue would be if a B788 had to divert to EWR.

Cubsrule wrote:

kalvado wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

All true. But none of that has anything to do with whether or not criminal charges were filed.

So far, this is UA decision to divert. A criminal conviction would be great proof that the person actually did something very wrong and caused that decision.
Right now, once those pax refuse to pay, UA would have to convince the court pax actually caused the loss as opposed to self-inflicted thing. And... Since such judgement may have profound effect, I don't expect UA winning, even if they tried.

Sorry, I don't understand. UA will plainly have testimony that they diverted because of these passengers' failure to comply with crewmember instructions. Is there some contrary evidence?

And pax would say "no, I didn't". Word against word.
what's next?

Just plain testimony is a very slippery slope - next thing that would happen is that before any weather divertion, crew would be actively looking for someone who forgot to bring the seat upright. So the court would have to determine if pax was an actual safety issue. And there was nothing criminal - everybody is assumed innocent until proven guilty...

Great idea everyone, let the inmates run the asylum. After all, if you prove that the crew is willing to let “obey crew commands” slide then why not go up there and have a business class seat for yourself, or hell, why not a jump seat or crew bunk. 77w has some great crew bunks up there, just go pop in for a nap. And if the crew kicks you out, remember-it’s their fault!

FGITD wrote:

Great idea everyone, let the inmates run the asylum. After all, if you prove that the crew is willing to let “obey crew commands” slide then why not go up there and have a business class seat for yourself, or hell, why not a jump seat or crew bunk. 77w has some great crew bunks up there, just go pop in for a nap. And if the crew kicks you out, remember-it’s their fault!

A great way of handling the situation was suggested upstream. I am sure there is more to think of.

CrewBunk wrote:

I saw something similar on an Air Canada flight once, ironically also going to TLV from YYZ.

I thought the purser handled it really well. He approached them with his iPad in hand and said, “You are more than welcome to remain, can I get you some Champagne?” As they looked smugly at each other, he added, “I have your credit card information here attached to your reservation. The upgrade fee will be $2290 each. So Gentlemen, what’ll it be? Champagne or back to your (economy) seat?”

They scurried back to their seats.

kalvado wrote:

ContinentalEWR wrote:

kalvado wrote:

Problem here is not harsh penalties, problem is with 150 people who got screwed up with cancelled flight. probably as many for the return flight.
OK, crew showed their powers. They will also not get those hours for the return trip. Fine with me as well.
If anything, this is very poor conflict management on behalf of airline personnel. And certainly very bad customer service at the end of the day.

The 150 remaining passengers who got screwed over a diversion and ultimately a cancelled flight were in that situation solely due to the actions of the passengers who self-upgraded and the events that ensued. The decision to divert and fly back to EWR is a question of safety over procedure and safety will always overrule. It's not poor conflict management. If the airline has a policy that does not allow someone to pay up to business class in flight, and passengers just sit there, because they see the cabin is empty and want to be there for their comfort and won't pay, that's not the crew's fault. Harsh penalties are needed as a deterrent. And if I were among the impacted passengers who ended up delayed, I'd consider suing the perpetrators for the inconvenience.

I don't buy "safety" argument. If it was safety, extra hour airborne would be a big issue.
Was it purser's or captain's wife who had a birthday next day?

Well, failure to follow crew members instructions….that’s safety in every respectable airline flight operations manual. Safety argument wins again.
You won’t comply with my instructions, how will I know you will do what I say in an emergency. Try saying you do not understand the instructions when briefed while sitting in the exit row. You will be reseated. Try telling them you will not follow instructions from a crew member…..off the plane. Imagine your kids on that flight and the non compliant passenger pulls their bag thru the emergency exit blocking your kids…. True, a bit exaggerated but do you wait till you have the emergency to figure out you have a Bozo as a passenger. Not on my plane. If my flight attendants say I have a passenger problem, my response is “how do you want them removed”. Enough said.

Great discussion.

kalvado wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

kalvado wrote:

So far, this is UA decision to divert. A criminal conviction would be great proof that the person actually did something very wrong and caused that decision.
Right now, once those pax refuse to pay, UA would have to convince the court pax actually caused the loss as opposed to self-inflicted thing. And... Since such judgement may have profound effect, I don't expect UA winning, even if they tried.

Sorry, I don't understand. UA will plainly have testimony that they diverted because of these passengers' failure to comply with crewmember instructions. Is there some contrary evidence?

And pax would say "no, I didn't". Word against word.
what's next?

Just plain testimony is a very slippery slope - next thing that would happen is that before any weather divertion, crew would be actively looking for someone who forgot to bring the seat upright. So the court would have to determine if pax was an actual safety issue. And there was nothing criminal - everybody is assumed innocent until proven guilty...

No. The passenger has no competent evidence of why the captain/company diverted the aircraft because he has no personal knowledge concerning that decision.

kalvado wrote:

FGITD wrote:

Great idea everyone, let the inmates run the asylum. After all, if you prove that the crew is willing to let “obey crew commands” slide then why not go up there and have a business class seat for yourself, or hell, why not a jump seat or crew bunk. 77w has some great crew bunks up there, just go pop in for a nap. And if the crew kicks you out, remember-it’s their fault!

A great way of handling the situation was suggested upstream. I am sure there is more to think of.

CrewBunk wrote:

I saw something similar on an Air Canada flight once, ironically also going to TLV from YYZ.

I thought the purser handled it really well. He approached them with his iPad in hand and said, “You are more than welcome to remain, can I get you some Champagne?” As they looked smugly at each other, he added, “I have your credit card information here attached to your reservation. The upgrade fee will be $2290 each. So Gentlemen, what’ll it be? Champagne or back to your (economy) seat?”

They scurried back to their seats.

And for all we know, they were offered exactly that and refused. Given that the witness accounts allege that when asked to return to their seats, the pax in question “rioted” I don’t think a smug look is quite the response the UA crew was given.

I’ll defer the choice of action to the crew who deal with aircraft and passengers every day.

Fact is they were given an order by the crew, refused to comply, and seemingly became violent enough to warrant turning the plane back around. Why not go to BOS? Because by that point maybe (and most likely) the violence had ceased but the offenders still needed to get off. And EWR has a lot more resources for a UA 78x full of pax than BOS.

reltney wrote:

kalvado wrote:

ContinentalEWR wrote:

The 150 remaining passengers who got screwed over a diversion and ultimately a cancelled flight were in that situation solely due to the actions of the passengers who self-upgraded and the events that ensued. The decision to divert and fly back to EWR is a question of safety over procedure and safety will always overrule. It's not poor conflict management. If the airline has a policy that does not allow someone to pay up to business class in flight, and passengers just sit there, because they see the cabin is empty and want to be there for their comfort and won't pay, that's not the crew's fault. Harsh penalties are needed as a deterrent. And if I were among the impacted passengers who ended up delayed, I'd consider suing the perpetrators for the inconvenience.

I don't buy "safety" argument. If it was safety, extra hour airborne would be a big issue.
Was it purser's or captain's wife who had a birthday next day?

Well, failure to follow crew members instructions….that’s safety in every respectable airline flight operations manual. Safety argument wins again.
You won’t comply with my instructions, how will I know you will do what I say in an emergency. Try saying you do not understand the instructions when briefed while sitting in the exit row. You will be reseated. Try telling them you will not follow instructions from a crew member…..off the plane. Imagine your kids on that flight and the non compliant passenger pulls their bag thru the emergency exit blocking your kids…. True, a bit exaggerated but do you wait till you have the emergency to figure out you have a Bozo as a passenger. Not on my plane. If my flight attendants say I have a passenger problem, my response is “how do you want them removed”. Enough said.

Great discussion.

So far, compliance with crew instruction in terms of carry-ons in emergency seem to be pretty low.
Rest assured, in case of a real emergency people will be doing what they see fit, not what you say. It just happens that getting of the plane is what people instinctively want, so they may follow that part.