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.

I think you are presuming such an offer was not made in the first instance. Crews have hand held credit card collections machines and yes, commonly used in Emergency Exit grabs I have seen on United. It helps protect the people that purchased the upgrades. Media states the were disruptive and (exaggerated) “riot” behavior was used. Instead you have chosen to ignore the ill behavior described on several levels and seek to assume crew failure in handling the situation.

gullairACK wrote:

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.

I think you are presuming such an offer was not made in the first instance. Crews have hand held credit card collections machines and yes, commonly used in Emergency Exit grabs I have seen on United. It helps protect the people that purchased the upgrades. Media states the were disruptive and (exaggerated) “riot” behavior was used. Instead you have chosen to ignore the ill behavior described on several levels and seek to assume crew failure in handling the situation.

I can see a lot of funny words, from "self upgrade" to "riot', but little proof.
Any more or less serious event these days gets recorded. There is only one video of police walking the aisle of the plane - apparently after landing, nothing else. Which doesn't quite support "riot" wording. "Riot" is not even elaborated...

The increasing unruliness, violence, assault on crew, hassles to other pax, further compounded including refusals to wearing masks, has led to near-zero tolerance of it by flight crews. I fear that one of these days some crew member or innocent pax will be seriously injured, even die from an injury by some foolish pax. That is why they turned back this flight.
I agree with others here that anyone who causes a diversion of a flight, an injury in flight or openly violates the orders of a crew member needs to compensate the airline involved for the all the costs from it. If a few get a bill for $100K and destruction of your credit then it might discourage others for being fools.

kalvado wrote:

gullairACK wrote:

kalvado wrote:

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

I think you are presuming such an offer was not made in the first instance. Crews have hand held credit card collections machines and yes, commonly used in Emergency Exit grabs I have seen on United. It helps protect the people that purchased the upgrades. Media states the were disruptive and (exaggerated) “riot” behavior was used. Instead you have chosen to ignore the ill behavior described on several levels and seek to assume crew failure in handling the situation.

I can see a lot of funny words, from "self upgrade" to "riot', but little proof.
Any more or less serious event these days gets recorded. There is only one video of police walking the aisle of the plane - apparently after landing, nothing else. Which doesn't quite support "riot" wording. "Riot" is not even elaborated...

As you continue to provide absolutely no proof that the crew made efforts to accommodate or otherwise take control of the situation. My stance is supported by the fact that a professional crew with likely decades of experience between them decided the incident warranted returning to base. Your position is supported by you saying that it must be true because…crew=bad!

FGITD wrote:

kalvado wrote:

gullairACK wrote:

I think you are presuming such an offer was not made in the first instance. Crews have hand held credit card collections machines and yes, commonly used in Emergency Exit grabs I have seen on United. It helps protect the people that purchased the upgrades. Media states the were disruptive and (exaggerated) “riot” behavior was used. Instead you have chosen to ignore the ill behavior described on several levels and seek to assume crew failure in handling the situation.

I can see a lot of funny words, from "self upgrade" to "riot', but little proof.
Any more or less serious event these days gets recorded. There is only one video of police walking the aisle of the plane - apparently after landing, nothing else. Which doesn't quite support "riot" wording. "Riot" is not even elaborated...

As you continue to provide absolutely no proof that the crew made efforts to accommodate or otherwise take control of the situation. My stance is supported by the fact that a professional crew with likely decades of experience between them decided the incident warranted returning to base. Your position is supported by you saying that it must be true because…crew=bad!

On the same token, law enforcement and DA office with decades, if not centuries of experience between them decided not to press charges.

So far, I don't even see any evidence those 2 passengers were actually not accommodated on the rescheduled flight. Pretty sure that would be mentioned if that was actually the case.

kalvado wrote:

FGITD wrote:

kalvado wrote:

I can see a lot of funny words, from "self upgrade" to "riot', but little proof.
Any more or less serious event these days gets recorded. There is only one video of police walking the aisle of the plane - apparently after landing, nothing else. Which doesn't quite support "riot" wording. "Riot" is not even elaborated...

As you continue to provide absolutely no proof that the crew made efforts to accommodate or otherwise take control of the situation. My stance is supported by the fact that a professional crew with likely decades of experience between them decided the incident warranted returning to base. Your position is supported by you saying that it must be true because…crew=bad!

On the same token, law enforcement and DA office with decades, if not centuries of experience between them decided not to press charges.

So far, I don't even see any evidence those 2 passengers were actually not accommodated on the rescheduled flight. Pretty sure that would be mentioned if that was actually the case.

Local Law enforcement and the DA also have little impact on flight safety when you’re about to enter the NATs. So I’ll go ahead and defer (again…) to the crew actually charged with the safe operation of the aircraft.

kalvado wrote:

FGITD wrote:

kalvado wrote:

I can see a lot of funny words, from "self upgrade" to "riot', but little proof.
Any more or less serious event these days gets recorded. There is only one video of police walking the aisle of the plane - apparently after landing, nothing else. Which doesn't quite support "riot" wording. "Riot" is not even elaborated...

As you continue to provide absolutely no proof that the crew made efforts to accommodate or otherwise take control of the situation. My stance is supported by the fact that a professional crew with likely decades of experience between them decided the incident warranted returning to base. Your position is supported by you saying that it must be true because…crew=bad!

On the same token, law enforcement and DA office with decades, if not centuries of experience between them decided not to press charges.

So far, I don't even see any evidence those 2 passengers were actually not accommodated on the rescheduled flight. Pretty sure that would be mentioned if that was actually the case.

1) If you can't trust the captains decisions in this case, I recommend you avoid flying. The frequently need to handle much tougher situations.
2) Crew decisions apply to the time they are taken and to the flight they were taken in. Not every failure to follow crew member instruction is a felony (or a criminal offense of any type) but one in the air the captain is the authority (as they bear the responsibility for any failure).

Happy travels
DLP

FGITD wrote:

kalvado wrote:

FGITD wrote:

As you continue to provide absolutely no proof that the crew made efforts to accommodate or otherwise take control of the situation. My stance is supported by the fact that a professional crew with likely decades of experience between them decided the incident warranted returning to base. Your position is supported by you saying that it must be true because…crew=bad!

On the same token, law enforcement and DA office with decades, if not centuries of experience between them decided not to press charges.

So far, I don't even see any evidence those 2 passengers were actually not accommodated on the rescheduled flight. Pretty sure that would be mentioned if that was actually the case.

Local Law enforcement and the DA also have little impact on flight safety when you’re about to enter the NATs. So I’ll go ahead and defer (again…) to the crew actually charged with the safe operation of the aircraft.

Yep, and they failed the task as the flight was not completed.

kalvado wrote:

FGITD wrote:

the crew actually charged with the safe operation of the aircraft.

Yep, and they failed the task as the flight was not completed.

Your statement has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.

reltney wrote:

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.

In contract law (and yes, I realize that there are other areas of law implicated here), damages are supposed to be foreseeable; I think it's a huge leap to envision the confluence (1) an evacuation occurring on the same flight, (2) the self-upgrader being more prone to evacuating with luggage than other pax, which we all know is a common occurrence, (3) that luggage blocking an exit, and (4) kids being involved. Similarly, in contract law you usually have a duty to mitigate damages. Were I the trier of fact, I would have a hard time awarding UA the full cost of the diversion, when there were significantly less intrusive and cheaper ways to deal with the situation.

Great job to the crew for taking a stand.

Oh gosh, gals and guys, someone on here is clearly trolling...

There are some folks who will never understand (or maybe attempt to comprehend) the logistics behind diversions, air returns, etc. Especially if one has never had to be in the position to work together and come up with such a decision. It's another reason why many former posters who are actually professionals in the business have decreased their replies/presence on here -- because no matter what we (collective av-pro "we") do or say, to some we're darned if we do and darned if we don't. Essentially it's Monday morning quarterbacking to a near-repulsive degree...

SurlyBonds wrote:

reltney wrote:

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.

In contract law (and yes, I realize that there are other areas of law implicated here), damages are supposed to be foreseeable; I think it's a huge leap to envision the confluence (1) an evacuation occurring on the same flight, (2) the self-upgrader being more prone to evacuating with luggage than other pax, which we all know is a common occurrence, (3) that luggage blocking an exit, and (4) kids being involved. Similarly, in contract law you usually have a duty to mitigate damages. Were I the trier of fact, I would have a hard time awarding UA the full cost of the diversion, when there were significantly less intrusive and cheaper ways to deal with the situation.

Well, this is a good point but very decisive. Fist thing is we really don’t have enough of the story to decide if the crew did enough. But what is enough? Would you rather have a crew doing their duties by flying the plane or trying to babysit a passenger who decides the rules are not for them. It is super simple. I will tell you once. You do not comply, off you go! That’s all the time I give as I need to be flying the plane. If a flight attend confirms with me they told the passenger at least once, that’s enough. But they do have to try only once in my book but usually they give it a third strike your out approach. Best part is I am the captain, I win all arguments and my company has always backed me and all others. In fact many years ago in command class, they even said it is a tell them once and if they choose not to comply, then they go bye bye. Also said is if on the ground you have to leave the cockpit to settle an issue who won’t listen to a flight attendant, then they are off the plane. My flight attendants are an extension of my authority.

You are a compliant person and we all like to help passengers who need it so don’t get me wrong. An example is this current mask issue. 99.999% hates the. As do I but it is a mandate. My record month was March 2021. I kicked off 3 when the flight attendant asked. Every time is was a 3rd strike and the F/A said time to leave. 2 of the pax asked for the capt.I put on my hat and walked back. When I got there they started a story. When they finished I asked if he need help gathering their things as the FA requested to deplane. It’s not a discussion.

Great discussion….Cheers