United1
Posts: 3911
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 9:21 am

RE: Pearl Harbor Vet Denied Boarding On UA LAX-HNL

Sat Dec 07, 2013 5:08 am

Quoting sonomaflyer (Reply 50):

UA is using an a/c that can barely make the flight and with a bit of wind tossed it, they have to throw off 41 people. It's all well and good to max out revenue but putting on the smallest and least capeable a/c able to make the segment but 41 people?

Well to be fair it was a more then a bit of wind.....this flight was almost an hour longer then normal due to the weather.

The 739ER is more than capable of flying the route 99.9% of the time however there are a few cases however where they simply have to take a weight penalty to make it. It doesn't happen that often and when it does happen it doesn't usually make the news....

The question the airlines have to answer is it worth it, monetarily, to fly a larger aircraft that can make the flights 100% of the time or on a handful of occasions offload some passengers in order to ensure they have enough fuel to make it.

UA, DL and even occasionally AS either do or will be sending the 737-900ER from the mainland to Hawaii and they would not be doing that if it were not an appropriate aircraft for the route. Eventually UA will be deploying the MAX on these routes but until that point it's probably not worth it to keep a handful of PW 752s around especially when they have the ability to re-accommodate or even add an additional segment in those occasions where they have to take a weight penalty.
I know the voices in my head aren't real but sometimes their ideas are just awesome!!!
 
Mir
Posts: 19491
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: Pearl Harbor Vet Denied Boarding On UA LAX-HNL

Sat Dec 07, 2013 5:17 am

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 16):
Of course when you need to lighten the plane you start on the disabled, the old and than unattended children?

Interesting how you assume that he was the first one offloaded and not the 41st. I'd bet a lot of non-disabled and non-elderly were offloaded before he was.

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
User avatar
airportugal310
Posts: 3531
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2004 12:49 pm

RE: Pearl Harbor Vet Denied Boarding On UA LAX-HNL

Sat Dec 07, 2013 5:23 am

It's all good. They re-accommodated him on arguably the best airline flying to HNL     
“They bought their tickets, they knew what they were getting into. I say, let 'em crash.”
 
FlyHossD
Posts: 1991
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 3:45 pm

RE: Pearl Harbor Vet Denied Boarding On UA LAX-HNL

Sat Dec 07, 2013 5:29 am

Quoting tommy767 (Reply 29):
I think UA shot themselves in the foot there. sUA 757 being dumped rapidly, TATL 757 needed at IAD and EWR, and widebodies have pretty much been removed from domestic routes.

I believe that UA is keeping ALL the sUA ETOPS 757s. Or said another way, the sUA 757s that are being retired aren't ETOPS airplanes and thus, would have been incapable of flying this flight anyway.

It is interesting that there has been no comparison of UA to the other airlines flying 737s to Hawaii (such as Alaska Air) in this thread. But having said that, I agree that the 737s aren't the best aircraft for the job and I'm openly nostalgic about the days when my trips to the islands were usually DC-10s.
My statements do not represent my former employer or my current employer and are my opinions only.
 
United1
Posts: 3911
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 9:21 am

RE: Pearl Harbor Vet Denied Boarding On UA LAX-HNL

Sat Dec 07, 2013 5:35 am

Quoting FlyHossD (Reply 55):
I believe that UA is keeping ALL the sUA ETOPS 757s. Or said another way, the sUA 757s that are being retired aren't ETOPS airplanes and thus, would have been incapable of flying this flight anyway.

Actually they are not all ETOPS 752s...7 are ETOPS, 2 overwater and 6 are not equipped for overwater operations. I'm not entirely sure how they picked which frames would stay...probably a combination of reliability and cycles/hours.
I know the voices in my head aren't real but sometimes their ideas are just awesome!!!
 
AyostoLeon
Posts: 745
Joined: Fri May 24, 2013 3:09 pm

RE: Pearl Harbor Vet Denied Boarding On UA LAX-HNL

Sat Dec 07, 2013 5:48 am

The passenger mentions that he has macular degeneration that makes it difficult for him to see and get around. Would it be worth mentioning that to the airlines when making bookings and requesting assisted boarding? Would doing so reduce the chances of being dumped as the need for assistance would be known and arranged in advance.

The fact that he is vet and his reason for travel is of little importance. Every passenger considers his need to travel as important, be it business or a death in the family. In deciding who to rebook on a later flight age and MD would be of greater concern than a desire to attend a reunion.

It is interesting to see conflicting claims in the report. Passenger states that he was told only two people were left behind and that he saw a man in a wheel chair. Do the airlines have a limit on the number of wheel chair passengers they can carry on an individual flight? UA claim that they had to re-accommodate 41 passengers. That's a big difference in the two accounts.
The person with no dignity eats his dinner twice
 
skywaymanaz
Posts: 719
Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 1:00 pm

RE: Pearl Harbor Vet Denied Boarding On UA LAX-HNL

Sat Dec 07, 2013 8:08 am

I took a bump once to allow an elderly passenger onto a flight. I didn't really have to do it, no idea if he was a veteran or not, just seemed like the right thing to do. That said if they had to bump 41 people I'm not sure how you do that and not have this kind of situation. Was he the only elderly passenger who was a veteran going for Pearl Harbor ceremonies? Possible but I tend to suspect not given the timing. That could mean there were others many who gave up their seats for veterans or seniors and unfortunately he got left out. There always seem to be threads this time of year about west coast-HNL flight problems, diversions, etc... due to strong headwinds. It was never this big of a problem in the 707/747 days but with more and more ETOPS 737's this kind of problem becomes inevitable. It's one of the longest over water routes without alternates but unfortunately it's a leisure market with discount fares and mileage redemptions making it hard to justify longer range equipment.
 
User avatar
jetblastdubai
Posts: 1897
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 10:23 am

RE: Pearl Harbor Vet Denied Boarding On UA LAX-HNL

Sat Dec 07, 2013 8:33 am

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 15):
In a very narrow and meaningless scope. How do you know that "last week" United didn't add two new aircraft?

Because the site also lists aircraft acquired as well as retired, sold, scrapped, stored and sent to other operators. It gives a running total of the active fleet of each airline broken down by type. According to the site UA did not add two aircraft last week so they had a net loss of two and that's what I based my comment on.
 
onebadlt123
Posts: 54
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2004 10:41 am

RE: Pearl Harbor Vet Denied Boarding On UA LAX-HNL

Sat Dec 07, 2013 8:47 am

From my experience, at times a combination of routing and headwinds can play a factor as well. Off the coast of southern California there are lots active military airspace that occasionally get closed during certain departure times. Flights are required to file accordingly to avoid said active airspace and thus can add a significant amount of distance/time/fuel to a route. Add in the additional headwinds because of the season and the lack of available spares to swap into, this situation occurs. It's rare, but it does happen. Not exactly sure what occurred in this specific situation though.

[Edited 2013-12-07 00:53:21]
 
ha763
Posts: 3201
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 5:36 pm

RE: Pearl Harbor Vet Denied Boarding On UA LAX-HNL

Sat Dec 07, 2013 9:00 am

There are some holes in the story that I would like to know more about. There is nothing about any assistance he got from AA. Did he inform the AA agent the purpose of his trip when he checked in for his AA flight? Did he ask AA for any help while waiting for his flight? I bet if he told the AA agents he was a Pearl Harbor survivor going to Saturday's memorial ceremonies and got bumped off his UA flight, AA probably would have gladly allowed him access to the Admirals Club. Something had to have been noted in his PNR by someone or else he would have never been met in OGG by HA.

Quoting BC77008 (Reply 41):
What I find shocking is that not a single one of the passengers on that flight gave up their seat so this 90 year old could fly to his destination. Not. A. Single. One. !!!

I'm not shocked. He never was at the departure gate, nor was he even checked in for the flight. The UA agents in the lobby were the ones that informed the pax about the weight restrictions and accommodated him on another flight.

Quoting airportugal310 (Reply 54):
It's all good. They re-accommodated him on arguably the best airline flying to HNL

He only flew HA OGG-HNL. LAX-OGG was AA.
 
User avatar
airportugal310
Posts: 3531
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2004 12:49 pm

RE: Pearl Harbor Vet Denied Boarding On UA LAX-HNL

Sat Dec 07, 2013 9:42 am

Quoting ha763 (Reply 61):

Ah yes I see now. When the "story" first broke it vaguely mentioned he was put on a HA flight and I incorrectly assumed wrong from there. Thx for the correction
“They bought their tickets, they knew what they were getting into. I say, let 'em crash.”
 
brilondon
Posts: 3046
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2005 6:56 am

RE: Pearl Harbor Vet Denied Boarding On UA LAX-HNL

Sat Dec 07, 2013 11:48 am

Quoting klkla (Reply 18):
A long delay for a 90 year old is a lot different than a long delay for a 20 year old. United (and all airlines) should remind their employees that they are dealing with human beings and give them the authority to deal with problems like this in a humane way. I'm sure if they had just made an announcement explaining his situation there would have been people that would have gone out of their way to help him. There are ways he could have been accommodated if they had cared. They deserve bad publicity for this.

I don't think UA is out of line here. He did make it eventually.

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 4):

Quoting HNLPointShoot (Thread starter):
A Pearl Harbor veteran traveling to Honolulu for Dec. 7th ceremonies tomorrow was involuntarily denied boarding on UA1226 this past Wednesday, Dec. 4

And nevertheless arrived the same day, albeit with an extra stop and several hours of delay!

United needed to offload 41 passengers. What were they supposed to do? Interview each and every passenger to find out their purpose for flying that day then make a judgement call as to which 41 passengers had the least important reasons? Or grab whichever passengers their system selects in all cases like this and offer them alternate arrangements?

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying he didn't deserve to get there on time and with all honors, but the moment United, or any airline, starts deciding someone's reason to fly is more valid than someone else's, it becomes a slippery slope with no bottom, and a logistical nightmare to boot!

His "friend" should have helped him through the terminal and stayed with him until he boarded his flight. I am sure that UA would have let his friend accompany him to the gate or at least to where the airline could have helped him be comfortable whilst he waited for his flight. Yes I know it is UA but this happens when there is a need for fewer passengers. He still arrived in HNL and he is still able to take in the Ceremony. Just a slow news day I guess.
Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
 
rwy04lga
Posts: 1976
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 7:21 am

RE: Pearl Harbor Vet Denied Boarding On UA LAX-HNL

Sat Dec 07, 2013 12:07 pm

Quoting TonyBurr (Reply 38):
How many non rev's were in First !

Or even on the plane in this situation?...Lemme guess.....NONE?!?!?

Holy crap...why do people think that an airline would accomodate nonrevs if they have paying passengers waiting for a seat?

Quoting captainstefan (Reply 44):
Honestly, the chances of non-revs getting a premium seat on domestic flights are all but nonexistent. When it has happened to me in the past two years at my airline, it's been a last second "2B didn't show up / it's the only seat left on the plane / hurry up get down the Jetway /you're the last one on the plane" kind of deal. There are so many complimentary upgrades with the recent evolutions in reward flying that domestic premium for NRSAs is a thing of the past, save for rare instances.

Stefan, same thing happened to me on DL, SLC-SAN...door ready to close...2A doesn't show up on time...I get his seat at the last minute.
Just accept that some days, you're the pigeon, and other days the statue
 
Kaiarahi
Posts: 1807
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 6:55 pm

RE: Pearl Harbor Vet Denied Boarding On UA LAX-HNL

Sat Dec 07, 2013 12:41 pm

Quoting Mir (Reply 51):
Interesting how you assume that he was the first one offloaded and not the 41st. I'd bet a lot of non-disabled and non-elderly were offloaded before he was.

   I was one of them. And every one of us had a reason why we needed to be in HNL.

Quoting ha763 (Reply 59):
Quoting BC77008 (Reply 41):
What I find shocking is that not a single one of the passengers on that flight gave up their seat so this 90 year old could fly to his destination. Not. A. Single. One. !!!

I'm not shocked. He never was at the departure gate, nor was he even checked in for the flight. The UA agents in the lobby were the ones that informed the pax about the weight restrictions and accommodated him on another flight.

   Same with me. We were taken care of very professionally.
Empty vessels make the most noise.
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 7661
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

RE: Pearl Harbor Vet Denied Boarding On UA LAX-HNL

Sat Dec 07, 2013 1:54 pm

Quoting MIflyer12 (Reply 40):
I don't know if you wrote that tounge-in-cheek but it's a point many posters perhaps not familiar with American regs seem to miss in this thread: once UA sets out its IDB priority it is obligated to follow it, by DOT regulation.

I always side with the airline or at least give them the benefit of doubt. But not when I hear stories like airlines charging returning active military for excess baggage, refuses to refund $100 to a terminally ill pax who probably will never travel again in his life or this case bump a 90 old veteran who should be honored.

[Edited 2013-12-07 06:03:08]
 
brilondon
Posts: 3046
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2005 6:56 am

RE: Pearl Harbor Vet Denied Boarding On UA LAX-HNL

Sat Dec 07, 2013 1:58 pm

I don't normally defend UA because their service stinks but do they know when they bump people who they are or are they just seeing a PNR and what type of ticket is bought and not the person?
Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9286
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

RE: Pearl Harbor Vet Denied Boarding On UA LAX-HNL

Sat Dec 07, 2013 2:08 pm

Quoting MIflyer12 (Reply 40):
Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 31):
Why use common sense when there is a well written contract of carriage.

I don't know if you wrote that tounge-in-cheek but it's a point many posters perhaps not familiar with American regs seem to miss in this thread: once UA sets out its IDB priority it is obligated to follow it, by DOT regulation.

The DOT doesn't demand that UA have a last on/first off policy - in fact DL does it differently in several elements.

Now, if the DOT wants to give priority to military vets or the aged, it can direct the airlines to do so. If the DOT doesn't, Congress can write legislation instructing the DOT to do so. But UA gate agents can't guilt people into volunteering, of the form 'If we don't get 41 volunteers right now the old guy is left sitting here!'

UA kicked a 90 years old person of the plain. I assume that was not voluntary. So why would UA need volunteering from the other persons on the plain? They kicked off 41.
So the first off policy of UA goes, people on wheelchairs, next the elderly ...?
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9286
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

RE: Pearl Harbor Vet Denied Boarding On UA LAX-HNL

Sat Dec 07, 2013 2:12 pm

Quoting Mir (Reply 51):
Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 16):
Of course when you need to lighten the plane you start on the disabled, the old and than unattended children?

Interesting how you assume that he was the first one offloaded and not the 41st. I'd bet a lot of non-disabled and non-elderly were offloaded before he was.

-Mir

Their were quite a few pax not offloaded and my suggestion would be that you END on the disabled, the elderly and perhaps the very young.
 
User avatar
CALTECH
Posts: 3375
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 4:21 am

RE: Pearl Harbor Vet Denied Boarding On UA LAX-HNL

Sat Dec 07, 2013 3:00 pm

Quoting HNLPointShoot (Thread starter):
I realize that airlines like UA have procedures for selecting who doesn't fly if they need to take people off the plane, but was it really not possible for someone to realize how bad this would make them look?

Sad to see this Veteran and 40 others were bumped. Glad he did make it. The computer probably did not show that he was a Veteran.

Yes, because it is a automated system that prints out the passengers to be bumped. Do not know of all the considerations and inputs for the program, but in the past I have known it relied heavily on check-in times. Have seen 1st Class passengers denied boarding in the past, do not know if that still holds true.

No non-revenue pass riders made this flight, and should never be boarded before a paying passenger who arrives on time at the gate. My group was pulled from a flight to Frankfurt from Newark for 3 last minute passengers. We were on board the airplane and putting our carry ons away when we were pulled. As it always should be.

The aircraft in question, seems to have had a APU Bleed Inop MEL. This holds a Dispatch penalty of as put, Enroute Limited Weight Reduction of 6000Lbs for the 737-800. That is poor planning on letting that airplane fly on to Hawaii. It also looks like it was repaired in HNL.
You are here.
 
User avatar
Web500sjc
Posts: 824
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 4:23 am

RE: Pearl Harbor Vet Denied Boarding On UA LAX-HNL

Sat Dec 07, 2013 3:12 pm

Boarding Priorities - If a flight is Oversold, no one may be denied boarding against his/her will until UA or other carrier personnel first ask for volunteers who will give up their reservations willingly in exchange for compensation as determined by UA. If there are not enough volunteers, other Passengers may be denied boarding involuntarily in accordance with UA’s boarding priority:

a) Passengers who are Qualified Individuals with Disabilities, unaccompanied minors under the age of 18 years, or minors between the ages of 12 and 17 who use the unaccompanied minor service, will be the last to be involuntarily denied boarding if it is determined by UA that such denial would constitute a hardship.

b) The priority of all other confirmed passengers may be determined based on a passenger’s fare class, itinerary, status of frequent flyer program membership, and the time in which the passenger presents him/herself for check-in without advanced seat assignment.


end quote


That is the policy UA has for denying boarding in the case of an oversold situation, straight from tho contract of carriage that can be found online.

As you can see there are specific outlays for minors and individuals with disabilities to be continued on with the flight.

the quote also says that passengers to be denied boarding will be determined by fare class, itinerary, FFP membership, and time of check-in.

My guess, after listening to the honolulu news story, is that UA detrained that at least 2 hours in advanced they would have to offload a significant amount of people. So they proactively, at the checkin counter, started looking to rebook people. Based on the occurrence of fare class (probably the cheapest), the FFP membership (none), and checkin time (last). hew would not have been in the list of people that could reasonably expect seats if there were enough volunteers.


Yes he could have demanded to go through to the gate and see about how many people decided to voluntarily take the compensation, but united convinced him it was futile and that he should enjoy his extra 8 without having to stay at the airport.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 67):
Their were quite a few pax not offloaded and my suggestion would be that you END on the disabled, the elderly and perhaps the very young.

If that were the policy, you would se many more "disabled passengers" so that they are not offloaded (see Disneyland's new policy on disabled lines).

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 64):
But not when I hear stories like airlines charging returning active military for excess baggage, refuses to refund $100 to a terminally ill pax who probably will never travel again in his life or this case bump a 90 old veteran who should be honored.

The baggage is something the military should reimburse (I think the airline shouldn't charge, but it is a service not included in the ticket so I have no problem, and airlines are not a charity). The terminally ill issue I do have a problem with, no excuse. involuntary boarding I have shown my allegiance. It is a fact of life, sometimes we (and 40 other people, who may have had to see their dad before they died, etc.) get denied boarding.

At least it was better than my experience with denied boarding, Song/Delta Agent "we are just finding your seats." me "oh wait isn't that the jetway being pulled back?" agent "yes, here are your seats - the airplane leaves in 6 hours and gets in at midnight, Good luck"
Boiler Up!
 
Steelyman
Posts: 114
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:40 am

RE: Pearl Harbor Vet Denied Boarding On UA LAX-HNL

Sat Dec 07, 2013 3:21 pm

Quoting AR385 (Reply 8):
1. Ask for volunteers
2. Not enough, get rid of non-revs
3. Not enough, by order of check in
4. Not enough, start with the cheapest fare.

Well, to be honest I think that non-rev should not be checked in until space can be guaranteed.

Therefore it would be, in my opinion:
1. Ask for volunteers
2. Look for the non-transiting pax (point to point)
3. Others
BRGDS, Mike
 
CALMSP
Posts: 3041
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2003 3:18 am

RE: Pearl Harbor Vet Denied Boarding On UA LAX-HNL

Sat Dec 07, 2013 3:55 pm

Quoting tommy767 (Reply 11):

Incapable? So it had one bad flight, that doesn't mean its incapable. Do you realize the plane went out with every empty seat filled the following day? And the next?

Quoting TonyBurr (Reply 38):

I like your accusation of employees on the plane, but you clearly do not know anything. So before you make statements, you should get the facts first.
 
yvphx
Posts: 108
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 11:35 pm

RE: Pearl Harbor Vet Denied Boarding On UA LAX-HNL

Sat Dec 07, 2013 4:14 pm

It looks like the equipment was a 737 but what sub model? If it was a 739 and 41 were bumped, could the planning department have foreseen the weather issues, and moved to a 738 or 757 to accommodate all passengers and freight without bumping?

I don't know how far in advance they can see the weather. With LAX being as large of a UA hub it is, seems like they could have swapped out aircraft to do that route.

Are 737-900 pilots able to transition to a 737-800 that day? I understand the models are similar, but can pilots swap between to two?
 
GentFromAlaska
Posts: 2666
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2005 2:21 pm

RE: Pearl Harbor Vet Denied Boarding On UA LAX-HNL

Sat Dec 07, 2013 4:31 pm

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 64):
But not when I hear stories like airlines charging returning active military for excess baggage,


I believe UA does one better. They will waive the luggage fee for any active military member or his family even if it's leisure travel. It may be the first bag; but free is free.

The other thing I struggle with is SFO is or at least was UA west coast gateway to HNL. SFO historically offers larger aircraft when compared to LAX for the same price. Although it might be an extra hour of flying from LAX-SFO I would do it for two aisle comfort on larger equipment 757 767, 777 etc. I can only assume who ever planned this vets trip didn't shop SFO. At 90 perhaps a unknown disability prevented it. Six hours on a 737 is a long flight.

As far as arriving in the islands early some of these veterans who travel to military memorials and ceremonies do so as a representative of a fraternal organization; be it Amvets, American Legion VFW etc or even a unit specific reunion (a band or brothers) Some of these events require advanced arrival for practice or staging or even area familiarization; one, two or three days in advance of the actual anniversary ceremony.

HNL (Joint Base Pearl- Hickam) is also were POW/MIA remains from Southwest Asia are repatriated to American soil; thus quite a bit travel is steered toward these types ceremonies.

I sort of wish the Air Mobility Command would relax their rules which would allow these vets to fly to HNL for these types of ceremonies on military metal. In the vets case it could have been from March Air Force reserve base or even Travis AFB farther north. I'm sure San Diego flies to HNL/Pearl too. It would certainly be a trip. In the town I grew these guys gather once a week for breakfast at Hardees/Carls Jr. You can hear the sharpnel fly in the war stories they share.

[Edited 2013-12-07 08:39:39]
Man can be taken from Alaska. Alaska can never be taken from the man.
 
User avatar
CALTECH
Posts: 3375
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 4:21 am

RE: Pearl Harbor Vet Denied Boarding On UA LAX-HNL

Sat Dec 07, 2013 4:34 pm

It was a 737-800, Acft #503 it seems.

And for all those still wondering why weather was reported, easier for some non-aviation types to understand weather rather than a MEL and the limitations and conditions of that MEL. Imagine the Gate agents having to explain to every passenger,

The APU Bleed is inop on this aircraft, APUs are used for pressurization below 17,000ft after engine failure. With the APU unavailable as a source for bleed air, the operative engine must now be used for cabin pressurization. To account for engine bleed required for pressurization, Dispatch must reduce the enroute limited weight by 6000Lbs. Good news is no altitude restrictions.

Or just say enroute weather.

Then again with some of the nervous passengers around, they might have had a few more volunteers deboard and the Veteran might have had a better chance of making the flight.
You are here.
 
User avatar
CALTECH
Posts: 3375
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 4:21 am

RE: Pearl Harbor Vet Denied Boarding On UA LAX-HNL

Sat Dec 07, 2013 4:44 pm

Quoting CALMSP (Reply 71):
Incapable? So it had one bad flight, that doesn't mean its incapable. Do you realize the plane went out with every empty seat filled the following day? And the next?

Do not put the facts out there, shame on you CALMSP !  
Quoting CALMSP (Reply 71):
I like your accusation of employees on the plane, but you clearly do not know anything. So before you make statements, you should get the facts first.

Again, no non-revs were on the flight. And for those who believe otherwise, non-revs on personal travel are the very first to go when weight restrictions are used, though when they are Technicians going to fix a AOG airplane, or a Flight Crew going out to another aircraft to make a flight, those will stay onboard.
You are here.
 
jayunited
Posts: 2436
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

RE: Pearl Harbor Vet Denied Boarding On UA LAX-HNL

Sat Dec 07, 2013 4:56 pm

Quoting United1 (Reply 50):
Well to be fair it was a more then a bit of wind.....this flight was almost an hour longer then normal due to the weather.

The 739ER is more than capable of flying the route 99.9% of the time however there are a few cases however where they simply have to take a weight penalty to make it. It doesn't happen that often and when it does happen it doesn't usually make the news....

The question the airlines have to answer is it worth it, monetarily, to fly a larger aircraft that can make the flights 100% of the time or on a handful of occasions offload some passengers in order to ensure they have enough fuel to make it.

UA, DL and even occasionally AS either do or will be sending the 737-900ER from the mainland to Hawaii and they would not be doing that if it were not an appropriate aircraft for the route. Eventually UA will be deploying the MAX on these routes but until that point it's probably not worth it to keep a handful of PW 752s around especially when they have the ability to re-accommodate or even add an additional segment in those occasions where they have to take a weight penalty.

This isn't about "is it worth it monetarily to airlines" we are in the business of CUSTOMER SERVICE. So how exactly did we provide these people with service on this flight? Judging from the outrage on UA face book page as well as other social media websites there are plenty of people who are extremely upset with how UA has dealt with this situation and as far as the public knows UA has done nothing to rectify the situation. The best form of advertising any company can receive is by word of mouth and UA is continually receiving bad press which is deserved especially in a situation like this.
Although you claim the 739ER can do this route 99.9% of the time the truth is no one cares about the 99.9% of the time its the .1 percent when 41 people including a 90 year old veteran is kick off a plane when people care. There is no way people a the NOC didn't see this coming their should have been a contingency plan in place and there was no contingency plan. You can not tell me that no one knew till the last minute that there would be a weight restriction as a result of this weather system.

How many passengers must United loose how much bad press will United generate before people at world headquarters wake up and listen to what the public is saying? 41 customers bumped is unacceptable there had to be at least 41 connecting passenger on that flight that UA could have probably move to nonstop flights from their original destination like ORD, IAH, DEN or UA could have rerouted some of the connecting passengers to SFO where UA is using 767's and 777's. UA every since this merger seems to no longer be a proactive airline responding to problems before customers ever know that there is a problem instead we wait till the problem becomes a big deal then try to respond by that time it is to late. Those customer service agents at LAX should have never been placed in this position because someone at the NOC located at world headquarters had to know this problem (a weight restriction) was coming and should have taken steps to make sure all UA customers were accommodated with little to no headaches. If UA would have moved connecting passengers coming into LAX around to other UA flights (God knows we have a lot of flights going to HNL) then they could have proactively protect the local LAX passengers including this vet who did not deserve to be treated this way. Bumping 1 or 2 passengers is one thing bumping 41 passengers is totally different and in my opinion somebody somewhere dropped the ball and expected the customers service agents at LAX to pick it up and just deal with it when it should have been dealt with long before the problem ever reach this point.
 
CALMSP
Posts: 3041
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2003 3:18 am

RE: Pearl Harbor Vet Denied Boarding On UA LAX-HNL

Sat Dec 07, 2013 5:04 pm

Quoting jayunited (Reply 76):

the proactiveness was done. thats why people were rebooked before the flight left. The flight left just a few minutes late, if it truly had been done at the last minute, this flight would have been way more delayed. UA did a good job of handling this bad situation and moved the flight out safely and almost on time. This is the way things should be done. LAX / NOC did a good job.
 
N908AW
Posts: 864
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 1:05 pm

RE: Pearl Harbor Vet Denied Boarding On UA LAX-HNL

Sat Dec 07, 2013 5:05 pm

Quoting TonyBurr (Reply 38):
How many non rev's were in First?
Quoting Steelyman (Reply 70):
Well, to be honest I think that non-rev should not be checked in until space can be guaranteed.

NRSAs are not boarded in this situation. I don't know why there are people that think otherwise. In weight-critical situations like this, "non-revs" aren't even in the equation. Deadheads are another matter but the operation suffers far more if a DHD is bumped. Heck, most company business tickets wouldn't even be boarded.

Hubs (whether LAX is a hub for UA is another topic) are difficult places to find humanity, unfortunately. There are a lot of moving parts. You see bad situations like this in almost every hub because the operation changes frequently. Many weight restrictions drop on the gate agent's plate to resolve less than 30 minutes from departure because dispatch will wait for the most current and accurate weather report before making a decision like this. Not to say this is the right thing for United to do when it's all said and done, but just remember there are many variables in play here.

By the way, using 737-800s on Hawaii routes has been going on for years by many, many airlines. TZ, AS, DL, UA, AQ all are or were operating to HNL day-in and day-out with 738s. And 99% of the time it's a capable airplane for those operations. Of course the 1% is going to bite you in the rear, but every plane has its downfall. Weight restrictions happen. There is no magic bullet and the 752 isn't always available for these situations.
'Cause you're on ATA again, and on ATA, you're on vacation!
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 3537
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

RE: Pearl Harbor Vet Denied Boarding On UA LAX-HNL

Sat Dec 07, 2013 6:08 pm

On a United/United Express flight we three arrived on time, went quickly to the next gate and were refused boarding (too late), and told there were no opening until the next day. Turned out customer service found us a United Express four hours later.

Decent customer service would have either allowed us to board (we got there before departure time, and a smaller plane should be able to delay final boarding deadline by a few minutes.) Or notified the gate that three passengers needed the quickest available rebooking.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
User avatar
CALTECH
Posts: 3375
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 4:21 am

RE: Pearl Harbor Vet Denied Boarding On UA LAX-HNL

Sat Dec 07, 2013 6:56 pm

Quoting frmrCapCadet (Reply 79):
Decent customer service would have either allowed us to board (we got there before departure time, and a smaller plane should be able to delay final boarding deadline by a few minutes.) Or notified the gate that three passengers needed the quickest available rebooking.

Just bear with this for a moment, 3 of you, but the other 47 need to wait for you guys to board, maybe even getting a late departure, which then shows up on the airline's stats, maybe all 47 would not be angered, but probably more than 3. There is a cutoff time for a departing flight, if your flight is supposed to depart at, let's say 12:00, the cutoff is usually about 10 minutes prior. Heard at sUAL before the merger it was 15 prior. Heard some of my Delta friends say they started clearing standbys at 20 minutes prior. So what to do ? Piss off 3 passengers or 47 ? Then get your stats looking like you can not run a on time airline.

Remember in the days past when the DOT did not want to count MX delays to ensure shortcuts were not taken, Northwest took advantage of this and for any delay they called it a MX delay. They shot up in the ranks of airlines and were number 1 in on time departures for a long time. But they really weren't. Remember when Southwest did not use ACARS for trip reporting, they too were always at or near the top in on time departures.

Back long ago, boarded a DC-10 (ah, the good old days) bound for LAX from DEN, plane was packed. My 3 year old daughter and I received the last 2 seats onboard. We pushed back off the gate, started a engine up, then shut the engine down and were towed back to the gate. We were taken off, and 2 late passengers were put on. That surely pissed off all the rest of the passengers as the now late flight pushed off again. Then it broke the on the second pushback. Made 2 people happy but pissed off a couple hundred others. We actually left before that flight on the next one going to LAX. What is customer service in these types of cases ? And is that decent for the others ? Do you accomodate a few but anger the many ?

Gate Agents are reluctant to open entry doors after closure, but have seen it done. And sometimes, a flight will be held for connecting passengers. It is a chance taken, and sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn't.
You are here.
 
jetdeltamsy
Posts: 2688
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2000 11:51 am

RE: Pearl Harbor Vet Denied Boarding On UA LAX-HNL

Sat Dec 07, 2013 7:08 pm

Quoting AR385 (Reply 8):
2. Not enough, get rid of non-revs
3. Not enough, by order of check in
4. Not enough, start with the cheapest fare.

You never bump revenue before non-revs. Never ever.
Tired of airline bankruptcies....EA/PA/TW and finally DL.
 
highflier92660
Posts: 711
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2004 2:16 am

RE: Pearl Harbor Vet Denied Boarding On UA LAX-HNL

Sat Dec 07, 2013 7:48 pm

Looking at flightaware, United is now using a Boeing 757-300 at least temporarily on flight 1226. I am so happy if that equipment change was made due to Grandpappy Kadiddlehopper ( "I was in the Big One") protesting puny planes on that route. One would think that the Hawaiian hotels and resorts would be howling bloody murder with the reduction in equipment size and available seats.

With a block time of 6:08 what long range Mach were they using on that Boeing 738 on Dec. 4th? There wasn't that much change in the winds aloft from FL 360 to FL 380. It was an appreciably longer flight than on previous and subsequent days.

Note to Grandpappy Kadiddlehopper: Fly on Hawaiian Airlines' A330 wide-bodies next time. Great service!
 
User avatar
readytotaxi
Posts: 6939
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 2:09 am

RE: Pearl Harbor Vet Denied Boarding On UA LAX-HNL

Sat Dec 07, 2013 8:41 pm

Quoting ecamactions (Reply 13):

Yes, and common sense is the human being coming between the two.  
Could not that one pass.
you don't get a second chance to make a first impression!
Growing older, but not up.
 
windy95
Posts: 2766
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 1:11 pm

RE: Pearl Harbor Vet Denied Boarding On UA LAX-HNL

Sat Dec 07, 2013 8:52 pm

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 75):
Do not put the facts out there, shame on you CALMSP !

It appears as if no one has read the facts on your posts and continue with the lines they are saying. Even after several of your posts they continue with the winds and wrong aircraft for the flight attacks. This is why I stay out of the aviation threads because there are many who know nothing but try to be experts.
 
User avatar
EA CO AS
Posts: 15576
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 8:54 am

RE: Pearl Harbor Vet Denied Boarding On UA LAX-HNL

Sat Dec 07, 2013 9:08 pm

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 66):
So the first off policy of UA goes, people on wheelchairs, next the elderly ...?

And here's mjoelnir for his usual trolling of any post related to people with disabilities. Why do you always assume that if an inconvenience occurred to someone with a disability, it was based on malevolent intent by the airline?
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan

Comments made here are my own and are not intended to represent the official position of Alaska Air Group
 
copter808
Posts: 1384
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2000 1:14 pm

RE: Pearl Harbor Vet Denied Boarding On UA LAX-HNL

Sat Dec 07, 2013 10:27 pm

Quoting TonyBurr (Reply 38):
How many non rev's were in First ! Never take off a 90 year old person.

I'll bet you dinner that there were NO non-revs on that airplane unless they were positive space. And I doubt there were any of those.

Quoting Steelyman (Reply 70):
Well, to be honest I think that non-rev should not be checked in until space can be guaranteed.

Checking in is not the same as getting a seat assigned. Checking in advance and getting a boarding pass allows the airline to know who is present and speeds things up at the gate. It also lets the pass rider get through security. The boarding pass that is printed will have the passenger, flight, and gate information printed, but seat assignment will say "SBY". The actual seat and real boarding pass is issued at the gate. The typical scenario has all the standby seat assignments printed and handed to the pass traveler once he is cleared for boarding.

I love how the experts here always seem to know that the pass travelers are boarded first and in first class! NOT!!!!
 
copter808
Posts: 1384
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2000 1:14 pm

RE: Pearl Harbor Vet Denied Boarding On UA LAX-HNL

Sat Dec 07, 2013 10:40 pm

Quoting yvphx (Reply 72):
I don't know how far in advance they can see the weather. With LAX being as large of a UA hub it is, seems like they could have swapped out aircraft to do that route.

I presume that you're also aware of the weather in the rest of the US that day. Would have made it difficult to substitute another airframe even if they wanted to. Heck, if he was flying out of DFW he would still be there! I was lucky enough to get out of there on the last flight to IAH Thursday night!
 
copter808
Posts: 1384
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2000 1:14 pm

RE: Pearl Harbor Vet Denied Boarding On UA LAX-HNL

Sat Dec 07, 2013 10:55 pm

Quoting tommy767 (Reply 3):
Well, that's another example of failed CO policy at the new UA. If they used a larger plane that would need no weight restrictions (Hello! this is what happens when you fly 739 to Hawaii during the winter!) This is what they get, bad press. If they flew a 757 no damage would have been done.

Not necessarily true. I was bumped as a NRSA from a DC-10 flying SFO-HNL when 60 seats were available! A larger aircraft isn't always the answer.
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 3537
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

RE: Pearl Harbor Vet Denied Boarding On UA LAX-HNL

Sat Dec 07, 2013 11:05 pm

Caltech - obviously a post of defend airlines at all cost. It was a flight approved by United (listed both where we bought it and on the United site.

If an airline can't let you make the transfer when you arrive on time, they shouldn't book it. They could have booked us for the next flight with guaranteed seats, and the option of switching to the earlier flight if time allowed, and seats available.

It was from Denver to Rapid City, I doubt that 5 or 10 minutes makes that much difference.

I would not have booked the flight, 30 minutes landing to the next flight is not enough time, United evidently does not know that. A friend booked the flight, he knows better now.

United customer service stinks. I knew that but it was all that was available, I do not fly them unless there are no alternatives.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
jayunited
Posts: 2436
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

RE: Pearl Harbor Vet Denied Boarding On UA LAX-HNL

Sat Dec 07, 2013 11:52 pm

Quoting CALMSP (Reply 77):
the proactiveness was done. thats why people were rebooked before the flight left. The flight left just a few minutes late, if it truly had been done at the last minute, this flight would have been way more delayed. UA did a good job of handling this bad situation and moved the flight out safely and almost on time. This is the way things should be done. LAX / NOC did a good job.

I rarely find myself disagreeing with your post on this website but I totally disagree with your statement. Just because the the aircraft left a few minutes late does not constitute a good job. This is the disconnect I was talking about, to read the comments posted on UA's Facebook page and on other social media cites most people and our own customers would disagree with your statement that UA did a good job at some point in time UA has to start listening to their customers.

Let me ask you this would one United GS customer be treated the way these 41 coach passengers were treated? Regardless of the fact that you are claiming that it wasn't last minute the customers who were effected disagree with your statement the 90 year old veteran disagrees with that statement. When it comes to GS passengers UA will deploy teams of people to intercept problems or even potential problems before it ever reaches the customer. Yet in a situation like this we failed do that. Ive seen UA move GS and even some 1K passengers from a connecting flight to a nonstop flight if they perceive a problem might arise and you know what the customer is grateful and not only will UA move the customer they will have GS rep stand by with new bag tags as well. Why wasn't the same thing done here if you know there is going to be a weight restriction effecting 41 passengers why not move a few connecting passenger over to nonstop flights or to SFO so that all the local check LAX passengers can be accommodated. I wonder how many customers would have been upset had UA said there is a weight restriction on your flight out of LAX so as a result we are moving you to the nonstop or we are sending you to SFO and then to HNL because there is no restrictions on SFO flights. Had UA truly been proactive then the response on social media would be different and UA wouldn't have made national headlines for dis-servicing a 90 year old war veteran. I'm sorry but as much as it pains me as a UA employee I have to disagree with you on that good job statement we should have done better.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9286
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

RE: Pearl Harbor Vet Denied Boarding On UA LAX-HNL

Sun Dec 08, 2013 12:47 am

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 85):
Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 66):
So the first off policy of UA goes, people on wheelchairs, next the elderly ...?

And here's mjoelnir for his usual trolling of any post related to people with disabilities. Why do you always assume that if an inconvenience occurred to someone with a disability, it was based on malevolent intent by the airline?

If you have read the article you now why.

Quote: "Shatz says an agent told him only two customers were pulled from the flight -- and the only other person he saw was a disabled man in a wheelchair."

I do not say that the airlines treat disabled people with malice, but callousness, uninformed, not caring, not wanting to be inconvenienced does quite enough.

It needed laws to get airlines to treat disabled people decently and this laws are broken quite often.

A.netters defending that a 90 year old person is thrown of a flight and you call me trolling.

[Edited 2013-12-07 17:34:33]
 
United1
Posts: 3911
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 9:21 am

RE: Pearl Harbor Vet Denied Boarding On UA LAX-HNL

Sun Dec 08, 2013 3:27 am

Quoting jayunited (Reply 76):
This isn't about "is it worth it monetarily to airlines" we are in the business of CUSTOMER SERVICE. So how exactly did we provide these people with service on this flight?

No you are in the business of making money and while customer service is crucial to any company every decision you make has to be a business decision. I'm sure that NOC looked at this flight and ran thought different scenarios: ie use a larger aircraft (as part of that you look at is one available, what does that do to the schedule as a whole, how does it affect MTC, will there be gate space in HNL, is that capacity better used elsewhere ect,) can we re-book these passengers with a minimum of fuss (are there open seats on UA or another airline) and at the end of the day they make a decision as to what is right for the airline and its passengers.

You provided service to every single customer on that flight by getting them from point A to point B...perhaps not on the flight they booked, maybe not on-time, but they got there safely.

Quoting jayunited (Reply 76):
There is no way people a the NOC didn't see this coming their should have been a contingency plan in place and there was no contingency plan. You can not tell me that no one knew till the last minute that there would be a weight restriction as a result of this weather system.


I know for a fact that the NOC knew what was going on....the guy was refused at check in before he even made it to the gate. He was there 2.5 hours early as that's relatively early for a flight...way before a gate agent would be working the flight....this tells me that someone at NOC flagged the record, and quite a few others, and said re-book and re-accommodate. Sometimes that re-booking happens automatically and sometimes the agents need to do a little work.

Quoting jayunited (Reply 76):
41 customers bumped is unacceptable there had to be at least 41 connecting passenger on that flight that UA could have probably move to nonstop flights from their original destination like ORD, IAH, DEN or UA could have rerouted some of the connecting passengers to SFO where UA is using 767's and 777's. UA every since this merger seems to no longer be a proactive airline responding to problems before customers ever know that there is a problem instead we wait till the problem becomes a big deal then try to respond by that time it is to late. Those customer service agents at LAX should have never been placed in this position because someone at the NOC located at world headquarters had to know this problem (a weight restriction) was coming and should have taken steps to make sure all UA customers were accommodated with little to no headaches

You are making an assumption that they didn't proactively accommodate and a further assumption that all of the passengers were at LAX when they were bumped. It's entirely possible that Mr and Mrs Smith of DEN were told at check in at DEN that they would need to be rerouted or re-booked on another flight/airline. Even in this case UA re-accommodated the customer by rebooking him, at UAs expense, on AA and HA and he got where he was going about 8 hours late.

Quoting jayunited (Reply 90):
Let me ask you this would one United GS customer be treated the way these 41 coach passengers were treated?

No they would not be as FF ranking (and GS is figured in with that) is used as part of the criteria on who is bumped. Every passenger is important, but there are passengers who are more important form a monetary standpoint, to the airline. BtW virtually every US airline uses the same criteria.
I know the voices in my head aren't real but sometimes their ideas are just awesome!!!
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9286
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

RE: Pearl Harbor Vet Denied Boarding On UA LAX-HNL

Sun Dec 08, 2013 3:44 am

Quoting United1 (Reply 92):

It seems that advanced age of a passenger, and perhaps being of declining health, is not a criteria at United in who gets rerouted and who stays on the flight.

And that is completely OK with you.
 
United1
Posts: 3911
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 9:21 am

RE: Pearl Harbor Vet Denied Boarding On UA LAX-HNL

Sun Dec 08, 2013 3:53 am

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 93):
It seems that advanced age of a passenger, and perhaps being of declining health, is not a criteria at United in who gets rerouted and who stays on the flight.

What you stated is not a criteria used at any US airline, AFAIK, on who is bumped and who is not.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 93):
And that is completely OK with you.

I haven't said in this thread what I would have done or whether I think what happened is right or wrong...and nor will I.
I know the voices in my head aren't real but sometimes their ideas are just awesome!!!
 
FlyASAGuy2005
Posts: 3965
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 4:55 am

RE: Pearl Harbor Vet Denied Boarding On UA LAX-HNL

Sun Dec 08, 2013 4:23 am

Quoting United1 (Reply 94):
What you stated is not a criteria used at any US airline, AFAIK, on who is bumped and who is not.

Actually, it is.

Quote:
Delta will never involuntarily deny the following customers: (HVC) Customers: First/BusinessElite/Business Class, Diamond (DM), Platinum (PM) , Gold (GM), Customers with a disability or their attendant, Unaccompanied minors (may not volunteer either), Delta Crew members (deadhead) U.S. Military traveling on orders (deployment / leave), Aged or infirm customers, Delta Employees on emergency/urgent company business, Through customers who boarded in a previous city, Customers traveling on a One Great Team pass
What gets measured gets done.
 
United1
Posts: 3911
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 9:21 am

RE: Pearl Harbor Vet Denied Boarding On UA LAX-HNL

Sun Dec 08, 2013 4:28 am

Quoting FlyASAGuy2005 (Reply 95):
Actually, it is.

Interesting...I didn't know that DL added that in...how does DL define aged or infirm BTW?
I know the voices in my head aren't real but sometimes their ideas are just awesome!!!
 
FlyASAGuy2005
Posts: 3965
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 4:55 am

RE: Pearl Harbor Vet Denied Boarding On UA LAX-HNL

Sun Dec 08, 2013 4:39 am

Quoting United1 (Reply 96):
Interesting...I didn't know that DL added that in...how does DL define aged or infirm BTW?

It's left to the discretion of the agent or a PL. Sometimes you have to use good 'ole common sense. I wouldn't consider my 62 year old father as aged nor infirm if he was on my flight. My 54 year old uncle is clearly infirm due to medical conditions. This is what Webster has to say:

Quote:
1: of poor or deteriorated vitality; especially: feeble from age

Basically, agents know not to invol the elderly or sick.
What gets measured gets done.
 
United1
Posts: 3911
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 9:21 am

RE: Pearl Harbor Vet Denied Boarding On UA LAX-HNL

Sun Dec 08, 2013 4:43 am

Quoting FlyASAGuy2005 (Reply 95):
Actually, it is.

Quote:
Delta will never involuntarily deny the following customers: (HVC) Customers: First/BusinessElite/Business Class, Diamond (DM), Platinum (PM) , Gold (GM), Customers with a disability or their attendant, Unaccompanied minors (may not volunteer either), Delta Crew members (deadhead) U.S. Military traveling on orders (deployment / leave), Aged or infirm customers, Delta Employees on emergency/urgent company business, Through customers who boarded in a previous city, Customers traveling on a One Great Team pass

I'm not arguing with you but genuinely curious....can you source that. Here is what I could find in DLs IDB protocol from their domestic CoC.

"4) Special Needs Passengers

Because of the special needs of passengers with disabilities, unaccompanied children,
and aged or infirm passengers, and active members of the U.S. Armed Forces on travel
orders, Delta reserves the right to accommodate such passengers without regard to the
boarding priorities established by this provision. "

Doesn't say that they WONT bump them from the flight it simply gives them an out to not follow the procedure that they outlined in their CoC. Which basically ranks passengers according to FF level and when/where/if they checked in.
I know the voices in my head aren't real but sometimes their ideas are just awesome!!!
 
United1
Posts: 3911
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 9:21 am

RE: Pearl Harbor Vet Denied Boarding On UA LAX-HNL

Sun Dec 08, 2013 4:45 am

Quoting FlyASAGuy2005 (Reply 97):
It's left to the discretion of the agent or a PL. Sometimes you have to use good 'ole common sense. I wouldn't consider my 62 year old father as aged nor infirm if he was on my flight. My 54 year old uncle is clearly infirm due to medical conditions. This is what Webster has to say:

Quote:
1: of poor or deteriorated vitality; especially: feeble from age

Basically, agents know not to invol the elderly or sick.

I don't disagree....generally common sense usually wins hands down in most situation....
I know the voices in my head aren't real but sometimes their ideas are just awesome!!!

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