quote:

Originally posted by SIGnified:
Shall we begin a betting pool for the award amount?

$3MM? $10MM?

Undisclosed amount perhaps?

quote:

Originally posted by RichardC:
Its hard to watch that video but the early events aren't clear.

Did that DOA officer punch or strike Dr. D in the face at the outset of the altercation?
Or, did Dr. D struggle loose, and hit his face on something hard?

Who was doing all the squealing? Dr. D or a passenger nearby?

I believe one of the DAO officers slammed his head into the armrest. United later reported that the doctor fell and hit his head on the armrest.

quote:

Originally posted by bald1:
Reading this thread throws me into a warped reality where the Twilight Zone has been merged with Days of Our Lives!

I'm waiting for the meme of Clint Eastwood standing in an isle saying "Get off my plane".

quote:

Originally posted by mbinky:
Interesting that United has no plan B (as in backup) to get their crews to their next plane. What if something else happened? What if they all had seats (without having to forcibly remove people) but got sick? Say they all ate at the same place before the flight, got sick on the flight to their plane and couldn't go to work anyway? What is the plan then? Do they have a contingency or do they send the goons back to the restaurant to tune the chef up?

If they don't have MULTIPLE contingency plans to get crews in place they are more pathetic than I thought.

I don't think it is that rare of a problem, nor one that needs an Einsteinian solution. I like Sigmonkey's suggestion, provide an explanation with kindness, a few dollars, and problem solved.

quote:

Originally posted by Fly-Sig:

quote:

Originally posted by ECSquirrel:
People love to bag on the airlines and it's a reputation that is somewhat earned. Nevertheless, he most vocal defendants of this situation I've heard are airline employees. I assume it's in part because people go a little crazy in the air, and the industry has figured out that price is more important that service.

I'll respond to a few details below but I think the big picture is getting missed- the airline screwed up and didn't have personnel where needed. A paying customer said "no" so cops put him in the hospital.

quote:

Originally posted by Fly-Sig:

Well you are entitled to your opinion. But, I don't want to hear a single complaint if the rules are changed to prevent involuntary denials and then fares go up. And they will have to go up significantly. So agreed? No complaints about airfares going up if the government changes the rules.

And, if you are ever in a situation where your flight is cancelled because a crew could not be moved to staff your flight, again I don't want to hear any complaints. While it is true on doc was delayed getting to his destination, the ripple effect of not getting a crew somewhere is measured in hundreds of passengers being delayed or cancelled. The calculation is to inconvenience one or a few passengers here in order to avoid disrupting service to hundreds down the line.

No reason to plan in advance when it's easy to pump a paying customer to fix your mistake. A lot of rules and compliance, but the calculus won't change if there's an easy out to just bump a passenger.

Plan in advance? Should we just have spare crews and airplanes staged all over the world just in case there is bad weather or a mechanical problem at a particular airport?

It comes down to cost. We actually could have a 100% redundancy. We'd never bump a passenger. We'd recover gracefully from a Chicago blizzard or a Gulf coast hurricane. But how much are you willing to pay? Survey says ... you aren't willing to pay.

The planning choices are the choice of the airline. You're suggesting that alternatives are really expensive- we agree. You're suggesting that bumping passengers is a preferred alternative to increasing the price of a ticket. That's a business decision, not a legal/ethical decision. I get the oversold arguments...etc. That's now what we have here, and bringing that up is a red herring. The passenger wasn't bumped, he was thrown off.

quote:

quote:

Originally posted by ECSquirrel:

quote:

You see, we actually go to work wanting to get our passengers safely and happily to their destinations. This guy wasn't bumped because the airline cared more about their own employees than for the customer, this guy was bumped because the airline cared more about several hundred customers downline than they care about one customer who gets bumped. This wasn't a joy ride for the Must Ride crew, this was getting in position to service hundreds of customers downline.

No question about this- Pilots and crew get paid for the 1% of the time when things go badly, not the 99% of the time when things work perfectly. This guy was bumped because someone screwed up and didn't have people where they were needed. Yes- weather, delays, duty times, etc all get in the way, but the airline screwed up. Inconveniencing passengers is cheaper than other options (standby crew in other cities, advance planning, etc). That was a choice the airline made seeking profits- no question about that either.

I actually get paid for a lot less than what I do. You make it sound like I'm playing games 99% of the time. That's really pretty offensive.

I'm curious what the airline's screw up was. Are you saying weather, duty times, are airline caused screw ups?

Do you recognize the inconvenience to downstream passengers if crew can't be moved there?

Where would you stage standby crews and spare aircraft? Chicago is a hub for UAL and they were moving a crew from there to an outstation. According to Wikipedia, United flies to 78 domestic destinations and 108 international destinations in 73 countries. Where would you as CEO of UAL put those spare crews and aircraft?

The airlines screw up was not having crew in the right spot. Regardless of the reason, weather, delays/timeouts, etc, the airline didn't have people where they needed people. If you can't even recognize this, put your captain's hat on. If an engine fails and you end up with a VMC rollover, the cause of an accident wasn't the engine failure, it was the failure of the pilot to maintain control of the airplane. The engine failure was a contributing factor. The reasons certainly were contributing factors, but it's the airline's responsibility to have people where they're needed. Airline staff can either a) own the responsibility, or b) make excuses for the failure. As a pilot, I hope you choose option A.

I'm not playing armchair quarterback second guessing the decisions of the management team. I don't run an airline. The fact that it's hard, or that I don't have the answers, does not mean that the airline didn't screw up. The airline should own the error.

quote:

quote:

Originally posted by ECSquirrel:

quote:

The airline treated the customer according the agreement, though we all wonder what would have happened had they offered more compensation to get a volunteer. No airline employee manhandled the passenger or verbally abused him. I expect the airline employees tried hard to de-escalate and reason with him. The Conflict Resolution person is highly trained to deal with difficult people, and I expect a CRO was on board before the police were called. When the passenger went off the rails and became belligerent and non-compliant with the police, the police did what they do.

Not settled and I'm not an attorney, but all the contract of carriage references are about denying boarding not kicking a customer off a plane. This isn't a settled issue. In effect you're saying he was trespassing- because airline staff longer wanted him there. That seems a little thin that a ticketed passenger was in his assigned seat and airline personnel started agitating him- the airline caused the situation.

If you want to go legal, the police were called to be the arbiter in on a civil matter (contract dispute). If he wasn't trespassing (which is thin at best)the police were and were potentially acting as agents of the airline when they used excessive force. They beat him up for not complying with their instructions.

I suspect the passenger felt entitled- he paid for the seat- and I would bet that he felt his need to be at the destination was greater than others. He might not hav been very polite about it- I don't know. Does that mean the cops can put him in the hospital? If the best come back here is "contract of carriage" you're missing the big picture- the airline screwed up. "Yeah but..." doesn't cut it.

Denying boarding includes removing someone who has already sat down. It includes revoking a boarding pass.

His seat was no longer assigned to him. He no longer had legal claim to it, as he had been denied boarding. This happens every day, though it is usually a non-rev who is removed after they sat down.

No the police were not called to negotiate a civil matter. The police were called to remove a passenger in violation of federal law and federal regulations. The passenger refused to comply with crew instructions. The police were called to remove him, not mediate between him and the airline.

They used force under their rules. They were not under airline control. Whether the police were within their legal limits I don't know. I do know that when police instruct a person to leave, the person can choose to comply or can choose to resist. This passenger chose to resist.

As to the passenger not being polite, yes that can be enough to have someone removed. I have done it. It depends on how impolite they are. Lots of passengers are rude to crew. When they become non-compliant and/or belligerent they will be removed. If the give the police officer some attitude, the officer is likely to be impolite in return.

I'm not a lawyer, you're not a lawyer, but this guy is:

quote:

quote:

Originally posted by ECSquirrel:

quote:

All we have is the video of the exciting climax. If you've seen what takes to lead up to the police getting called out, you'd be skeptical that this passenger is just some normal guy who was innocently doing nothing wrong before being outrageously assaulted.

As Captain, I have every right to remove a passenger not in compliance with crew instructions. I suspect such a person has a high probability of becoming disruptive and dangerous in flight. That is why we remove drunks, because of their propensity to become disruptive and dangerous. I've had people removed from my airplane who weren't drunk but were belligerent to crew before we left the gate. I've had people arrested who were belligerent in flight. It is my job to keep you and the rest of the passengers safe from threats, and that includes people who are non-compliant and belligerent.

Within reason, but that authority isn't absolute. If you as the pilot instruct a woman to remove her top, you can't toss the woman off for not complying. You can try, but there are limits. Do you as the pilot have the authority to have the cops remove a passenger because he's wearing a blue shirt? Or a red hat? You don't have that option.

The airline can certainly deny boarding, but unilaterally deciding that a passenger has to leave for issues that are unrelated to the safety of the flight? I'm not so sure about that.

Well our rules and the federal rules say nothing about color of shirts, so no I don't have authority to deny boarding based on that. But I certainly do have authority to remove disruptive passengers or offensive passengers. The airline has authority to deny boarding in accordance with federal rules as well as the contract with the passenger.

A very high percentage of flights are over-subscribed in some way. Passengers from a canceled or delayed flight are moved to another flight. Passengers want to take an earlier flight. Non-revs. Last minute FAA line checks of the cabin crew. Weather or other factors causing a weight restriction. There are a large number of ways we can end up with more people wanting to get on than we can take. The airline has every right to prioritize who gets on and who doesn't. Many times these are not strictly safety reasons.

Denying that doc was completely legal and within long term practices in the industry which are regulated by the federal government and carefully explained in the contract the customer enters into.

I'm not a lawyer, you're not a lawyer, but this guy is. http://www.newsweek.com/why-un...eplane-dr-dao-583535

I suppose your interpretation is possible, but the newsweek article makes more sense to me. I don't have a dog in the hunt.

quote:

quote:

Originally posted by ECSquirrel:

quote:

People seem to be deaf to the facts of this situation where the passenger refused to comply. He was non-compliant with the crew, with the gate agent, and then with the police. Would you want to sit on an airplane in flight with such a person?

I'm sorry you're fed up with crappy service when you buy the cheapest ticket you can find. Pay more and you'll get a lot better service even on the same aircraft.

I don't fly first class, but I also don't shop solely on price. I suspect that many consumers have had pretty crappy service on main line carriers and they no longer see the up-side of not flying spirit or frontier to potentially save a few dollars. If your customer doesn't see the value of the difference in what you're selling, maybe the problem isn't the customer...

In 6 months, maybe less, this will be forgotten.

If you flew First Class you'd likely have no complaints. If you fly the deep discount carrier you won't get the same service. The industry does a good job of right-sizing the fleet configuration to meet customer demands. If we didn't a competitor would and we'd be out of business.

I have lifetime status with American Airlines. The service I get with Southwest (99% of my travel now) is just as good as the service from AA. I prefer flying myself (single engine piston) when weather/schedule permits.

Yup, a small dose of common sense, courtesy and "people" people instead of greed, entitlement and thugs would've gone a long long way.

By the way, Southwest airlines make sure that it hires "people" people routinely as part of their hiring profile.

I find it very interesting that Fly-Sig's CUT is No More Mr Nice Guy. Hmmmmmm.

Yep, a Cluster Framus of monumental proportion. And a great excuse to again post the mug of Billie S.

quote:

Originally posted by Fly-Sig:

quote:

Originally posted by OKCGene:
I find it very interesting that Fly-Sig's CUT is No More Mr Nice Guy. Hmmmmmm.

Personal attack?

No. Absolutely not. However you are very defensive about things. And for that I find it even more interesting.

That is all.

Fly-Sig, I want you to cease posting in this thread for the next 48 hours. Not one single post, please, not a peep. 48 hours.

quote:

Originally posted by SIGnified:
Shall we begin a betting pool for the award amount?

$3MM? $10MM?

There's another piece in the UK daily mail that puts United in a bad light. I am sure all airlines have problems, but does United have more than their share? Maybe the attitude of their CEO is contagious.

quote:

United Airlines staff 'forced grandma, 94, with a degenerative bone disease out of her $3,600 business seat and into economy for her 16-hour, LAST EVER visit to family rather than let relatives help her'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...t.html#ixzz4eAQmFO9s

It seems to me the cost of lost revenues and increased public relations could be much more than the legal fees/awards.

quote:

Originally posted by ECSquirrel:
I'm not a lawyer, you're not a lawyer, but this guy is. http://www.newsweek.com/why-un...eplane-dr-dao-583535

I suppose your interpretation is possible, but the newsweek article makes more sense to me. I don't have a dog in the hunt.

Just wanted to point out the article Mr Squirrel posted. It was buried in his reply, but worth the read, IMO.

^^^^
Yes it was. I am not a lawyer either but he makes a good case.

quote:

Originally posted by 1967Goat:

quote:

Originally posted by ECSquirrel:
I'm not a lawyer, you're not a lawyer, but this guy is. http://www.newsweek.com/why-un...eplane-dr-dao-583535

I suppose your interpretation is possible, but the newsweek article makes more sense to me. I don't have a dog in the hunt.

Just wanted to point out the article Mr Squirrel posted. It was buried in his reply, but worth the read, IMO.

Agreed. Well articulated article.

quote:

Originally posted by RichardC:
Its hard to watch that video but the early events aren't clear.

Did that DOA officer punch or strike Dr. D in the face at the outset of the altercation?
Or, did Dr. D struggle loose, and hit his face on something hard?

Who was doing all the squealing? Dr. D or a passenger nearby?

I do not recall his face battered and bloody when they were dragging him by the arms up the aisle and off the plane.

quote:

Originally posted by stoic-one:

quote:

Originally posted by SIGnified:
Shall we begin a betting pool for the award amount?

$3MM? $10MM?

Undisclosed amount perhaps?

That would be my guess. Out of court settlement with no disclosure.

If the author of that Newsweek article is right (Cornell law school professor nonetheless) UAL and Chicago aviation police are screwed, royally. Dr. Dao struck gold for being struck!

This might be the exact reason why UAL CEO initially claimed that Dao was a disruptive passenger because he knew they had no right to deplane him unless he was being disruptive beforehand.

There will be no sympathy from any Chicago jury for UAL.

quote:

Originally posted by Elk Hunter:
I do not recall his face battered and bloody when they were dragging him by the arms up the aisle and off the plane.

Technically I think you're right, he was just out of it and starting to bleed from being slung into the armrest across the aisle when they drug him off.

When he came back is when he was starting to show signs. Still not clear how/why he was back aboard, but his attorney says he doesn't recall from the concussion incurred along with the broken nose and teeth knocked out....

That looks a little worse than just bad peanuts.

quote:

Originally posted by Scoutmaster:

quote:

Originally posted by mbinky:
Interesting that United has no plan B (as in backup) to get their crews to their next plane. What if something else happened? What if they all had seats (without having to forcibly remove people) but got sick? Say they all ate at the same place before the flight, got sick on the flight to their plane and couldn't go to work anyway? What is the plan then? Do they have a contingency or do they send the goons back to the restaurant to tune the chef up?

If they don't have MULTIPLE contingency plans to get crews in place they are more pathetic than I thought.

I don't think it is that rare of a problem, nor one that needs an Einsteinian solution. I like Sigmonkey's suggestion, provide an explanation with kindness, a few dollars, and problem solved.

The kicker is that they DON'T HAVE TO HAVE CONTINGENCY PLANS.

As pointed out in this thread by airline personnel, airline personnel are too good to be expected to drive cars. They are all knowing, all seeing. They can disrupt your life, your family, and your business without a reason. They can try to buy you low ball with worthless paper, and totally disrupt your life and travel plans. Hell, the CEO tried to bump paid passengers so he could go on vacation.
And if you don't like it? They force compliance at the end of a government gun. Those in compliance will have nothing to fear and whatnot.

Until that changes, the cycle will continue. You will hear those (like in this thread) who are profiting from this wickedly corrupt system attempt to sell it as it is for our own good. But, look who is profiting from "our own good". I guess we should start suing EVERYONE that had a hand in this. Pilots, ramp workers, gate attendants.....everyone. We keep hearing that the CAPTAIN is the supreme lord on his plane. Fine by me. Let DAO get a piece of his retirement too. His house. His savings. Maybe, just maybe after we get our hands in enough of their pockets for this type of behavior, they'll figure it out. Maybe, just maybe, the next time they try this type stuff, they'll stop and think "Hmmm, I could lose everything if I screw this guy over, so maybe I should work a little harder for a solution. Instead of just saying screw it, I can BECAUSE IT'S THE LAW".

But, from reading the replies, man, I wouldn't count on it.