United, again.

[rookiepilot]

There's never one (or even 3 or 4 ) Cockroaches. Read this , another United, the Friendly Skies.

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

All about the corporate culture established by the CEO.

Please don't bother with trolling the guys demand for a 25 K charity donation for his experience.

Isn't a passenger allowed to (professionally, not physically) fight back?

[av8ts]

Here's the distinction, why people are mad, the DOT is looking into it, and the legality of what United did was called into question:

1) This was not an overbooking situation.

That part was handled pre boarding, then the fully booked -- not overbooked -- flight was boarded. Everyone confirmed, in their seats, with a boarding pass. THEN 4 DH's show and demand to be let on flight. Sorry -- too late (guys).

Legally the question will be raised -- this was not denied boarding. Flight WAS boarded and locked in, then United, unwilling to admit their mistake, rather than A) offer whatever it took to get a couple more volunteers, B) -- arranged another carrier for the 4 DH's or C) a ground shuttle (was only 4 hours by car away ) -- forced off a legitimate, compliant, boarded passenger purely for their own convenience, then got CPD involved as their agent.


The airlines cannot use "disagreeing with an crew command" as legitimizing any outcome, especially of violence. Prior to their -- arguably illegal -- demand for the passenger to deplane, by accounts he was compliant and not a security risk. One cannot label a passenger a security risk for questioning an illegal order.

Another question that will be raised: Did United staff lie to the police / security agents about why this pax was being removed? Did they embellish and frame this passenger as a "security risk"? If not, and all "good" why was the officer placed on leave?

The police were used as defacto agents of the airline. This is 100% on United Management.

As to the captain, I don't understand why he/she didn't intervene . I'm not in the industry. Who is in command of the aircraft while the door is open?

There's also a big difference between correct to the letter of the law, and what's right. United has lost the moral ground here. Permanently.

I doubt the crew demanded to be let on the flight. The company schedules them to deadhead and if they don't get on its the companies problem not theirs.
As soon as that passenger refused to leave when asked he was now non compliant and a threat to the safety of the flight.
It is irrelevant why they wanted him off. Once he was told to leave and refused then he was now there illegally and it is a police matter.
The Captain runs the aircraft not the airline. If the Captain thinks a passenger is a threat ( such as a non compliant passenger) then he can have that person removed. However if the airline decides to remove someone from the aircraft the Captain doesn't get to say the person stays.

[rookiepilot]

Av8ts,

Fly cargo. At night.

Not human beings.

Here's a nice video summarizing United's image about now.

All good, would seem.

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radi ... s-ad-video

[Cat Driver]

Arguing about who has authority and how powerful their authority is is irrelevant in this case.

United Airlines screwed up big time on this one and to make it worse their CEO stepped in the dog shit with both feet.

This guy is going to get a real big payoff.

Considering the bad publicity this is getting them they would have been better off giving him a million dollars for his seat rather than endure this world wide shaming they are getting, and deserve.

[Siddley Hawker]

United Airlines screwed up big time on this one and to make it worse their CEO stepped in the dog shit with both feet.

Yeah Cat, then he stuck one foot in his mouth.

[complexintentions]

In a way, the debate about whether the passenger or the airline is in the right or wrong is irrelevant. All that matters is perception, not truth, in the age of social media.

And truth be told, United's "brand" is getting a pounding. Hope that getting a few crew on board was worth the cost!

United Flooded With Hilarious New Motto Suggestions

"Not enough seating, prepare for a beating."

hahahah!

[Joe Blow Schmo]

Whether or not United was allowed to remove this passenger is almost irrelevant. It might make a slight difference in the size of the lawsuit, but that's about it.

1) Use of force: Nobody in a position of authority is permitted to use anymore than the minimum necessary force to subdue a suspect. Here we have a passenger that was not violent, not threatening to be violent, and was relatively elderly. No force was REQUIRED here. The only reason force was used here was to expedite the process. This is where you need customer service people who actually have some customer service and diplomacy skills.

2) This situation was entirely United's doing. They needed paying customers to give up their seats for deadheading crew. Fine. It's America, land of the free market: Up the offer until somebody takes it. I'm sure they would've had takers at $1500 or $2000. Do not expect your customers to involuntarily solve the problems you created just because it happens to be written in the rules that you wrote. Just because you CAN do it, doesn't mean you should.

[kevenv]

The news this morning is reporting that the doctor initially accepted the compensation to give up his seat but returned to it when he realized he would be late for work.

United lost a billion dollars of stock value over this. Optics is everything in today's day and age.

[av8ts]

As was posted earlier, all that people look at when booking a flight is price. A few months from now social media will have moved on to an offensive beer commercial or Beyonce's shoes and if United's flights are cheaper they will fill them. Maybe even over sell them

[rookiepilot]

http://www.businessinsider.com/united-a ... ica-2017-4

Interview with Munoz this morning (I haven't watched it).

"This will never, ever, happen again on a united flight"

Is he offering odds? I'll take the other side of that.

There's a Warren Buffett saying, something like "it takes 5 minutes to ruin your reputation".

Munoz is a perfect example.

http://www.kfvs12.com/story/35127680/ov ... -officials

20 US senators demand answers from United:

[AirFrame]

The news this morning is reporting that the doctor initially accepted the compensation to give up his seat but returned to it when he realized he would be late for work.

Last nights news was saying that he *and his wife* accepted the $800 each until they realized they wouldn't get back in what they considered to be a reasonable time. Then changed their mind and re-boarded.

United lost a billion dollars of stock value over this. Optics is everything in today's day and age.

No, they didn't. Look past the fake news and check their stock price chart over the last month. The price fluctuated a bit on Tuesday (it went up first) but closed higher than it was a week ago. There was a massive volume of trades on Tuesday, but no real change in price. So a lot of people ditched their United stock, but on the other hand, a lot of people *bought* United stock, too.

[kevenv]

No, they didn't. Look past the fake news and check their stock price chart over the last month. The price fluctuated a bit on Tuesday (it went up first) but closed higher than it was a week ago. There was a massive volume of trades on Tuesday, but no real change in price. So a lot of people ditched their United stock, but on the other hand, a lot of people *bought* United stock, too.

It wasn't fake news at all. At one point (my apologies for not being specific) United did in fact lose a billion dollars off its market capitalization. At the close of the day the were down a mere 255 million.

[Just another canuck]

…

[rookiepilot]

The DH crew should have been left behind. Put THEM on the next flight... or a car... or charter a damn King Air. Whatever it takes, but forcibly removing this man is illegal and inexcusable. I also think the crew and/or agents may have told the police he was a risk and/or belligerent, which somehow justified the authorities actions.

I am really curious what those gate staff told the aviation police to get them to remove this guy.

[niss]

What I want to know is since when is refusing to get out of your seat during a customer service dispute considered endangering the a/c? If the FA takes offense with the fact that I slurp my drink, and tells me to stop, am I also going to be considered non compliant and susceptible to the law?

As previously posted:

CARS
602.05 (1) Every passenger on board an aircraft shall comply with instructions given by any crew member respecting the safety of the aircraft or of persons on board the aircraft.

FAR
14 CFR § 125.327

(a) Before each takeoff, each pilot in command of an airplane carrying passengers shall ensure that all passengers have been orally briefed on—

(1) Smoking. Each passenger shall be briefed on when, where, and under what conditions smoking is prohibited. This briefing shall include a statement that the Federal Aviation Regulations require passenger compliance with the lighted passenger information signs, posted placards, areas designated for safety purposes as no smoking areas, and crewmember instructions with regard to these items.

(2) The use of safety belts, including instructions on how to fasten and unfasten the safety belts. Each passenger shall be briefed on when, where, and under what conditions the safety belt must be fastened about him or her. This briefing shall include a statement that the Federal Aviation Regulations require passenger compliance with lighted passenger information signs and crewmember instructions concerning the use of safety belts.

14 CFR § 125.328

No person may assault, threaten, intimidate, or interfere with a crewmember in the performance of the crewmember’s duties aboard an aircraft being operated under this part.

[rookiepilot]

What I want to know is since when is refusing to get out of your seat during a customer service dispute considered endangering the a/c? If the FA takes offense with the fact that I slurp my drink, and tells me to stop, am I also going to be considered non compliant and susceptible to the law?

As previously posted:

CARS
602.05 (1) Every passenger on board an aircraft shall comply with instructions given by any crew member respecting the safety of the aircraft or of persons on board the aircraft.

FAR
14 CFR § 125.327

(a) Before each takeoff, each pilot in command of an airplane carrying passengers shall ensure that all passengers have been orally briefed on—

(1) Smoking. Each passenger shall be briefed on when, where, and under what conditions smoking is prohibited. This briefing shall include a statement that the Federal Aviation Regulations require passenger compliance with the lighted passenger information signs, posted placards, areas designated for safety purposes as no smoking areas, and crewmember instructions with regard to these items.

(2) The use of safety belts, including instructions on how to fasten and unfasten the safety belts. Each passenger shall be briefed on when, where, and under what conditions the safety belt must be fastened about him or her. This briefing shall include a statement that the Federal Aviation Regulations require passenger compliance with lighted passenger information signs and crewmember instructions concerning the use of safety belts.

14 CFR § 125.328

No person may assault, threaten, intimidate, or interfere with a crewmember in the performance of the crewmember’s duties aboard an aircraft being operated under this part.

United's carriage: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1Y8HdeHtOJs

In 30 seconds perfectly sums up the perception,all too accurately.

[photofly]

That requirement was/and is intended to ensure the safety of flight, it was never meant to be a catch all to resolve poor business practices or so the flight attendant can kick you off a flight because she is having a crappy day and you choose to complain about something.

The requirement is there to ensure that if you do choose to complain about something, you obey crew instructions at the time and take it up with the airline later. Whether the FA is having a crappy day or not doesn't change things. The crew gets the last word. Every time.

I really don't see this as either wrong or controversial. By the time uniformed government security personnel are brought in, does anyone really think that a tantrum by the passenger is going to, or should, resolve things the way the passenger wants?

[Cat Driver]

Using enough force to injure the passenger as in this case will require a lot of explaining.

United screwed this one up and will end up paying him some big money.

Public opinion trumps the small print in the carriage contract, and this one is going world wide and not getting less media coverage.

[cap41]

As was posted earlier, all that people look at when booking a flight is price. A few months from now social media will have moved on to an offensive beer commercial or Beyonce's shoes and if United's flights are cheaper they will fill them. Maybe even over sell them

That was true until now, Paid slightly more to avoid United flight this weekend.

[rookiepilot]

I think United is getting especially hammered because it's a clear pattern of behaviour for them. Over and over they are in the news, obviously they have more than their share of Gestapo like staff.


Nails that stand up get hammered.