Another United gaffe - forces doctor off plane

dtw2hyd · Tue Apr 11, 2017 1:54 pm

Tugger wrote:
Quick question: Who is more important, employees or customers?

Money, there was a Flight Options charter from ORD-SDF same day, UA could have bought seats or hired on their own. There were even UPS flights.

ExDubai · Tue Apr 11, 2017 1:57 pm

bugsbegone wrote:
Have you guys read one of the passengers' testimony on reddit?

Apparently, when the doctor refused to deplane, another passenger offered UA $1600 to volunteer, and was laughed at by the crew. So this situation could have been solved then and there if United wasn't so cheap.

Do you have a link to the posting?

BobbyPSP · Tue Apr 11, 2017 1:58 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
Tugger wrote:
Quick question: Who is more important, employees or customers?

Money, there was a Flight Options charter from ORD-SDF same day, UA could have bought seats or hired on their own. There were even UPS flights.

First, the FA's can't jumpseat on UPS
Second, you can't book a jump seat on another carrier;UPS employees would go first
Third: by the time you arrange a charter it would be moot as they wouldn't have legal rest

rta · Tue Apr 11, 2017 1:58 pm

I don't understand what people expected Munoz to say to the employees.

"We made these rules, but we're not going to stand behind you when you enforce them"?

I get why people don't like his message, but I believe it was necessary to stand ground.

CanadaFair · Tue Apr 11, 2017 1:59 pm

According to some all four passengers told to get off the plane were minorities, likely all Asian.

aemoreira1981 · Tue Apr 11, 2017 1:59 pm

United's mistake here, and what could bring it legal liability, is that the passengers were already boarded. It's one thing when boarding is denied, but it's quite another when boarding is allowed and then volunteers are asked to deplane for someone else. (If passengers are asked to deplane because of a weight restriction, that's different, as the idea is to avoid needing to make an en-route fuel stop.)

readytotaxi · Tue Apr 11, 2017 2:00 pm

I would imagine that the queue of lawyers outside his house is going to be longer than that one at ATL last week. :rotfl:

Aquila3 · Tue Apr 11, 2017 2:05 pm

DABYT wrote:

And concerning the IDB i disagree: He was not IDB'd. You are right that IDB can happen anytime for any reason to anyone but in this case he was already accepted to board the plane and he was sitting in his assigned seat. If he was IDB'd he wouldn't have stepped foot on the plane. I don't know UA's policies but when LH, for example, accepts you to board they can not simply force you off the plane again as long as you're not unruly, violent, a wanted terrorist etc.

It does not help me much if ole good LH lets me mercifully sit on my prepaid seat on the plane, just to be trashed off when I connect in Chicago on United.
I am sorry LH, you have chosen the wrong partner (or maybe the right one, if you think they are just fine).

ikramerica · Tue Apr 11, 2017 2:08 pm

bugsbegone wrote:
Have you guys read one of the passengers' testimony on reddit?

Apparently, when the doctor refused to deplane, another passenger offered UA $1600 to volunteer, and was laughed at by the crew. So this situation could have been solved then and there if United wasn't so cheap.

No. This problem is only getting worse because passengers look at it as a greed fueled payday. $1600 is utterly ridiculous.

The airline has the right to simply deplane 4 people. Volunteer compensation is a courtesy to help find people who's time isn't that valuable. Statutory compensation is actually set by law.

Once IDB starts, you can't entertain sob stories and then allow people to weasel out. And this is not a protest where passive resistence is appropriate.

ikramerica · Tue Apr 11, 2017 2:12 pm

aemoreira1981 wrote:
United's mistake here, and what could bring it legal liability, is that the passengers were already boarded. It's one thing when boarding is denied, but it's quite another when boarding is allowed and then volunteers are asked to deplane for someone else. (If passengers are asked to deplane because of a weight restriction, that's different, as the idea is to avoid needing to make an en-route fuel stop.)

That's simply an uninformed opinion though.

DoctorVenkman · Tue Apr 11, 2017 2:12 pm

ikramerica wrote:
bugsbegone wrote:
The airline has the right to simply deplane 4 people. Volunteer compensation is a courtesy to help find people who's time isn't that valuable. Statutory compensation is actually set by law.

This is not as clear as you make it seem. In this thread people have posted opinions from legal professionals to the contrary.

To paraphrase, the airline clearly has the right to deny boarding, but once the passenger has actually boarded (as in this case) the law is much less clear. The only time the airline has a clear right to eject someone from the aircraft is when they become a safety threat. This man was calmly sitting in his seat before the incident started, so it would be hard to argue he was a safety threat.

737max8 · Tue Apr 11, 2017 2:13 pm

aemoreira1981 wrote:
United's mistake here, and what could bring it legal liability, is that the passengers were already boarded. It's one thing when boarding is denied, but it's quite another when boarding is allowed and then volunteers are asked to deplane for someone else. (If passengers are asked to deplane because of a weight restriction, that's different, as the idea is to avoid needing to make an en-route fuel stop.)

He was boarded, then denied. Guess what two words I still used?

They were willing to rebook and pay the man per IDB rules but he refused and didn't follow instructions.

goCOgo · Tue Apr 11, 2017 2:14 pm

So I have not caught up on every post, but I have read Oscar's letter to employees. Are his statements not contradicted by statements from the passengers? The claim is the crew did not show up for seats until after boarding. But passengers indicate they sought volunteers BEFORE boarding. So that makes no sense.

Also, the claim is $1,000 was offered (no indication of cash or vouchers). The passengers have indicated that the top offer was $800.

My take is, the crew was likely late. They knew thew would be overbooked if the crew showed, so they sought volunteers and got no one. When boarding time came and no crew was there, they boarded everyone. Then, before the doors were closed, the missing crew turned up. Now they had to remove 4 passengers. A manager may have authorized an increase in compensation, but this message never made it to the passengers.

If that is the case, then there were clearly issues. They should have kept the IDB candidates off the plane until the last possible second if they were going to wait for the crew.

blrsea · Tue Apr 11, 2017 2:15 pm

ikramerica wrote:
bugsbegone wrote:
Have you guys read one of the passengers' testimony on reddit?

Apparently, when the doctor refused to deplane, another passenger offered UA $1600 to volunteer, and was laughed at by the crew. So this situation could have been solved then and there if United wasn't so cheap.

No. This problem is only getting worse because passengers look at it as a greed fueled payday. $1600 is utterly ridiculous.

The airline has the right to simply deplane 4 people. Volunteer compensation is a courtesy to help find people who's time isn't that valuable. Statutory compensation is actually set by law.

Once IDB starts, you can't entertain sob stories and then allow people to weasel out. And this is not a protest where passive resistence is appropriate.

Wow, so the airline knows whose time is valuable and whose is not? And how do they know that? And how do they calculate how much each passenger's time is worth? And what UA offered was worthless vouchers to fly on their airlines again, and with what restrictions who knows. UA made a mistake and they need to pay for it. CX paid for their hedging losses. How is UA's behavior different? They took a chance and it didn't work out, and you pay. Happens everyday to lots of people. UA should offer more for people to voluntarily give up their seat, not nickle & diming them with worthless vouchers

DoctorVenkman · Tue Apr 11, 2017 2:16 pm

737max8 wrote:
aemoreira1981 wrote:
United's mistake here, and what could bring it legal liability, is that the passengers were already boarded. It's one thing when boarding is denied, but it's quite another when boarding is allowed and then volunteers are asked to deplane for someone else. (If passengers are asked to deplane because of a weight restriction, that's different, as the idea is to avoid needing to make an en-route fuel stop.)

He was boarded, then denied. Guess what two words I still used?

They were willing to rebook and pay the man per IDB rules but he refused and didn't follow instructions.

Despite your snarky attitude, words (and their order) have significance in law. It is not clear that UA was within their legal right to eject him from the plane once he had boarded.

ytz · Tue Apr 11, 2017 2:18 pm

Can't believe the utterly tone deaf comments on here. People will say anything to defend the carriers. I hope UA and Republic get to pay out a few million and lose tens of millions in sales.

Flighty · Tue Apr 11, 2017 2:19 pm

Calder wrote:
Looks like a cascade of failures to me.

The gate agent, the cabin crew, the security individuals who forcibly removed the man from the plane, Munoz with that letter, and (possibly) the man who was removed?

The situation obviously should never have been escalated the way it was. Some front line employees and lower level managers will be looking for new jobs, United/Republic will be cutting a big check, and the man who refused to leave will not likely be flying on United metal for a long time.

Just goes to show what can happen when 3-5 people are all having bad days and make the wrong decision on the same matter.

All of these people followed decades old procedure that is re-validated every day on the front lines. The procedure is generally known and accepted. Passengers comply with basic instructions, which should be delivered politely at first, or passengers can simply exit, perhaps pending additional security inspection. We cannot afford to have operational decisions be made a collaborative process with amateurs, but we can likely explain things better.

I think this was a huge misunderstanding, the guy thought he was making a correct stand, but he was not. If passengers physically resist the lawful process, that is assault, and they will go to jail. Somehow, almost everybody does fine with it. Only one guy is verified to have done anything wrong, the doctor.

This is the same process in action today, as we speak, at every US airline and airport. If you openly defy instructions and declare your alternative agenda for a flight, you will be removed, and if you require force, you will get force. And my catch phrase seems to be, there is no limit to the amount of force at the authorities disposal to enforce order in the skies and at the airport. No limit. You will not win. Even 40 armed men won't win.

Flyer732 · Tue Apr 11, 2017 2:19 pm

sw733 wrote:
exunited wrote:
The flight was by Republic Airlines, not United mainline but then nobody would take the click bait if the headlines said Republic now would they?

I was wondering who would be the first person to post this. Here's the thing...I subcontract some of my work out to other people. If one of them screws up, it's still my company's name on it. You take that risk when you subcontract work out. There are pros and cons to it...if you're willing to take on the pros, you MUST take on the cons. This is one of those cons, so United better deal with it better than they have so far.

Well, the agents, supervisors and managers are all United. Only the flight crew and plane are Republic. Republic really had nothing to do with the situation other than it occurring on their aircraft. United handled all the rest.

BostonGuy · Tue Apr 11, 2017 2:20 pm

Companies that excel in business know that although the customer is not always right, they are always to be treated respectfully as any customer deserves to be treated.

This situation has blown up in UA's face not because the customer was right, but rather because UA failed one simple rule: Treat your paying customers with the respect they deserve.

Revo1059 · Tue Apr 11, 2017 2:22 pm

Once IDB starts, you can't entertain sob stories and then allow people to weasel out. And this is not a protest where passive resistence is appropriate.

But he was already boarded. Thats where the issue is. From what I've read once the ass is in the seat an airlines case for IDB shrink drastically (as I'm sure was mentioned somewhere in the 16 pages of this thread)

Once article I saw stated that they chose the pax based on the price they paid for their ticket. If that's the case money talks.

UA "could" have handled the situation a little better, but unfortunately the media is dumping all of it squarely on UA.

ikramerica · Tue Apr 11, 2017 2:23 pm

DoctorVenkman wrote:
ikramerica wrote:
bugsbegone wrote:
The airline has the right to simply deplane 4 people. Volunteer compensation is a courtesy to help find people who's time isn't that valuable. Statutory compensation is actually set by law.

This is not as clear as you make it seem. People have posted opinions from legal professionals in this thread to the contrary. To paraphrase, the airline clearly has the right to deny boarding, but once the passenger has actually boarded (as in this case) the law is much less clear.

The flight does not officially begin until the door is CLOSED and the aircraft pushed back. The act of one simply sitting down does not end the boarding process. Those who claim legal knowledge otherwise are suspect.

I've seen a situation where 1 too many passengers were loaded. When it came time for everyone to sit, there was a dispute. So if the logic of everyone must go if they enter the aircraft holds true, then what? In that case, both pax were asked to leave, it was sorted out, and the pax to return was NOT the one sitting already.

goCOgo · Tue Apr 11, 2017 2:25 pm

737max8 wrote:
aemoreira1981 wrote:
United's mistake here, and what could bring it legal liability, is that the passengers were already boarded. It's one thing when boarding is denied, but it's quite another when boarding is allowed and then volunteers are asked to deplane for someone else. (If passengers are asked to deplane because of a weight restriction, that's different, as the idea is to avoid needing to make an en-route fuel stop.)

He was boarded, then denied. Guess what two words I still used?

They were willing to rebook and pay the man per IDB rules but he refused and didn't follow instructions.

I'm really tired of this "denied boarding" does not mean boarding is denied nonsense. Unless somewhere in the CoC United defines "denied boarding" means being removed from an aircraft, the words mean what they mean in the dictionary.

Oh, and "pay the man per IDB rules"? You mean the paltry 400% of the one way fare? Bet that ~$400 was worth nothing to him. Heck, I bet the fast talking agents would try to offer him vouchers first and claim he was a volunteer. IDB compensation rules need a major overhaul. It should not be $1,350 max. It should be $1,350 MINIMUM to start. Time to start realizing everyone's time is important, not just refundable fare passengers and those with status.

ssteve · Tue Apr 11, 2017 2:25 pm

BostonGuy wrote:
Companies that excel in business know that although the customer is not always right, they are always to be treated respectfully as any customer deserves to be treated.

This situation has blown up in UA's face not because the customer was right, but rather because UA failed one simple rule: Treat your paying customers with the respect they deserve.

But... but... UA's rules in this scenario insist that some meatbags need to be yanked off the plane! There was no opportunity to handle this differently.

CanadaFair · Tue Apr 11, 2017 2:27 pm

Flighty wrote:
Calder wrote:
Looks like a cascade of failures to me.

The gate agent, the cabin crew, the security individuals who forcibly removed the man from the plane, Munoz with that letter, and (possibly) the man who was removed?

The situation obviously should never have been escalated the way it was. Some front line employees and lower level managers will be looking for new jobs, United/Republic will be cutting a big check, and the man who refused to leave will not likely be flying on United metal for a long time.

Just goes to show what can happen when 3-5 people are all having bad days and make the wrong decision on the same matter.

All of these people followed decades old procedure that is re-validated every day on the front lines. The procedure is generally known and accepted. Passengers comply with basic instructions, which should be delivered politely at first, or passengers can simply exit, perhaps pending additional security inspection. We cannot afford to have operational decisions be made a collaborative process with amateurs, but we can likely explain things better.

I think this was a huge misunderstanding, the guy thought he was making a correct stand, but he was not. If passengers physically resist the lawful process, that is assault, and they will go to jail. Somehow, almost everybody does fine with it. Only one guy is verified to have done anything wrong, the doctor.

This is the same process in action today, as we speak, at every US airline and airport. If you openly defy instructions and declare your alternative agenda for a flight, you will be removed, and if you require force, you will get force. And my catch phrase seems to be, there is no limit to the amount of force at the authorities disposal to enforce order in the skies and at the airport. No limit. You will not win. Even 40 armed men won't win.

Rubbish, you cant remove a paying customer this way to accomodate your own staff, the staff should not have been accomodated on this flight at the expense and harassment of a paying customer from a minority community, wont be surprised is race played apart in this too i.e how dare this Asian / Chink have the gall to stand up to us.

Tugger · Tue Apr 11, 2017 2:28 pm

ikramerica wrote:
No. This problem is only getting worse because passengers look at it as a greed fueled payday. $1600 is utterly ridiculous.

The airline has the right to simply deplane 4 people. Volunteer compensation is a courtesy to help find people who's time isn't that valuable. Statutory compensation is actually set by law.

Once IDB starts, you can't entertain sob stories and then allow people to weasel out. And this is not a protest where passive resistence is appropriate.

Why is $1600 ridiculous? It is there seat they bought, the airline sold it (with contractual exceptions of course!) and now the airline wants to claim it back for their own needs and not because of flight safety or anything like that. Just make an offer and increase it until you have acceptance. The market value will sort itself out (you may then decide to move crew differently) and you will never have a situation like this again. Simple.

Also your "set by law" is not correct. There is a "legal maximum" that an airline can absolutely go beyond and many do. So it shouldn't be confused that there is a maximum that an airline can't exceed. They can, they just aren't required by law to do so.

And yes, passive resistance is appropriate when someone is doing something to you that you do not agree to, taking something that your purchased properly due to a need you had. The airlines "need" in situations like this is not superior to the customers.

Tugg

JannEejit · Tue Apr 11, 2017 2:28 pm

Here in the UK this has been all over the BBC main news bulletins today. Whichever way you look at it, a huge PR disaster has been created. IMHO once you are boarded and strapped in, your 'contract' with the airline ought to be honoured. Forcibly removing fare paying passengers to give their seats to transiting airline staff just shows how much contempt the airlines seem to have for their customers these days, an attitude that's become ever prevalent in certain territories more than others.

Good luck to this passenger (and the other three, what happened to them ?) He had every right to protest at being told to leave a flight he had paid for, and to hell with the small print. Also... if I'm reading some of the above input correctly, am I to expect a bit of 'rough housing' on a Republic flight more so than on a United service ? ;-)

canadianpylon · Tue Apr 11, 2017 2:29 pm

ikramerica wrote:
bugsbegone wrote:
Have you guys read one of the passengers' testimony on reddit?

Apparently, when the doctor refused to deplane, another passenger offered UA $1600 to volunteer, and was laughed at by the crew. So this situation could have been solved then and there if United wasn't so cheap.

No. This problem is only getting worse because passengers look at it as a greed fueled payday. $1600 is utterly ridiculous.

You think that this debacle is going to cost United less than $6400 at this point? This is the #3 news article on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (cbc.ca) developing stories site! I think they're going to wish they would have just paid the $6400 for the 4 people and moved along.

MaksFly · Tue Apr 11, 2017 2:30 pm

Just seeing this play out.... the Leggings incident is child's play compared to how this is playing out.

Front page of google finance and the talk of the talk shows. United stock is down more than 3%. There were at least 3 posts about this on the top pages of Reddit.

United might of been "right", but they sure as hell are not effective.

I don't understand how these people have not woken up and realized... in today's day in age.... you need to apologize and move on.

VC10er · Tue Apr 11, 2017 2:31 pm

The other side of the Atlantic is more civilized? Really? I don't think the 20th century would prove that out.

This event was HORRIBLE and SAD and Mr Munoz needs to fix it. The buck stops on his desk and he ought to make the most sincere apology and take real action to back up his words. I expect that his hand was guided by a lawyer in that first public statement (which was not so cool) I'm not a PR expert or lawyer, but a personal phone call to EVERY passenger on that flight would be a good start. Also, reaching out personally to the Dr and make peace, even if it means inviting him over for dinner at the Munoz' home. I am sure every UA employee and Mr Munoz are equally horrified by that video as the millions who have viewed it...and not just because of the financial or brand damage.

socalgeo · Tue Apr 11, 2017 2:32 pm

MaksFly wrote:
Just seeing this play out.... the Leggings incident is child's play compared to how this is playing out.

Front page of google finance and the talk of the talk shows. United stock is down more than 3%. There were at least 3 posts about this on the top pages of Reddit.

United might of been "right", but they sure as hell are not effective.

I don't understand how these people have not woken up and realized... in today's day in age.... you need to apologize and move on.

They don't care. United, and many posters here, think that the old man deserved it.

No one outside of the aviation industry will care at all if United goes under and they all loose their jobs. It's not going to happen, but millions of regular folks are hoping it will.

Tugger · Tue Apr 11, 2017 2:34 pm

Flighty wrote:
This is the same process in action today, as we speak, at every US airline and airport. If you openly defy instructions and declare your alternative agenda for a flight, you will be removed, and if you require force, you will get force. And my catch phrase seems to be, there is no limit to the amount of force at the authorities disposal to enforce order in the skies and at the airport. No limit. You will not win. Even 40 armed men won't win.

You capture it so succinctly what needs to be changed in the industry. Except you missed the part about where the airline causes the situation, but otherwise not bad! Thank you.

Tugg

goCOgo · Tue Apr 11, 2017 2:37 pm

ikramerica wrote:
DoctorVenkman wrote:
ikramerica wrote:

This is not as clear as you make it seem. People have posted opinions from legal professionals in this thread to the contrary. To paraphrase, the airline clearly has the right to deny boarding, but once the passenger has actually boarded (as in this case) the law is much less clear.

The flight does not officially begin until the door is CLOSED and the aircraft pushed back. The act of one simply sitting down does not end the boarding process. Those who claim legal knowledge otherwise are suspect.

I've seen a situation where 1 too many passengers were loaded. When it came time for everyone to sit, there was a dispute. So if the logic of everyone must go if they enter the aircraft holds true, then what? In that case, both pax were asked to leave, it was sorted out, and the pax to return was NOT the one sitting already.

You are making boarding a collective process. The CoC is the agreement between the INDIVIDUAL and the airline. While the boarding PROCESS may be ongoing until the door is closed, an INDIVIDUAL's boarding is complete when they are onboard, their bags are stowed, and they are seated. In the absence of a definition in the CoC, the law is going to use the reasonable person test. No reasonable person is going to read "denied boarding" as being removed from an aircraft you already boarded.

In the case you describe, there becomes a legitimate safety issue, and Rule 21 comes into effect. That is a legitimate reason to remove someone from the aircraft, and the CoC calls it just that, not denied boarding.

blrsea · Tue Apr 11, 2017 2:39 pm

Tugger wrote:
Flighty wrote:
This is the same process in action today, as we speak, at every US airline and airport. If you openly defy instructions and declare your alternative agenda for a flight, you will be removed, and if you require force, you will get force. And my catch phrase seems to be, there is no limit to the amount of force at the authorities disposal to enforce order in the skies and at the airport. No limit. You will not win. Even 40 armed men won't win.

You capture it so succinctly what needs to be changed in the industry. Except you missed the part about where the airline causes the situation, but otherwise not bad! Thank you.

Tugg

Yup, and once the politicians get involved, it will be a long drawn process and UA and other airlines will likely spend millions to not make any change. The current scenario where they can remove anyone gives them lots of flexibility, so they will oppose any reasonable restrictions. All because they were too cheap to offer a bit more compensation to their customers to entice them to give up seats voluntarily and were too rigid to empathize with their customers. They will probably spend millions in lawsuits, and millions lobbying govt from not changing status quo. Could have been easily avoided!

ikramerica · Tue Apr 11, 2017 2:39 pm

captaincrackers wrote:
Useful commentary posted at https://thepointsguy.com/2017/04/your-r ... ary-bumps/:

Lawyer here. This myth that passengers don't have rights needs to go away, ASAP. You are dead wrong when saying that United legally kicked him off the plane.

First of all, it's airline spin to call this an overbooking. The statutory provision granting them the ability to deny boarding is about "OVERSALES", specifically defines as booking more reserved confirmed seats than there are available. This is not what happened. They did not overbook the flight; they had a fully booked flight, and not only did everyone already have a reserved confirmed seat, they were all sitting in them. The law allowing them to denying boarding in the event of an oversale does not apply.

Even if it did apply, the law is unambiguously clear that airlines have to give preference to everyone with reserved confirmed seats when choosing to involuntarily deny boarding. They have to always choose the solution that will affect the least amount of reserved confirmed seats. This rule is straightforward, and United makes very clear in their own contract of carriage that employees of their own or of other carriers may be denied boarding without compensation because they do not have reserved confirmed seats. On its face, it's clear that what they did was illegal-- they gave preference to their employees over people who had reserved confirmed seats, in violation of 14 CFR 250.2a.

Furthermore, even if you try and twist this into a legal application of 250.2a and say that United had the right to deny him boarding in the event of an overbooking; they did NOT have the right to kick him off the plane. Their contract of carriage highlights there is a complete difference in rights after you've boarded and sat on the plane, and Rule 21 goes over the specific scenarios where you could get kicked off. NONE of them apply here. He did absolutely nothing wrong and shouldn't have been targeted. He's going to leave with a hefty settlement after this fiasco.

It's a bit of a confusion though because these crew were not flying on standby passes but were on company business.

Second, do we know that these pax had "confirmed reserved seats" or were their seats assigned at the gate because they weren't confirmed/reserved due to time of purchase/checkin? I've had that happen, so what is the exact definition we are talking about here and so we know that UA Express didn't do that part right when choosing these 4?

Third, the clause concerning the least impact: delaying this crew would have impacted 70 passengers tomorrow, while denying boarding impacts 4 passengers. Is the rule regarding this flight and this flight only or can follow on effects be considered

Remember, the bad press is mostly because this man decided to conduct a sit in protest and resisted arrest and seems to have tripped and hurt himself during the struggle. No matter what the circumstances, I know I don't want someone to be allowed to remain on my flight who struggles with police. Seems as soon as he did that he became a safety risk and had to be removed, even if by force. What is the alternative? Cancel the whole flight? Allow a passenger to continue on who refuses to comply with flight crew and police?

Granted it wouldn't have happened if they didn't try to make him go, but it also wouldn't have happened if he didn't say "no, I'm a doctor, I'm too important." And refused to cooperate.

sovietjet · Tue Apr 11, 2017 2:39 pm

If I were that guy I would sue United for everything possible. The airline is terrible and this incident just shows in an exaggerated way how they treat all their customers. "Fly the Friendly skies" just became the biggest oxymoron. Can someone please explain to me how there are no other airplanes at ORD that can be substituted? Ridiculous! There are hundreds of United aircraft at ORD since it is a hub. I don't believe for a second there is 100% utilization of the fleet. Get off the damn CRJ and bring in a 737 or A320. Or, get another CRJ, put some passengers on it and fly both down to Louisville. In the end that would cost less than this PR disaster for United. Finally, if there are 4 UA crew that need to get to SDF then they should have them go on the next flight, or rent them a car and make them drive there instead of kicking off a paying customer. The whole thing is ridiculous. Terrible airline, needs to fail already so a better one can take its place.

Cubsrule · Tue Apr 11, 2017 2:41 pm

Tugger wrote:
Cubsrule wrote:
It sucks, but it is what it is.

And that mindset is what is wrong here and what needs to change. And I will continue to point out (and you are proving my point) that United create this situation and is at fault for it. They had other options available, and, to paraphrase,"They chose... poorly...". There was no need for force to be employed in this situation and for any situation like this there never should be. VDB should never convert to IDB in a situation of the airlines choosing where there is no threat to the flight safety.

Do I hold the man faultless? No. But again United was in control and created the situation so they get to own the whole thing (that how it works).

Quick question: Who is more important, employees or customers?
I could say customers as without them there are no employees. But some may disagree.

(Actually it is a trick question, they are both equally important. But that seems to have been lost here.)

Tugg

I like the idea of different IDB rules for flight safety issues and other sorts of issues. UA does not presently have two sets of rules, however.

448205 · Tue Apr 11, 2017 2:42 pm

Flyer732 wrote:
sw733 wrote:
exunited wrote:
The flight was by Republic Airlines, not United mainline but then nobody would take the click bait if the headlines said Republic now would they?

I was wondering who would be the first person to post this. Here's the thing...I subcontract some of my work out to other people. If one of them screws up, it's still my company's name on it. You take that risk when you subcontract work out. There are pros and cons to it...if you're willing to take on the pros, you MUST take on the cons. This is one of those cons, so United better deal with it better than they have so far.

Well, the agents, supervisors and managers are all United. Only the flight crew and plane are Republic. Republic really had nothing to do with the situation other than it occurring on their aircraft. United handled all the rest.

Gates agents could have been UA or YX. Larger regionals do alot of their own ground handling.

dtw2hyd · Tue Apr 11, 2017 2:43 pm

BobbyPSP wrote:
dtw2hyd wrote:
Tugger wrote:
Quick question: Who is more important, employees or customers?

Money, there was a Flight Options charter from ORD-SDF same day, UA could have bought seats or hired on their own. There were even UPS flights.

First, the FA's can't jumpseat on UPS
Second, you can't book a jump seat on another carrier;UPS employees would go first
Third: by the time you arrange a charter it would be moot as they wouldn't have legal rest

So up the bid until you have takers. From passenger statements crew didn't make any real attempt request or negotiate.

Walking down the aisle shouting "we need four suckers or we will choose" one time is not best approach to get volunteers.

I am glad CNN got involved, perfect match. They are even linking this with UA growth plans in China.

precure787 · Tue Apr 11, 2017 2:45 pm

What's more, the doctor was Chinese. The day after the incident, people of China (PRC) became resentful towards the airline, and even called for boycotts against the airline.

Virtual737 · Tue Apr 11, 2017 2:46 pm

A couple of things I'm finding very frustrating about aviation (not only in the US) in general:

1.) The "We do this to stop another 911" type argument, which the speaker generally thinks gives them the right (perhaps it does by the letter of the law) to do anything to anyone in the name of safety. 911 should have taught us all to be more alert, but more importantly smarter. At what point should any extra authority granted to employees or officers within the aviation industry after 911 be used to deal with an overbooking? Never.

2.) The captain has 100% authority (is that the case in this instance as the doors were not closed?). If the captain has 100% authority, then I want 100% confidence that the captain will use that authority correctly ~100% of the time. In the air, I'll take his word for it. On the ground, at the gate... really? Force a paying customer off a flight risking physical harm (to other passengers too) so that you can board an employee? Do that at your peril.

I don't know what I would have done in this situation because I've never been in this situation. I would like to think that I would do exactly the same as the gentleman involved. As soon as you use the "our authority is total" on me when I am paying you money and have done zero wrong, be absolutely sure you want the resulting outcome.

Yes he could have obeyed LEA officials, but what would have happened after? We don't know what price this man paid for his flight. We don't know what emotional, financial or other damage might be incurred by him because of this de-planning. We only *know* he was offered $800 and a hotel room. That might be less than he paid for his ticket. How about multiplying that by 10 before you try using force. Maybe you might make billions next year too.

If the law backs the actions involved in removing this gentleman then the law needs to change. If United go under in the meantime, so be it.

dtw2hyd · Tue Apr 11, 2017 2:48 pm

goCOgo wrote:
I'm really tired of this "denied boarding" does not mean boarding is denied nonsense.

PR and astroturfers want to ware you down. They know the truth, but most of us don't know the fine print, even if one or two really know the nitty gritty of CoC, they will give up arguing with 100s PR social media warriors. Standard technique.

tonyban · Tue Apr 11, 2017 2:49 pm

airliner371 wrote:
Keith2004 wrote:
tell 4 people they cannot travel BEFORE boarding

^this. They shouldn't have started boarding knowing that they didn't have enough seats.

However, the doctor was out of line for not listening to the crew and police and he got exactly what happens when you don't comply with those in charge. It's really just tough luck when you get bumped, but that doesn't mean you get to be noncompliant with officials.

If new details emerge, I may change my opinion, but based on what we know now, I fault the doctor for this situation and only fault United for boarding the plane before bumping the necessary amount of passengers.

The doctor did not break any laws IMO. What he got was an unlawful assault by three bullies wearing badges whom I pray to God, will be charged with the crime they committed. There was no excuse to slam his head on the armrest. This was not justified and its shame you think it was.

448205 · Tue Apr 11, 2017 2:52 pm

The Plot Thickens

David Dao, the Elizabethtown doctor who was yanked off an overbooked United Airlines flight Sunday, has had a troubled history in Kentucky.

Dao, who went to medical school in Vietnam in the 1970s before moving to the U.S., was working as a pulmonologist in Elizabethtown when he was arrested in 2003 and eventually convicted of drug-related offenses after an undercover investigation, according to documents filed with the Kentucky Board of Medical Licensure last June. The documents allege that he was involved in fraudulent prescriptions for controlled substances and was sexually involved with a patient who used to work for his practice and assisted police in building a case against him.

Dao was convicted of multiple felony counts of obtaining drugs by fraud or deceit in November 2004 and was placed on five years of supervised probation in January 2005. He surrendered his medical license the next month.

The Kentucky Board of Medical Licensure permitted Dao to resume practicing medicine in 2015 under certain conditions.

http://www.courier-journal.com/story/ne ... 100318320/

David Dao, the doctor who was dragged off the United flight, made a killing on the World Series of Poker while his medical license was suspended in Kentucky.
Dao joined the poker circuit in July 2006 -- one year after his medical license was suspended due to multiple convictions for illegally prescribing painkillers.
In 2009, he came in 2nd in a tournament and walked away with more than $117k.
His player profile shows total earnings of $234,664 in the WSOP.
Story developing ...

Only the USA can constantly produce this much dramatic entertainment. :lol:

448205 · Tue Apr 11, 2017 2:53 pm

precure787 wrote:
What's more, the doctor was Chinese. The day after the incident, people of China (PRC) became resentful towards the airline, and even called for boycotts against the airline.

Vietnamese.

Adipocere · Tue Apr 11, 2017 2:55 pm

From his non-apologies to his callous emails, it seems like Munoz has no heart. Oh wait......

ikramerica · Tue Apr 11, 2017 2:59 pm

I also don't get these lawyers posting who are somehow condoning criminal behavior by the passenger as a response to a dispute concerning a contract, a civil matter.

It matters not whether UA misapplied the contract. That's a civil matter. But refusal to comply with flight crew and then police is a criminal act (not a protest) and could not be ignored.

PanzerPowner · Tue Apr 11, 2017 3:00 pm

Virtual737 wrote:
A couple of things I'm finding very frustrating about aviation (not only in the US) in general:

1.) The "We do this to stop another 911" type argument, which the speaker generally thinks gives them the right (perhaps it does by the letter of the law) to do anything to anyone in the name of safety. 911 should have taught us all to be more alert, but more importantly smarter. At what point should any extra authority granted to employees or officers within the aviation industry after 911 be used to deal with an overbooking? Never.

2.) The captain has 100% authority (is that the case in this instance as the doors were not closed?). If the captain has 100% authority, then I want 100% confidence that the captain will use that authority correctly ~100% of the time. In the air, I'll take his word for it. On the ground, at the gate... really? Force a paying customer off a flight risking physical harm (to other passengers too) so that you can board an employee? Do that at your peril.

I don't know what I would have done in this situation because I've never been in this situation. I would like to think that I would do exactly the same as the gentleman involved. As soon as you use the "our authority is total" on me when I am paying you money and have done zero wrong, be absolutely sure you want the resulting outcome.

Yes he could have obeyed LEA officials, but what would have happened after? We don't know what price this man paid for his flight. We don't know what emotional, financial or other damage might be incurred by him because of this de-planning. We only *know* he was offered $800 and a hotel room. That might be less than he paid for his ticket. How about multiplying that by 10 before you try using force. Maybe you might make billions next year too.

If the law backs the actions involved in removing this gentleman then the law needs to change. If United go under in the meantime, so be it.

An amazing statement, and i find your statements on the 911 safety part very true.

Flighty · Tue Apr 11, 2017 3:02 pm

Tugger wrote:
ikramerica wrote:
No. This problem is only getting worse because passengers look at it as a greed fueled payday. $1600 is utterly ridiculous.

The airline has the right to simply deplane 4 people. Volunteer compensation is a courtesy to help find people who's time isn't that valuable. Statutory compensation is actually set by law.

Once IDB starts, you can't entertain sob stories and then allow people to weasel out. And this is not a protest where passive resistence is appropriate.

Why is $1600 ridiculous? It is there seat they bought, the airline sold it (with contractual exceptions of course!) and now the airline wants to claim it back for their own needs and not because of flight safety or anything like that. Just make an offer and increase it until you have acceptance. The market value will sort itself out (you may then decide to move crew differently) and you will never have a situation like this again. Simple.

Also your "set by law" is not correct. There is a "legal maximum" that an airline can absolutely go beyond and many do. So it shouldn't be confused that there is a maximum that an airline can't exceed. They can, they just aren't required by law to do so.

And yes, passive resistance is appropriate when someone is doing something to you that you do not agree to, taking something that your purchased properly due to a need you had. The airlines "need" in situations like this is not superior to the customers.

Tugg

I am not sure how to translate that "equality" mindset into a realistic airline operation, but it is really interesting. Should there be a voting group of passengers relating to the boarding process, and the flight navigation process? What if a passenger wants to stop in another place, should the passenger have the authority to tell the captain to land?

Yes, you could legislate that paying passengers are always superior to company crews on the priority list. This would exacerbate delays nationwide and boost prices. It would be a boon to the air taxi industry. It would also further congest airpace with charter flights, extending the delays yet more. But if this is a new legal requirement, of course the airlines can do that. On balance that probably harms customers, as knee jerk legislation so often does.

I want to stress that simple solutions that sound good on Twitter actually don't survive the thorough analysis that yielded the current set of procedures. Including security procedures that work, and that aren't going away. United is in a tough spot, because they did everything right, but trashing companies is so fun, and gives people so much pleasure.

BobPatterson · Tue Apr 11, 2017 3:03 pm

Dreadnought wrote:
Boycott United. Put them out of business. No, I'm not an SJW marxist - I'm a constitutionalist and conservative. United had the chance to distance itself from this idiocy and fire those responsible, but no, they are claiming they were right and the passenger was being unreasonable.

United overbooked the flight - United's fault

Two things are wrong with your post.

1. The flight was not overbooked. It was fully sold. The "overbooking" was only the assignment of 4 United employees to travel non-rev. United's fault.

2. Arguing to put a major airline, with many thousands of employees, out of business is sheer overreaction.

Avoid flying United? Sure, if you feel that way.

Howl for changes to be made at United (and any other airline that acts this foolishly)? Absolutely, if you feel strongly enough about it.

Write to Warren Buffett and urge him to dump his stock.

Cheers

UAL777UK · Tue Apr 11, 2017 3:06 pm

VC10er wrote:

brand damage.

Good time to do that livery update? :scratchchin:

If any man would know you would.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net