cschleic
Posts: 1348
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2002 10:47 pm

Re: Another United gaffe - forces doctor off plane

Fri Apr 14, 2017 11:33 pm

Gasman wrote:
In part, we can blame 9/11 for this, because that's when the mantra "don't argue with aircrew, under any circumstances" became enshrined. Unfortunately that mantra has now been extrapolated by cabin crew to mean "we can treat you how like, no matter unprofessional and unethical we choose to be in the first place".


Good point, but it's more society's reaction to 9/11, to willingly bend to such overreaching attitudes without question. It can be baffling. Dictatorships are the ultimate form of democracy because people let them happen.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 7185
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: Another United gaffe - forces doctor off plane

Fri Apr 14, 2017 11:36 pm

NorthTerminal wrote:
PlanesNTrains wrote:
Absolutely. I think it's time some people stop saying "United beat him up..." etc. They didn't touch him. They just instigated the whole thing, which obviously is a huge problem in itself.


You're right, it is a pretty important distinction and now I feel a little contrite for being facetious.


Well I certainly wasn't bothered by your posts. :-)

scbriml wrote:
PlanesNTrains wrote:
Absolutely. I think it's time some people stop saying "United beat him up..." etc. They didn't touch him. They just instigated the whole thing, which obviously is a huge problem in itself.


If I employ a thug to beat up a rival, in the eyes of the law I'm as guilty as the thug. The fact I didn't physically lay a hand on my rival means nothing.


Ya, but that's not what I said. Regardless, it doesn't really matter.
-Dave
 
bob75013
Posts: 141
Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2015 5:05 pm

Re: Another United gaffe - forces doctor off plane

Fri Apr 14, 2017 11:47 pm

Cubsrule wrote:
bob75013 wrote:
Cubsrule wrote:

They are POST-trained LEOs. They are not members of the Chicago Police Department.


They are not members of ANY police force. The article put it clearly "They are NOT police."


You've confused me. Earlier, you argued that they were not LEOs. That's not correct. Not, you are arguing that they are not police. That is correct.


IF you ask almost anyone to give you a synonym for "law enforcement officer," the response would be something like "policeman"

They are not policemen , and by the admission of the head of the agency the runs ORD, they are not LEO's, they are security guards

.neutrino put it best in a post near the end of page 36

"A law enforcement officer (LEO) is any individual who is sworn in as a police officer, sheriff deputy, state trooper, or a federal agent to enforce the laws of the jurisdiction he or she serves.
Some other careers that are considered LEO positions include:
Air Marshal
ATF Special Agent
Border Patrol Agent
Detective
FBI Special Agent
ICE Special Agent "
Last edited by bob75013 on Fri Apr 14, 2017 11:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
strfyr51
Posts: 2442
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: Another United gaffe - forces doctor off plane

Fri Apr 14, 2017 11:54 pm

I just figured out what United could and should do in the future, Cancel the flight, remove all the passengers, move the airplane to another gate, and then re-instate the flight with another number for the same destination. It sure alleviates the need to Beat UP and Drag passengers off the airplane and you could then Block the seats you want and "JACK" whomever you please. ALL without fanfare!! And? Nobody gets beat up!!
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 12423
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

Re: Another United gaffe - forces doctor off plane

Sat Apr 15, 2017 12:00 am

bob75013 wrote:
Cubsrule wrote:
bob75013 wrote:

They are not members of ANY police force. The article put it clearly "They are NOT police."


You've confused me. Earlier, you argued that they were not LEOs. That's not correct. Not, you are arguing that they are not police. That is correct.


IF you ask almost anyone to give you a synonym for "law enforcement officer," the response would be something like "policeman"

They are not policemen , and by the admission of the head of the agency the runs ORD, they are not LEO's, they are security guards

.neutrino put it best in a post near the end of page 36

"A law enforcement officer (LEO) is any individual who is sworn in as a police officer, sheriff deputy, state trooper, or a federal agent to enforce the laws of the jurisdiction he or she serves.
Some other careers that are considered LEO positions include:
Air Marshal
ATF Special Agent
Border Patrol Agent
Detective
FBI Special Agent
ICE Special Agent "


Again, they have whatever Illinois calls POST certification. They are not sworn police officers. I'm not sure at this is hard or why it matters. They are most certainly much better qualified than your typical security guard.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 6769
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

Re: Another United gaffe - forces doctor off plane

Sat Apr 15, 2017 12:03 am

strfyr51 wrote:
I just figured out what United could and should do in the future, Cancel the flight, remove all the passengers, move the airplane to another gate, and then re-instate the flight with another number for the same destination. It sure alleviates the need to Beat UP and Drag passengers off the airplane and you could then Block the seats you want and "JACK" whomever you please. ALL without fanfare!! And? Nobody gets beat up!!


Hmmm... it'd be expensive and resource/time consuming but you could do that and it would work. I have suggested that earlier as a smarter tactic than what they did.

However, as I have also stated a vastly smarter option would be to just increase the compensation offer until enough people accepted and deboarded. It also has the advantage of being a much cheaper and quicker solution.

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
 
User avatar
gennadius
Posts: 409
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 5:38 pm

Re: Another United gaffe - forces doctor off plane

Sat Apr 15, 2017 12:10 am

Cubsrule wrote:
bob75013 wrote:
Cubsrule wrote:

You've confused me. Earlier, you argued that they were not LEOs. That's not correct. Not, you are arguing that they are not police. That is correct.


IF you ask almost anyone to give you a synonym for "law enforcement officer," the response would be something like "policeman"

They are not policemen , and by the admission of the head of the agency the runs ORD, they are not LEO's, they are security guards

.neutrino put it best in a post near the end of page 36

"A law enforcement officer (LEO) is any individual who is sworn in as a police officer, sheriff deputy, state trooper, or a federal agent to enforce the laws of the jurisdiction he or she serves.
Some other careers that are considered LEO positions include:
Air Marshal
ATF Special Agent
Border Patrol Agent
Detective
FBI Special Agent
ICE Special Agent "


Again, they have whatever Illinois calls POST certification. They are not sworn police officers. I'm not sure at this is hard or why it matters. They are most certainly much better qualified than your typical security guard.


It is a bit confusing however, since in that Chicago Tribune article which was referenced up-thread, they state that they are NOT members of the Chicago Police Department, but they also call themselves aviation police. In addition, the answer to the question regarding if they are allowed to be armed, they state this:

They cannot carry weapons but must be state-certified police officers. Airport police have sought for years to be allowed to carry firearms, but the city has opposed that. Aviation Committee Chairman Ald. Michael Zalewski, 23rd, said the latest incident weakens the push by aviation police to carry guns.


So, that makes it seem that they must be police officers in order to be part of the aviation police. I'm not sure what that means. Are they police officers associated with other departments and just work as aviation police as a side job? There are full time positions, so what about those officers?
Per ardua, ad astra
 
Bald1983
Posts: 300
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:04 pm

Re: Another United gaffe - forces doctor off plane

Sat Apr 15, 2017 12:27 am

NorthTerminal wrote:
Bald1983 wrote:
Strange world where stating facts is teasing...


I'm not sure you can represent your opinion as fact. The CoC does not make it clear that it was possible to remove the passenger under such circumstances, and as I and many have stated, you cannot simply decide that someone is a safety issue if there is no aggravating factor to make them one.

What if the man was told to get off because we don't like your face. Would he then be a safety issue for refusing?


AS far as I know, UAL has never told anyone to get off the plane because they do not like my face. I admit it is not much of a face. However, should that situation arise, you get off the plane and seek yoru redress in the courts. When you refuse to comply, you ARE a safety risk and it would be irresponsible to depart, leaving you on the plane. From what I have heard, he did actually agree to get off, then after he deplaned, ran back on. The aggravating factor is that he was disobeying crew instructions and then, law enforcement directions. The force did not begin until then.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 20516
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

Re: Another United gaffe - forces doctor off plane

Sat Apr 15, 2017 12:32 am

Tugger wrote:
To me the key issue has become the overreach of power that has been granted unchecked to the airlines and crew to essentially classify anyone as a threat for what are really only customer service issue.


Yup. I'm stealing this.

All in the name of 9/11. I saw some insipid article written by a pilot's wife that actually trotted out 9/11 to justify the treatment of Dr. Dao.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
User avatar
DIRECTFLT
Posts: 688
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 3:00 am

Re: Another United gaffe - forces doctor off plane

Sat Apr 15, 2017 12:35 am

neutrino wrote:
bob75013 wrote:
Cubsrule wrote:

Gentlemen, hope this helps:
A law enforcement officer (LEO) is any individual who is sworn in as a police officer, sheriff deputy, state trooper, or a federal agent to enforce the laws of the jurisdiction he or she serves.
Some other careers that are considered LEO positions include:
Air Marshal
ATF Special Agent
Border Patrol Agent
Detective
FBI Special Agent
ICE Special Agent


(Texas) Constable
Fire Inspectors
Postal Inspectors
Smoothest Ride so far ~ AA A300B4-600R ~~ Favorite Aviation Author ~ Robert J. Serling
 
User avatar
DIRECTFLT
Posts: 688
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 3:00 am

Re: Another United gaffe - forces doctor off plane

Sat Apr 15, 2017 12:41 am

strfyr51 wrote:
I just figured out what United could and should do in the future, Cancel the flight, remove all the passengers, move the airplane to another gate, and then re-instate the flight with another number for the same destination. It sure alleviates the need to Beat UP and Drag passengers off the airplane and you could then Block the seats you want and "JACK" whomever you please. ALL without fanfare!! And? Nobody gets beat up!!


It was announced today by UA that they will now require a minimum of 60 minutes notice to place any relief crews on a flight with a "reservation."

I suppose a relief crew could still walk up at the last minute and get on any flight, if, there were seats still not filled, after everyone else had boarded.
Smoothest Ride so far ~ AA A300B4-600R ~~ Favorite Aviation Author ~ Robert J. Serling
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 5665
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Another United gaffe - forces doctor off plane

Sat Apr 15, 2017 12:43 am

strfyr51 wrote:
I just figured out what United could and should do in the future, Cancel the flight, remove all the passengers, move the airplane to another gate, and then re-instate the flight with another number for the same destination. It sure alleviates the need to Beat UP and Drag passengers off the airplane and you could then Block the seats you want and "JACK" whomever you please. ALL without fanfare!! And? Nobody gets beat up!!


And what reason would UA give for cancelling the flight? Why this obsession with that an airline should never back down? Be always able to screw the passengers? Trying to find a way how to breach a contract without having to face the consequences?

What is wrong with
- doing things right
- fulfilling contracts
- offering decent service
- compensating customers for mistakes one makes
 
ubeema
Posts: 163
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2012 3:48 am

Re: Another United gaffe - forces doctor off plane

Sat Apr 15, 2017 12:45 am

New policy is rolling out. Dao rule is out:
In a statement to Business Insider, United Airlines wrote:

"We issued an updated policy to make sure crews traveling on our aircraft are booked at least 60 minutes prior to departure. This ensures situations like Flight 3411 never happen again. This is one of our initial steps in a review of our policies in order to deliver the best customer experience."

http://www.businessinsider.com/united-a ... 4#comments
 
User avatar
BobPatterson
Posts: 2608
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2015 7:18 am

Re: Another United gaffe - forces doctor off plane

Sat Apr 15, 2017 12:54 am

DIRECTFLT wrote:
strfyr51 wrote:
I just figured out what United could and should do in the future, Cancel the flight, remove all the passengers, move the airplane to another gate, and then re-instate the flight with another number for the same destination. It sure alleviates the need to Beat UP and Drag passengers off the airplane and you could then Block the seats you want and "JACK" whomever you please. ALL without fanfare!! And? Nobody gets beat up!!


It was announced today by UA that they will now require a minimum of 60 minutes notice to place any relief crews on a flight with a "reservation."

I suppose a relief crew could still walk up at the last minute and get on any flight, if, there were seats still not filled, after everyone else had boarded.


If it means that people ticketed prior to those 60 minutes will be bumped from the flight, then it should be illegal.

An airline should have NO RIGHT to bump a passenger solely to permit airlines personnel to use a seat.

Offering to pay passengers to voluntary give up seats is certainly OK.

Airlines have at least several other methods for transporting personnel when their own flights are full and passengers will not accept "buy-outs".

"JACK" whomever you please! What an honorable concept. Same old "screw the customer" but in new clothing.
Last edited by BobPatterson on Sat Apr 15, 2017 1:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
Facts are fragile things. Treat them with care. Sources are important. Alternative facts do not exist.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 7185
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: Another United gaffe - forces doctor off plane

Sat Apr 15, 2017 12:58 am

DocLightning wrote:
Tugger wrote:
To me the key issue has become the overreach of power that has been granted unchecked to the airlines and crew to essentially classify anyone as a threat for what are really only customer service issue.


Yup. I'm stealing this.

All in the name of 9/11. I saw some insipid article written by a pilot's wife that actually trotted out 9/11 to justify the treatment of Dr. Dao.


Ya, I read that too. I don't get the 9/11 connection that people make at all.
-Dave
 
NorthTerminal
Posts: 54
Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2017 2:37 pm

Re: Another United gaffe - forces doctor off plane

Sat Apr 15, 2017 1:06 am

Bald1983 wrote:
AS far as I know, UAL has never told anyone to get off the plane because they do not like my face. I admit it is not much of a face. However, should that situation arise, you get off the plane and seek yoru redress in the courts. When you refuse to comply, you ARE a safety risk and it would be irresponsible to depart, leaving you on the plane. From what I have heard, he did actually agree to get off, then after he deplaned, ran back on. The aggravating factor is that he was disobeying crew instructions and then, law enforcement directions. The force did not begin until then.


Didn't look much like he was agreeing to me :hissyfit:

But I do understand your point and in the event of a lawful, or even reasonable command, I agree entirely. Where you believe strongly that the command is neither lawful or reasonable then I guess it comes down to whether you are a sheep or a wolf... or maybe the situation that you find yourself in at the time.

I think I probably would have got off too at the point the heavies showed up and I would have sulked and written letters and been generally unsatisfied with the response, but if I really needed to be somewhere... who knows. It's academic now anyway, public opinion is in Mr Dao's favour and I think the law is too. It was a civil matter that went too far and the crew appears to have had no authority to apply the federal laws with which they are empowered to direct someone off of the aircraft.
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 6769
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

Re: Another United gaffe - forces doctor off plane

Sat Apr 15, 2017 1:13 am

Bald1983 wrote:
AS far as I know, UAL has never told anyone to get off the plane because they do not like my face. I admit it is not much of a face. However, should that situation arise, you get off the plane and seek yoru redress in the courts. When you refuse to comply, you ARE a safety risk and it would be irresponsible to depart, leaving you on the plane. From what I have heard, he did actually agree to get off, then after he deplaned, ran back on. The aggravating factor is that he was disobeying crew instructions and then, law enforcement directions. The force did not begin until then.

A few points:
1.) There have been instances where the passengers appearance alone was the reason they were removed. The crew involved were "uncomfortable" (or something similar) with their presence on board, based only on what they looked like, and the person had to be removed before the flight could proceed. Face or race the two are intertwined and it has happened. It is not right or proper. It cannot continue.

2.) To my knowledge Dr. Dao did not "first deplane" as you describe. Yes, he apparently indicated interest in getting off for compensation but then upon learning that the flight he would be rebooked on would not depart until the next afternoon, he rescinded his interest. I don't know if he was IDB already or not. Once he was concussed and forcibly removed and dragged off the aircraft, apparently the authorities somehow allowed him to get back on board (and he was again filmed) bloodied and rambling as stumbled down the aisle trying to get back to his seat.

3.) Not blindly obeying a crew member (or grousing to corp about not being able to be given a blanket) on what is customer service issue does not, or at least in no way should, make one a "safety risk". The airline and crew have complete control to deescalate such situations and take care of their customer's concerns or take a different course of action. They just don't do that for some reason (which I note is likely linked to the power crew were granted after 9/11 to classify someone as a threat, which then became a self-fulfilling prophecy if/when the customer objected or resisted).

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
 
NorthTerminal
Posts: 54
Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2017 2:37 pm

Re: Another United gaffe - forces doctor off plane

Sat Apr 15, 2017 1:26 am

Tugger wrote:
A few points:
1.) There have been instances where the passengers appearance alone was the reason they were removed. The crew involved were "uncomfortable" (or something similar) with their presence on board, based only on what they looked like, and the person had to be removed before the flight could proceed. Face or race the two are intertwined and it has happened. It is not right or proper. It cannot continue.

2.) To my knowledge Dr. Dao did not "first deplane" as you describe. Yes, he apparently indicted interest in getting off for compensation but then upon learning that the flight he would be rebooked on would not depart until the next afternoon, he rescinded his interest. I don't know if he was IDB already or not. Once he was concussed and forcibly removed and dragged off the aircraft, apparently the authorities somehow allowed him to get back on board (and he was again filmed) bloodied and rambling as stumbled down the aisle trying to get back to his seat.

3.) Not blindly obeying a crew member (or grousing to corp about not being able to be given a blanket) on what is customer service issue does not, or at least in no way should, make one a "safety risk". The airline and crew have complete control to deescalate such situations and take care of their customer's concerns or take a different course of action. They just don't do that for some reason (which I note is likely linked to the power crew were granted after 9/11 to classify someone as a threat, which then became a self-fulfilling prophecy if/when the customer objected or resisted).


1.) Now you say it, I have read of instances like that before. Did any of them come to court?

3.) True what they say about power... it corrupts.
 
OSUk1d
Posts: 139
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2016 2:43 am

Re: Another United gaffe - forces doctor off plane

Sat Apr 15, 2017 2:41 am

InsideMan wrote:
OSUk1d wrote:
bogota wrote:

For what I can gather in by reading here from some people it is simply because in the USA the police can do what ever and nobody can question them. Kind of what is called martial law in most other countries. Something is very wrong when people who do nothing wrong are beaten up by police simply because an airline staff member can call up the police when they need to enforce their own incompetence. If they overbooked and had to sort out the problem, police should never get involved unless somebody is threatening or posing danger to somebody else. Delaying an aircraft because he was randomly picked is not his problem but the airlines´ problem.



they certainly can ask you to leave private property.


if you rent an appartment the landlord can't call the Police to remove you from his property!
You have a valid contract that gives you the right to be there. If you don't like it, go to court.



Your lease doesn't have a stipulation that they may lease to someone else and can remove you and compensate you. Your plane ticket does.
 
OSUk1d
Posts: 139
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2016 2:43 am

Re: Another United gaffe - forces doctor off plane

Sat Apr 15, 2017 2:43 am

BobPatterson wrote:
DIRECTFLT wrote:
strfyr51 wrote:
I just figured out what United could and should do in the future, Cancel the flight, remove all the passengers, move the airplane to another gate, and then re-instate the flight with another number for the same destination. It sure alleviates the need to Beat UP and Drag passengers off the airplane and you could then Block the seats you want and "JACK" whomever you please. ALL without fanfare!! And? Nobody gets beat up!!


It was announced today by UA that they will now require a minimum of 60 minutes notice to place any relief crews on a flight with a "reservation."

I suppose a relief crew could still walk up at the last minute and get on any flight, if, there were seats still not filled, after everyone else had boarded.


If it means that people ticketed prior to those 60 minutes will be bumped from the flight, then it should be illegal.

An airline should have NO RIGHT to bump a passenger solely to permit airlines personnel to use a seat.

Offering to pay passengers to voluntary give up seats is certainly OK.

Airlines have at least several other methods for transporting personnel when their own flights are full and passengers will not accept "buy-outs".

"JACK" whomever you please! What an honorable concept. Same old "screw the customer" but in new clothing.



So then you think all overbooking should be illegal, because its the same difference.
 
ytz
Posts: 3093
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 12:31 am

Re: Another United gaffe - forces doctor off plane

Sat Apr 15, 2017 2:46 am

NorthTerminal wrote:
Tugger wrote:

1.) Now you say it, I have read of instances like that before. Did any of them come to court?

3.) True what they say about power... it corrupts.



It's gone to court before:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/18/us/muslim ... e-airline/ - that was a $9 million suit. Not sure of the outcome.

Other passengers have won before:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-secur ... 5020070116
 
ytz
Posts: 3093
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 12:31 am

Re: Another United gaffe - forces doctor off plane

Sat Apr 15, 2017 2:57 am

OSUk1d wrote:
BobPatterson wrote:
So then you think all overbooking should be illegal, because its the same difference.


Yes. In what other industry is the establishment allowed to routinely overbook? They can fine no-shows the full ticket amount, if they don't want to lose money. Or we can go back to cheaper stand-by tickets where the passenger is fully aware that they may not fly at that moment.

And all this is moot. This was not an oversold situation. This was a decision made by the airline to prioritize an employee and operational issue over a paying customer. They want to get his seat back. He value it higher than they were willing to compensate him. Then they used law enforcement to make him an offer he couldn't refuse.

I hope he wins more than Munroz's annual bonus this year.
 
User avatar
GlenP
Posts: 245
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 3:33 pm

Re: Another United gaffe - forces doctor off plane

Sat Apr 15, 2017 3:57 am

OSUk1d wrote:
InsideMan wrote:
OSUk1d wrote:


they certainly can ask you to leave private property.


if you rent an appartment the landlord can't call the Police to remove you from his property!
You have a valid contract that gives you the right to be there. If you don't like it, go to court.



Your lease doesn't have a stipulation that they may lease to someone else and can remove you and compensate you. Your plane ticket does.


There are clearly stipulated circumstances under which you can be denied boarding or removed from the aircraft once boarded.

Making room for airline employees, who are commuting is not one of them.

The airline has admitted the passenger did nothing wrong in this instance. Are you claiming that you know their COC's better than the airline's lawyers, who will have poured over it to find a get out clause, before this admission was made?
Ubique Quo Fas et Gloria Ducunt
 
Cerecl
Posts: 477
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 10:22 am

Re: Another United gaffe - forces doctor off plane

Sat Apr 15, 2017 4:36 am

strfyr51 wrote:
I just figured out what United could and should do in the future, Cancel the flight, remove all the passengers, move the airplane to another gate, and then re-instate the flight with another number for the same destination. It sure alleviates the need to Beat UP and Drag passengers off the airplane and you could then Block the seats you want and "JACK" whomever you please. ALL without fanfare!! And? Nobody gets beat up!!

I gathered you work at UA? I am afraid what you posted represents what is wrong with UA (although I believe you are not in customer service?). You are still thinking about how to inconvenience the passenger to circumvent the situation where the seat deficit is the airline's own making. How about putting the customer first? Get the other 4 crew members on a different flight (of which there were a few) or book your passengers on a flight to their destinations as soon as possible (not almost 24 hrs later) with suitable compensation.
I wish UA could pick some of its frontline flight attendants/customer service agents and put them on flights with any of the flag-bearing Asian airlines so that they understand how their passengers would like to interact with the crew. Respect goes both ways.
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 6769
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

Re: Another United gaffe - forces doctor off plane

Sat Apr 15, 2017 4:36 am

ytz wrote:
NorthTerminal wrote:
Tugger wrote:

1.) Now you say it, I have read of instances like that before. Did any of them come to court?

3.) True what they say about power... it corrupts.



It's gone to court before:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/18/us/muslim ... e-airline/ - that was a $9 million suit. Not sure of the outcome.

Other passengers have won before:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-secur ... 5020070116

Thanks, for that. I just find these kinds of stories ridiculous on their face, that these this. It makes no sense to allow someone to do what some of these crew did. Yes the attacks 15+ years ago were horrible and yes many crew lost friends on that day but to allow things like this with no repercussions on those who took such actions defies reason.

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
 
Cerecl
Posts: 477
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 10:22 am

Re: Another United gaffe - forces doctor off plane

Sat Apr 15, 2017 4:59 am

Tugger wrote:
ytz wrote:
NorthTerminal wrote:



It's gone to court before:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/18/us/muslim ... e-airline/ - that was a $9 million suit. Not sure of the outcome.

Other passengers have won before:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-secur ... 5020070116

Thanks, for that. I just find these kinds of stories ridiculous on their face, that these this. It makes no sense to allow someone to do what some of these crew did. Yes the attacks 15+ years ago were horrible and yes many crew lost friends on that day but to allow things like this with no repercussions on those who took such actions defies reason.
Tugg

To be fair this kind of incident was not restricted to US airlines. One of my friends who is Palestinian (he dresses in Western style clothes and does not keep a large beard) was asked to leave a QF flight together with an Indian passenger a few years back. Both of them were minding their own business however my friend did notice an elderly lady looking at them with disdain and suspicion. The next thing he knew a crew member told them to get off after the said lady exchanged a few words with the flight attendant...
 
9w748capt
Posts: 1023
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 10:27 am

Re: Another United gaffe - forces doctor off plane

Sat Apr 15, 2017 5:05 am

texdravid wrote:
Isn't this telling that first tier airlines around the world do not have this type of PR problem?

It is high time that the culture of US Airlines change, and change immediately. Everyone is sick and tired of the brutal and dehumanizing treatment and attitude of cabin crew aboard US airlines.
They are unfriendly, lazy, and do not in the least try to even pretend to care about customer satisfaction.

All they care about is clocking their monthly hours, and their seniority scale ensures that only the most old and decrepit and disgruntled ones end up on long-haul flights.

I don't care one whit how their pay is, how their benefits are, or their hours. There are millions of regular workers in customer service jobs that have worse conditions than air crew, and they don't have the same vulgar attitude that air crews have.

Get with it, or else the government will. And you air crew fan boys won't like it at all once the government sticks it to you. I hope they do.


Wow I had no idea you were still here! Man I miss those catfights between you and jaysit - now that's what you call cheap entertainment!
 
User avatar
BawliBooch
Posts: 765
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2016 4:24 am

Re: Another United gaffe - forces doctor off plane

Sat Apr 15, 2017 8:46 am

strfyr51 wrote:
I just figured out what United could and should do in the future, Cancel the flight, remove all the passengers, move the airplane to another gate, and then re-instate the flight with another number for the same destination. It sure alleviates the need to Beat UP and Drag passengers off the airplane and you could then Block the seats you want and "JACK" whomever you please. ALL without fanfare!! And? Nobody gets beat up!!


Yeah that could work. However I have a better idea.

Boeing should install Gas canisters filled with Fart-Gas to be used in such emergencies. Announce immediate deboarding as you open the gas valves.

Once the cabin starts smelling like your living room after eating grandma's rajma, those pesky passengers will get out by themselves. Easier to sort out these messy situations off the plane without Social Media fallout.
L' Esprit de Mai 68
 
User avatar
GlenP
Posts: 245
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 3:33 pm

Re: Another United gaffe - forces doctor off plane

Sat Apr 15, 2017 9:03 am

BawliBooch wrote:
strfyr51 wrote:
I just figured out what United could and should do in the future, Cancel the flight, remove all the passengers, move the airplane to another gate, and then re-instate the flight with another number for the same destination. It sure alleviates the need to Beat UP and Drag passengers off the airplane and you could then Block the seats you want and "JACK" whomever you please. ALL without fanfare!! And? Nobody gets beat up!!


Yeah that could work. However I have a better idea.

Boeing should install Gas canisters filled with Fart-Gas to be used in such emergencies. Announce immediate deboarding as you open the gas valves.

Once the cabin starts smelling like your living room after eating grandma's rajma, those pesky passengers will get out by themselves. Easier to sort out these messy situations off the plane without Social Media fallout.


Might I suggest that, immediately before releasing the gas, the FA's make a show of offering F & J passengers the use of bog roll, fresh from the chiller, thus reinforcing the notion that at least one passenger has over indulged in the vindaloo, before the flight, and has thus become the embodiment of that old Johnny Cash song, "Ring of Fire".

:biggrin: ;)
Ubique Quo Fas et Gloria Ducunt
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 14569
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Another United gaffe - forces doctor off plane

Sat Apr 15, 2017 9:20 am

strfyr51 wrote:
I just figured out what United could and should do in the future, Cancel the flight, remove all the passengers, move the airplane to another gate, and then re-instate the flight with another number for the same destination. It sure alleviates the need to Beat UP and Drag passengers off the airplane and you could then Block the seats you want and "JACK" whomever you please. ALL without fanfare!! And? Nobody gets beat up!!


You're still trying to come up with ways to screw the paying customer. Aren't your arms getting a bit tired constantly swimming against the tide?

Tugger wrote:
However, as I have also stated a vastly smarter option would be to just increase the compensation offer until enough people accepted and deboarded. It also has the advantage of being a much cheaper and quicker solution.


Way too simple and convenient. :rotfl:

PlanesNTrains wrote:
I don't get the 9/11 connection that people make at all.


It's simply the mother of all excuses to get your customers to comply.

Tugger wrote:
1.) There have been instances where the passengers appearance alone was the reason they were removed. The crew involved were "uncomfortable" (or something similar) with their presence on board, based only on what they looked like, and the person had to be removed before the flight could proceed.


And when other passengers were "uncomfortable" or the passenger in question dared to speak a foreign language not instantly recognisable (normally called "Arabic" even though it wasn't). Oh, and don't be a turban-wearing Sikh.

OSUk1d wrote:
So then you think all overbooking should be illegal, because its the same difference.


It wouldn't be the worst idea in the history of ideas. The airlines can then chose whether or not to make all fares non-refundable or bring back stand-by tickets. How would you like to buy tickets for the theatre, turn up and be told someone else has your seat because they overbooked? :crazy:
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 5290
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Another United gaffe - forces doctor off plane

Sat Apr 15, 2017 9:30 am

More rules that will make tickets more expensive and help terrorists and other criminals. The simple solution is to make it optional to have an overbooking protection with your ticket or not. If you buy a cheap basic fare it won´t be included.
 
GoSharks
Posts: 26
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2015 3:23 am

Re: Another United gaffe - forces doctor off plane

Sat Apr 15, 2017 9:45 am

scbriml wrote:
PlanesNTrains wrote:
Absolutely. I think it's time some people stop saying "United beat him up..." etc. They didn't touch him. They just instigated the whole thing, which obviously is a huge problem in itself.


If I employ a thug to beat up a rival, in the eyes of the law I'm as guilty as the thug. The fact I didn't physically lay a hand on my rival means nothing.

You're twisting things around here. It's more like I'm a homeowner and I have what I consider a trespasser, so I call the cops to have said trespasser removed. It's not my fault if the cops hurt the subject.
 
sadiqutp
Posts: 176
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2016 5:05 pm

Re: Another United gaffe - forces doctor off plane

Sat Apr 15, 2017 9:55 am

I am not sure if this has been reported in here :

The airline, owned by United Continental Holdings Inc (UAL.N), said it would make sure crews traveling on their aircraft are booked into seats at least 60 minutes before departure.


http://www.reuters.com/article/us-ual-c ... SKBN17H00M
 
User avatar
CanadaFair
Posts: 987
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2016 5:22 pm

Re: Another United gaffe - forces doctor off plane

Sat Apr 15, 2017 10:05 am

GoSharks wrote:
scbriml wrote:
PlanesNTrains wrote:
Absolutely. I think it's time some people stop saying "United beat him up..." etc. They didn't touch him. They just instigated the whole thing, which obviously is a huge problem in itself.


If I employ a thug to beat up a rival, in the eyes of the law I'm as guilty as the thug. The fact I didn't physically lay a hand on my rival means nothing.

You're twisting things around here. It's more like I'm a homeowner and I have what I consider a trespasser, so I call the cops to have said trespasser removed. It's not my fault if the cops hurt the subject.


Not tresspasser in this case, guest is more like it.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 5665
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Another United gaffe - forces doctor off plane

Sat Apr 15, 2017 10:26 am

seahawk wrote:
More rules that will make tickets more expensive and help terrorists and other criminals. The simple solution is to make it optional to have an overbooking protection with your ticket or not. If you buy a cheap basic fare it won´t be included.


In what way do you think this overbooking protection will help you against the airline? They will still try to throw you off in case they think they need the space. The problem is the airline and the arrogance of big organisation thinking that everybody else has to back down.
 
User avatar
GlenP
Posts: 245
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 3:33 pm

Re: Another United gaffe - forces doctor off plane

Sat Apr 15, 2017 10:43 am

mjoelnir wrote:
seahawk wrote:
More rules that will make tickets more expensive and help terrorists and other criminals. The simple solution is to make it optional to have an overbooking protection with your ticket or not. If you buy a cheap basic fare it won´t be included.


In what way do you think this overbooking protection will help you against the airline? They will still try to throw you off in case they think they need the space. The problem is the airline and the arrogance of big organisation thinking that everybody else has to back down.


Sorry, but I fail to see the connection between preventing overbooking, covered by one set of COC conditions and helping criminals and terrorists.

Are you implying that overbooking somehow prevents terrorists and criminals from flying, or are you claiming that a move to prevent airlines overbooking or, for that matter, stopping airlines from booting already boarded passengers for reasons other than that the passengers are, disruptive, intoxicated (as GMP explained when I worked at MAN, you don't need to be drunk to be intoxicated, just to have partaken of drugs or alcohol), unable to occupy a single seat or are deemed to be a threat to flight safety, will somehow prevent passengers being removed from flights for legitimate reasons?
Ubique Quo Fas et Gloria Ducunt
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 5290
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Another United gaffe - forces doctor off plane

Sat Apr 15, 2017 11:01 am

GlenP wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
seahawk wrote:
More rules that will make tickets more expensive and help terrorists and other criminals. The simple solution is to make it optional to have an overbooking protection with your ticket or not. If you buy a cheap basic fare it won´t be included.


In what way do you think this overbooking protection will help you against the airline? They will still try to throw you off in case they think they need the space. The problem is the airline and the arrogance of big organisation thinking that everybody else has to back down.


Sorry, but I fail to see the connection between preventing overbooking, covered by one set of COC conditions and helping criminals and terrorists.

Are you implying that overbooking somehow prevents terrorists and criminals from flying, or are you claiming that a move to prevent airlines overbooking or, for that matter, stopping airlines from booting already boarded passengers for reasons other than that the passengers are, disruptive, intoxicated (as GMP explained when I worked at MAN, you don't need to be drunk to be intoxicated, just to have partaken of drugs or alcohol), unable to occupy a single seat or are deemed to be a threat to flight safety, will somehow prevent passengers being removed from flights for legitimate reasons?


The current discussion aims and making the removal of a passenger from the plane more difficult. I think this is not the right way to go. You can have an optional protection against overbooking of your seat, but in the end the crew must be be supported when they remove passengers for safety reasons, even if the crew turns out to be wrong.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 14569
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Another United gaffe - forces doctor off plane

Sat Apr 15, 2017 11:14 am

GoSharks wrote:
You're twisting things around here. It's more like I'm a homeowner and I have what I consider a trespasser, so I call the cops to have said trespasser removed. It's not my fault if the cops hurt the subject.


Not a remotely similar situation IMHO. We're talking about a case where the "trespasser" has paid to be where he was and was invited onboard. :shakehead:

seahawk wrote:
The current discussion aims and making the removal of a passenger from the plane more difficult.


Yes, when that passenger has paid to be there, isn't causing an issue and is certainly not a threat to the safety of the flight. Nobody is suggesting these new rules would or should stop LEOs from removing a suspected criminal/terrorist from a flight or a passenger who's really "lost it". None of those things applied in the UA case.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 5665
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Another United gaffe - forces doctor off plane

Sat Apr 15, 2017 11:20 am

seahawk wrote:
GlenP wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:

In what way do you think this overbooking protection will help you against the airline? They will still try to throw you off in case they think they need the space. The problem is the airline and the arrogance of big organisation thinking that everybody else has to back down.


Sorry, but I fail to see the connection between preventing overbooking, covered by one set of COC conditions and helping criminals and terrorists.

Are you implying that overbooking somehow prevents terrorists and criminals from flying, or are you claiming that a move to prevent airlines overbooking or, for that matter, stopping airlines from booting already boarded passengers for reasons other than that the passengers are, disruptive, intoxicated (as GMP explained when I worked at MAN, you don't need to be drunk to be intoxicated, just to have partaken of drugs or alcohol), unable to occupy a single seat or are deemed to be a threat to flight safety, will somehow prevent passengers being removed from flights for legitimate reasons?


The current discussion aims and making the removal of a passenger from the plane more difficult. I think this is not the right way to go. You can have an optional protection against overbooking of your seat, but in the end the crew must be be supported when they remove passengers for safety reasons, even if the crew turns out to be wrong.


This safety argument has been misused to the extrem. It is exactly the right way to make removal from passengers from an air plane accountable. Today it is a joke. The responsibility of the captain is a joke, if he can delegate it and not become involved.
The force able removal of a passenger from an air plane should always be followed up by a transparent conducted investigation and the compensation to the passenger should be that high that nobody does such a thing on a whim, or to spare an airline a few bucks.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 5290
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Another United gaffe - forces doctor off plane

Sat Apr 15, 2017 11:26 am

Should it not be up to the 2 parties signing a contract how such issues are handled? Maybe I want to take the risk of being removed for operational reasons in return for a cheaper ticket on some flights and willing to pay extra for the guarantee to not be removed on others. The government needs to keep its hand out of contract made between 2 private parties. They only should force airlines to offer an optional protection against overbooking, nothing more.
 
User avatar
CanadaFair
Posts: 987
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2016 5:22 pm

Re: Another United gaffe - forces doctor off plane

Sat Apr 15, 2017 11:29 am

Well it should certainly prevent removal of people based on their looks and language or things like not hearing the flight attendant because you were busy storing your luggage in the overhead bin as happened to a woman on an American Airlines flight.
 
User avatar
GlenP
Posts: 245
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 3:33 pm

Re: Another United gaffe - forces doctor off plane

Sat Apr 15, 2017 11:33 am

seahawk wrote:
GlenP wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:

In what way do you think this overbooking protection will help you against the airline? They will still try to throw you off in case they think they need the space. The problem is the airline and the arrogance of big organisation thinking that everybody else has to back down.


Sorry, but I fail to see the connection between preventing overbooking, covered by one set of COC conditions and helping criminals and terrorists.

Are you implying that overbooking somehow prevents terrorists and criminals from flying, or are you claiming that a move to prevent airlines overbooking or, for that matter, stopping airlines from booting already boarded passengers for reasons other than that the passengers are, disruptive, intoxicated (as GMP explained when I worked at MAN, you don't need to be drunk to be intoxicated, just to have partaken of drugs or alcohol), unable to occupy a single seat or are deemed to be a threat to flight safety, will somehow prevent passengers being removed from flights for legitimate reasons?


The current discussion aims and making the removal of a passenger from the plane more difficult. I think this is not the right way to go. You can have an optional protection against overbooking of your seat, but in the end the crew must be be supported when they remove passengers for safety reasons, even if the crew turns out to be wrong.



Sorry, but I'm not buying that.

You are still equating the removal of a passenger who has been properly boarded, is neither a threat to flight safety nor falls within any of the other legitimate categories of passenger who can be removed from, or denied boarding, a flight with those who are quite correctly denied boarding or removed from the flight.

You appear to be advocating a situation in which crew can remove any passenger they like, for whatever reason they see fit, regardless to whether this is a breach of the contract entered into at the time the passenger's ticket was purchased, and that it should be up to the passenger, having meekly complied with said unlawful denial of passage / boarding, to then seek redress through the courts.

Not only is this patently unfair, not to mention arguably unlawful, with all the appearance of attempting to preserve the current situation and validate the actions of United Airlines and the airport police . security, who they employed as a goon squad, but I fail to see how giving airline personnel the power to deny passage, seemingly, on a whim or, worse, on the basis of personal prejudices, in any way improves flight safety.
Ubique Quo Fas et Gloria Ducunt
 
User avatar
GlenP
Posts: 245
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 3:33 pm

Re: Another United gaffe - forces doctor off plane

Sat Apr 15, 2017 11:39 am

seahawk wrote:
Should it not be up to the 2 parties signing a contract how such issues are handled? Maybe I want to take the risk of being removed for operational reasons in return for a cheaper ticket on some flights and willing to pay extra for the guarantee to not be removed on others. The government needs to keep its hand out of contract made between 2 private parties. They only should force airlines to offer an optional protection against overbooking, nothing more.


Where one of those parties is constantly breaching contracts, justifying their actions on the basis of spurious breaches of safety or baseless claims that the offended party somehow acted in such a manner as to deserve what happened to them, then it is both for the courts to punish those flagrantly breaching the contract and for Government to legislate, so as to prevent the continuance of such actions. (The US Government has a history of stepping in and introducing legislation aimed at curbing the excesses of a minority of players in what is, otherwise, a pretty unregulated market economy.)
Ubique Quo Fas et Gloria Ducunt
 
User avatar
AirlineCritic
Posts: 1221
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 1:07 pm

Re: Another United gaffe - forces doctor off plane

Sat Apr 15, 2017 11:48 am

seahawk wrote:
Should it not be up to the 2 parties signing a contract how such issues are handled?


Yes -- and that has been done, even in this case. Just that United broke the contract in multiple ways. First off, this was no overbooking situation. Secondly, the contract only allows declining to allow boarding, not throwing out people who were already seated in the airplane. Thirdly, if you and I have a contract that you will sell me something for 2$, if I fail to live up to my part of the agreement does not give you the right to mug me.

Anyway, I think the people who are claiming any connection to safety or security issues are grasping at straws. There's no need to mix customer service and safety issues. In fact, if you do not aggravate people (e.g., by mugging them) that may _help_ safety, not make it worse. Obviously for safety related issues one must be vigilant, e.g., rowdy passengers need to be escorted out. But, if you want to break the contract that you yourself wrote and ask unreasonable things from your paying passengers, that's not a rowdy passenger. It is a rowdy, criminal even corporation and crew member. I'd invoke organised crime clause actually, if you use violence against people who are complying with contract and presenting no safety or other issue.
 
User avatar
Blimpie
Posts: 135
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2014 3:48 pm

Re: Another United gaffe - forces doctor off plane

Sat Apr 15, 2017 12:07 pm

Again, they have whatever Illinois calls POST certification. They are not sworn police officers. I'm not sure at this is hard or why it matters. They are most certainly much better qualified than your typical security guard.

It is a bit confusing however, since in that Chicago Tribune article which was referenced up-thread, they state that they are NOT members of the Chicago Police Department, but they also call themselves aviation police. In addition, the answer to the question regarding if they are allowed to be armed, they state this:

So, that makes it seem that they must be police officers in order to be part of the aviation police. I'm not sure what that means. Are they police officers associated with other departments and just work as aviation police as a side job? There are full time positions, so what about those officers?


It actually sounds more like they are what is referred to as "special police" similar to the railroads. (special police, or at least in Maryland, are state sworn LEO's with limited enforcement and jurisdictional constraints) I think it goes to reason that if their department as the word "police" in it, that they would have been sworn officers to some degree. And, to the general layman, someone walking in to an aircraft brandishing the word "police" on their uniform, would surmise they are in fact some form of LEO.
Real men fly without wings!
 
SooLineRob
Posts: 18
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2014 10:57 am

Re: Another United gaffe - forces doctor off plane

Sat Apr 15, 2017 1:24 pm

Prinair wrote:
I find it hilarious how many have commented on this issue based on their feelings while displaying their lack of any knowledge of actual airline operations.
Also, many join the airline bashing crowd simply because it's the latest trend on social media. Simply pathetic.

What's makes this whole situation even more laughable is that many of them will purchase tickets on United in the future. Right now they all love to condemn and mention they'll never fly United again.... Just wait until the next fare war to see their hypocrisy shine.


Wow.

Your first point: My "...lack of any knowledge of actual airline operations" is irrelevent. This incident has exposed a serious problem with Untied's operations.

Your second point: My "...join(ing) the airline bashing crowd simply because it's the latest trend on social media; simply pathetic" is outrageous. This is "Airliners.net"; an apt forum to discuss this incident.

Your third point: I just paid ~US$400 more for a round trip on one of United's competitors because I'm choosing to "boycott" them. Until United gets their "house in order" and makes amends for this incident, they will not get a single penny from me. United wants my business (money); and they've lost it over this single incident. Can United win my business back? Time will tell. But for the foreseeable future, they're on my "no fly list".
 
SooLineRob
Posts: 18
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2014 10:57 am

Re: Another United gaffe - forces doctor off plane

Sat Apr 15, 2017 1:29 pm

ytz wrote:
727LOVER wrote:
What do you THINK is going to happen when you resist police?


I certainly would not expect a concussion, two front teeth missing and a broken nose. The police have an obligation to use reasonable force. And reasonable means proportional to the threat faced by the police officers and bystanders. Dr. Dao was not in any way, shape or form a physical threat to the police officers or any other passenger. There is no judge who is going to consider this reasonable. That's why those three police officers are on administrative leave. And why City Council is pissed at the PD.

And that's all aside from the fact that you have every right to refuse an instruction from the police you consider unlawful. It is up to them to provide proof that your action is unlawful and that they have just grounds for their demand. Let me ask you. If the police showed up at your house and demanded to search it, out of the blue. Would you let them in or tell them to screw off until they have a warrant?

I am in the Air Force and I don't understand people who think authority figures acting outside their authorities should be given any time of day. Your lot sound like they would enjoy living in North Korea more than the USA.

I hope those three police officers lose their jobs. Incompetence needs to be punished. And I am happy knowing they'll face personal liability in court from Dr. Dao's lawyer.


"ytz" ... Excellent post. Thank you.
 
Cerecl
Posts: 477
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 10:22 am

Re: Another United gaffe - forces doctor off plane

Sat Apr 15, 2017 2:17 pm

seahawk wrote:
Should it not be up to the 2 parties signing a contract how such issues are handled? Maybe I want to take the risk of being removed for operational reasons in return for a cheaper ticket on some flights and willing to pay extra for the guarantee to not be removed on others. The government needs to keep its hand out of contract made between 2 private parties. They only should force airlines to offer an optional protection against overbooking, nothing more.

The government (or some other sort of independent/impartial organisation) needs to get involved if one party holds all the cards. There are still members on this thread arguing that Airlines can remove passenger whenever they decide to. How can passengers stand up for themselves when the airlines tell them "get off or we will call police/security to remove you"? Not everyone has the time/energy/financial resource to hire a lawyer and go through the legal process to defend their right after they have been removed from a flight inappropriately.

You proposal of cheaper ticket for "non-secure" ticket has some issues in real life 1. When passenger book flights, via different means, it is almost certain that some of them will not be informed about the non-secure nature of the ticket. 2. This kind of tickets will likely create a false impression of inferiority-will ground agents try as hard to accommodate and reschedule them? 3. What stops airlines from deliberately overbooking flight based on the number of non-secure tickets sold so that they shaft these passengers onto less popular time/less convenient (e.g. one stop rather than direct routes)?
Finally-one shouldn't need to pay extra to guarantee a place on a flight-this is what the ticket is for! Airlines should not be enabled/empowered by any means to charge extra for delivering what they are meant to.
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 4625
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: Another United gaffe - forces doctor off plane

Sat Apr 15, 2017 3:21 pm

seahawk wrote:
Should it not be up to the 2 parties signing a contract how such issues are handled? Maybe I want to take the risk of being removed for operational reasons in return for a cheaper ticket on some flights and willing to pay extra for the guarantee to not be removed on others. The government needs to keep its hand out of contract made between 2 private parties. They only should force airlines to offer an optional protection against overbooking, nothing more.


So, why one party called the law enforcement to help them violate the contract they signed. Passenger was on the phone with UA asking them to honor the contract. He didn't get a third party involved.

Are you looking for opportunities to milk this issue and make more money by selling the optional service?
 
User avatar
enilria
Posts: 7547
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 7:15 pm

Re: Another United gaffe - forces doctor off plane

Sat Apr 15, 2017 3:29 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
seahawk wrote:
Should it not be up to the 2 parties signing a contract how such issues are handled? Maybe I want to take the risk of being removed for operational reasons in return for a cheaper ticket on some flights and willing to pay extra for the guarantee to not be removed on others. The government needs to keep its hand out of contract made between 2 private parties. They only should force airlines to offer an optional protection against overbooking, nothing more.


So, why one party called the law enforcement to help them violate the contract they signed. Passenger was on the phone with UA asking them to honor the contract. He didn't get a third party involved.

Are you looking for opportunities to milk this issue and make more money by selling the optional service?

The airlines are already free to sell standby tickets and have done so in the past. The reality is once again economic. When passengers are knowingly buying a ticket that does not reasonably guarantee that they will make it where they are going, the price they are willing to pay for that ticket goes to a low level, so the airlines want the ability to sell what appears to be a "guaranteed" ticket, but have it not really be. That's part of the questionable legality of overbooking, although in this actual case there was no real overbooking. They just had what we are told was an unscheduled crew movement. How that is dealt with is thornier, but it is still a problem for the airline to solve as they caused it.

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