United passenger threatened with handcuffs to make room for 'higher-priority' traveler

BerenErchamion · Thu Apr 13, 2017 6:39 am

Keith2004 wrote:
The handcuffs threat is what put this over the top.

What, exactly, are the police supposed to do when confronted with a trespasser who refuses to leave?

BerenErchamion · Thu Apr 13, 2017 6:41 am

LDRA wrote:
OB1504 wrote:
If someone enters my house and for some reason I decide I no longer want them there, I can ask them to leave.

Legally, why can't United ask a person to exit their aircraft after they have boarded? Where is this codified?

I'm not arguing whether they should (obviously it's poor business to randomly kick people off for no reason), but I think it's odd that they'd have no recourse for asking someone to leave after they got on board.

This isn't really relevant to this particular incident but I've seen a lot of people saying you can't unboard a seated passenger and I'm wondering where that's coming from.

Aircraft more than likely belongs to leaser, not airline's property to begin with

Not a relevant distinction, absent impossibly absurd terms in the lease agreement.

The fact that I rent my apartment doesn't change the fact that I have the right to kick whoever I want out of it.

BerenErchamion · Thu Apr 13, 2017 6:43 am

2175301 wrote:
OB1504 wrote:
If someone enters my house and for some reason I decide I no longer want them there, I can ask them to leave.

Legally, why can't United ask a person to exit their aircraft after they have boarded? Where is this codified?

I'm not arguing whether they should (obviously it's poor business to randomly kick people off for no reason), but I think it's odd that they'd have no recourse for asking someone to leave after they got on board.

This isn't really relevant to this particular incident but I've seen a lot of people saying you can't unboard a seated passenger and I'm wondering where that's coming from.

United has a paid contract entered into for monetary value; and past most of the contractual "outs" once a person is boarded on an aircraft. One side cannot unilaterally alter a contract - the other side has rights granted by that contract (which are not civil rights).

And the remedy if one believes that those contractual rights have been violated is to go to court and seek damages. The remedy most certainly is not self-help--after all, one is not an impartial arbiter of one's own case.

BerenErchamion · Thu Apr 13, 2017 6:48 am

mjoelnir wrote:
seahawk wrote:
UA should simply change the contract rules and add the option to remove any passenger for any reason before take-off, as the airline sees fit.

And you come to the same point, using force to to enforce a contract. Again the LEO should shake his/her head and leave the airline to its problem. You do not beat up the other party to resolve a dispute about a contract, you sue. That is the recourse of the passenger and that has to be the recourse for the airline.

And in the meantime, you have an impasse between the passenger who wants to remain and the airline who wants the passenger off. For the sake of keeping the whole system functional, whether the passenger stays or goes in the moment needs to be resolved much faster than the court case will be.

The police aren't equipped to resolve the contract dispute, and have no business taking sides one way or another in it. So they sidestep the question entirely and look at the issue of whether or not the party in control of the plane wants the person off. That way, they're not taking sides in a contract dispute, but simply removing a trespasser.

seahawk · Thu Apr 13, 2017 7:00 am

Andy33 wrote:
seahawk wrote:
UA should simply change the contract rules and add the option to remove any passenger for any reason before take-off, as the airline sees fit.

Ah, the Air Zimbabwe CoC. "President Mugabe's wife wants to go shopping. Get off or we'll kill you."
You know, I could make a list of countries United fly to (profitably) where that sort of one-sided contract would get struck down by the courts as soon as they see it.
Organisations really hate having the courts examine their standard consumer contracts, because a whole lot of other stuff can get struck down at the same time, and well, the publicity.
Now if United wants to retrench to becoming a US domestic only airline, maybe the US courts would accept such a CoC. And maybe not.

If you treat your customer that way anyway, you should at least be honest in the contract you enter with the customer.

seahawk · Thu Apr 13, 2017 7:02 am

mjoelnir wrote:
seahawk wrote:
UA should simply change the contract rules and add the option to remove any passenger for any reason before take-off, as the airline sees fit.

And you come to the same point, using force to to enforce a contract. Again the LEO should shake his/her head and leave the airline to its problem. You do not beat up the other party to resolve a dispute about a contract, you sue. That is the recourse of the passenger and that has to be the recourse for the airline. That does not prevent the airline from resolving a conflict, they do not need to be cheap, needing a seat of a person having boarded will cost more, that is the only loss to the airline.

Airlines could just hire private security to handle the removal. But I agree with you, that the biggest fault in the current case lies with the police as they did actually hurt the passenger.

Noshow · Thu Apr 13, 2017 7:24 am

How about a passenger calling the police for help to "defend" his seat and legal rights? Would they come onboard?

mjoelnir · Thu Apr 13, 2017 7:30 am

BerenErchamion wrote:
LDRA wrote:
OB1504 wrote:
If someone enters my house and for some reason I decide I no longer want them there, I can ask them to leave.

Legally, why can't United ask a person to exit their aircraft after they have boarded? Where is this codified?

I'm not arguing whether they should (obviously it's poor business to randomly kick people off for no reason), but I think it's odd that they'd have no recourse for asking someone to leave after they got on board.

This isn't really relevant to this particular incident but I've seen a lot of people saying you can't unboard a seated passenger and I'm wondering where that's coming from.

Aircraft more than likely belongs to leaser, not airline's property to begin with

Not a relevant distinction, absent impossibly absurd terms in the lease agreement.

The fact that I rent my apartment doesn't change the fact that I have the right to kick whoever I want out of it.

I hope you never rent out your apartment, your ideas would lead you directly to jail.

mjoelnir · Thu Apr 13, 2017 7:32 am

seahawk wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
seahawk wrote:
UA should simply change the contract rules and add the option to remove any passenger for any reason before take-off, as the airline sees fit.

And you come to the same point, using force to to enforce a contract. Again the LEO should shake his/her head and leave the airline to its problem. You do not beat up the other party to resolve a dispute about a contract, you sue. That is the recourse of the passenger and that has to be the recourse for the airline. That does not prevent the airline from resolving a conflict, they do not need to be cheap, needing a seat of a person having boarded will cost more, that is the only loss to the airline.

Airlines could just hire private security to handle the removal. But I agree with you, that the biggest fault in the current case lies with the police as they did actually hurt the passenger.

And the private security should go straight to jail. Why do you imagine that airlines have the right to solve a contractual problem with violence?

mjoelnir · Thu Apr 13, 2017 7:38 am

BerenErchamion wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
seahawk wrote:
UA should simply change the contract rules and add the option to remove any passenger for any reason before take-off, as the airline sees fit.

And you come to the same point, using force to to enforce a contract. Again the LEO should shake his/her head and leave the airline to its problem. You do not beat up the other party to resolve a dispute about a contract, you sue. That is the recourse of the passenger and that has to be the recourse for the airline.

And in the meantime, you have an impasse between the passenger who wants to remain and the airline who wants the passenger off. For the sake of keeping the whole system functional, whether the passenger stays or goes in the moment needs to be resolved much faster than the court case will be.

The police aren't equipped to resolve the contract dispute, and have no business taking sides one way or another in it. So they sidestep the question entirely and look at the issue of whether or not the party in control of the plane wants the person off. That way, they're not taking sides in a contract dispute, but simply removing a trespasser.

And that is exactly what you tell passengers when they have a grievance, no instant solutions for a civil dispute, no resorting to violence. Calling a person having payed money to be on the premises a trespasser, might let you feel good, but that argument should be laughed right out of court.

blrsea · Thu Apr 13, 2017 8:55 am

There are multiple legal experts who have opined in the other doctor's drag & drop case that the passengers don't have to obey crew's directions if they are illegal. And asking someone to leave the aircraft just because a higher priority passenger or crew came in is not legal and is not covered in CoC terms. Passengers are within their rights to refuse such illegal asks. So please stop saying that aircraft owner/representative etc has rights to tell whether a paid boarded passenger not causing disruption can be in the aircraft or not. And just as an aside, UA is a public company, so the owners are actually the shareholders, not just the CEO/gate agents.

callmedrewy · Thu Apr 13, 2017 9:53 am

Man oh man, I swear UA has been getting it bad these few days.
Now to the point the other airlines are taking it to them like hot bread.

Check this video by QR. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpJABvwy ... e=youtu.be

Bricktop · Thu Apr 13, 2017 11:34 am

Note: I had this still in my Notes app and am reposting without the response to a silly political post that caused mine to be deleted last evening.

Revelation wrote:
Bricktop wrote:
I get the feeling a DYKWIA lost out to a bigger DYKWIA in this case. The guy's coming back from a partially taxpayer funded junket to Hawaii FFS. Take it like a man!

Wow, it took 23 posts to get the first "blame the victim" post.

Next up, someone will google the guy's name, and find out that someone with a similar name has something dodgy in their past...

Nope, I am not blaming him, but how did this become a story? Intrepid LA Times reporting or perhaps opportunistic publicity seeking? Without doubt UA traded him crappily, but “victim”? Man, there’s a low threshold for that word these days. Maybe if they had lost his golf clubs too I’d go for it. The real victims are the poor bastards who can’t afford a better seat than to be in a 10 across UA 777. That’s the real crime against humanity. Maybe I need to show a little more compassion for him. First they kicked the real estate investment managers from first class and gave them middle seats in coach and I did not speak out because I was not a real estate investment manager. Nah, it’s not working for me. Tear falling pity dwells not in this eye.

flybynight wrote:
Bricktop wrote:
I get the feeling a DYKWIA lost out to a bigger DYKWIA in this case. The guy's coming back from a partially taxpayer funded junket to Hawaii FFS. Take it like a man!

You work for UA?
Based on his bio, he certainly didn't seem like someone who is taking advantage of the situation.
Also, I think it is pretty darn poor attitude to blame the individual and stand behind an airline that has a pretty checkered track record over the last few years. This is not the UA I used to fly on in the 80's and 90's.

But if the passenger was taking advantage of the situation, that is of course just as wrong.

I don’t work for UA, and I am certainly would not defend them. That last part of your post is where I am going with this.

D L X · Thu Apr 13, 2017 11:53 am

Am I the only one who thinks the "more important passenger" was a federal air Marshall?

Noshow · Thu Apr 13, 2017 11:56 am

Wouldn't they have some reserved seat?

DaufuskieGuy · Thu Apr 13, 2017 12:01 pm

blrsea wrote:
There are multiple legal experts who have opined in the other doctor's drag & drop case that the passengers don't have to obey crew's directions if they are illegal. And asking someone to leave the aircraft just because a higher priority passenger or crew came in is not legal and is not covered in CoC terms. Passengers are within their rights to refuse such illegal asks. So please stop saying that aircraft owner/representative etc has rights to tell whether a paid boarded passenger not causing disruption can be in the aircraft or not. And just as an aside, UA is a public company, so the owners are actually the shareholders, not just the CEO/gate agents.

this! read rule 21 of United's refusal to transport clause and it does not give UA the right to remove pax for operational reasons, and trying to do so therefore has no lawful basis. I'd have to believe such activities have been taking place for years with unknowing pax complying like the Hawaii traveler and it took Dr. Dao to shine a light on this unlawful practice.

FlyUSAir · Thu Apr 13, 2017 12:17 pm

If UA was smart they would get rid of everything (including the livery when the time is right) to distance themselves from the toxic Continental culture that has plagued the airline since the merger. I think that's the crux of the problem here.

Revelation · Thu Apr 13, 2017 12:18 pm

blrsea wrote:
There are multiple legal experts who have opined in the other doctor's drag & drop case that the passengers don't have to obey crew's directions if they are illegal. And asking someone to leave the aircraft just because a higher priority passenger or crew came in is not legal and is not covered in CoC terms. Passengers are within their rights to refuse such illegal asks. So please stop saying that aircraft owner/representative etc has rights to tell whether a paid boarded passenger not causing disruption can be in the aircraft or not. And just as an aside, UA is a public company, so the owners are actually the shareholders, not just the CEO/gate agents.

GIve it time. In the current business friendly environment such technicalities won't be obstacles.

sxf24 · Thu Apr 13, 2017 12:41 pm

DaufuskieGuy wrote:
blrsea wrote:
There are multiple legal experts who have opined in the other doctor's drag & drop case that the passengers don't have to obey crew's directions if they are illegal. And asking someone to leave the aircraft just because a higher priority passenger or crew came in is not legal and is not covered in CoC terms. Passengers are within their rights to refuse such illegal asks. So please stop saying that aircraft owner/representative etc has rights to tell whether a paid boarded passenger not causing disruption can be in the aircraft or not. And just as an aside, UA is a public company, so the owners are actually the shareholders, not just the CEO/gate agents.

this! read rule 21 of United's refusal to transport clause and it does not give UA the right to remove pax for operational reasons, and trying to do so therefore has no lawful basis. I'd have to believe such activities have been taking place for years with unknowing pax complying like the Hawaii traveler and it took Dr. Dao to shine a light on this unlawful practice.

Well, If you can't deplane passengers for operational reasons prior to departure, I guess removing passengers for weight and balance or INOP seats is a no-go.

2175301 · Thu Apr 13, 2017 12:47 pm

BerenErchamion wrote:
2175301 wrote:
OB1504 wrote:
If someone enters my house and for some reason I decide I no longer want them there, I can ask them to leave.

Legally, why can't United ask a person to exit their aircraft after they have boarded? Where is this codified?

I'm not arguing whether they should (obviously it's poor business to randomly kick people off for no reason), but I think it's odd that they'd have no recourse for asking someone to leave after they got on board.

This isn't really relevant to this particular incident but I've seen a lot of people saying you can't unboard a seated passenger and I'm wondering where that's coming from.

United has a paid contract entered into for monetary value; and past most of the contractual "outs" once a person is boarded on an aircraft. One side cannot unilaterally alter a contract - the other side has rights granted by that contract (which are not civil rights).

And the remedy if one believes that those contractual rights have been violated is to go to court and seek damages. The remedy most certainly is not self-help--after all, one is not an impartial arbiter of one's own case.

You are absolutely correct: United Airlines should have proceeded with the flight and then filed a legal action and gone to court to resolve the dispute, and to seek damages from the passenger for any resulting loss he created due to his refusal to vacate his ticked and boarded seat.. In no civilized country is it legal in any way for civil disputes to be resolved by resorting to force, or the threat of force. United is the ones who resorted to force, and threatens to resort to force, to resolve a civil contractual disputes.

Have a great day,

Edited to add: Threatens force to my previous lines of just using force.

SomebodyInTLS · Thu Apr 13, 2017 12:51 pm

OB1504 wrote:
If someone enters my house and for some reason I decide I no longer want them there, I can ask them to leave.

Legally, why can't United ask a person to exit their aircraft after they have boarded? Where is this codified?

Are you serious? This is nothing like the same situation at all.

Change that to: "If someone pays to enter my ~~house~~hotel and for some reason I decide I no longer want them there, I can not ask them to leave unless they have broken the terms of their contract."

Mir · Thu Apr 13, 2017 12:57 pm

blrsea wrote:
There are multiple legal experts who have opined in the other doctor's drag & drop case that the passengers don't have to obey crew's directions if they are illegal. And asking someone to leave the aircraft just because a higher priority passenger or crew came in is not legal and is not covered in CoC terms.

It's denying boarding. It's in the contract of carriage.

Noshow · Thu Apr 13, 2017 12:59 pm

It's a removal of some already boarded passenger not denied boarding. So those rules don't apply here.

blrsea · Thu Apr 13, 2017 1:04 pm

Mir wrote:
blrsea wrote:
There are multiple legal experts who have opined in the other doctor's drag & drop case that the passengers don't have to obey crew's directions if they are illegal. And asking someone to leave the aircraft just because a higher priority passenger or crew came in is not legal and is not covered in CoC terms.

It's denying boarding. It's in the contract of carriage.

Nope, look up the legal opinions of at least 2-3 lawyers in the other thread. All of them are unanimous that this is not denial of boarding for overbooking. And none of the exceptions to be removed applied in this case. That they can do anything and people have to comply is a misconception by many aircrew leading to too many of them being on power trips.

Would be good if the case went to trial and all these issues are resolved, instead of any out of public settlement. Will bring clarity to this practice. If the court rules airlines are right, people will be more careful. if it goes against the airlines, it will be better for the consumers which is now totally one-sided in favor of carriers.

Keith2004 · Thu Apr 13, 2017 1:06 pm

BerenErchamion wrote:
Keith2004 wrote:
The handcuffs threat is what put this over the top.

What, exactly, are the police supposed to do when confronted with a trespasser who refuses to leave?

This line of thinking is what got United in hot water in the first place.

The focus should be providing compensation to paying customer not branding them a trespasser because of an airlines mistake
In this case mistake being boarding smaller plane before having seats for every passenger.

At this point United should have tried to get volunteers, keep upping the number till somebody accepts then "re-accommodate"
Police should not have to be called unless passenger is presenting a danger

Only "threat" I could imagine reasonable is to say, "the flight will not depart until they get a volunteer"

Keith2004 · Thu Apr 13, 2017 1:12 pm

callmedrewy wrote:
Man oh man, I swear UA has been getting it bad these few days.
Now to the point the other airlines are taking it to them like hot bread.

Check this video by QR. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpJABvwy ... e=youtu.be

They are having a lot of fun with this

But after Oscar said "they are not real airlines" and UA employees protested Emirates at EWR not surprised at the "Kick em' when they are down" strategy

md11sdf · Thu Apr 13, 2017 1:34 pm

With all of these highly visible public relations DISASTERS, I don't see how UAL is going to avoid a horrific downturn in ticket sales and massive loss in revenue...
Do any other airlines have "Priority Passenger Lists"? This is beyond outrageous!! They may need to RE-brand as "Continental Airlines" after these events.

Remember what their commercial tag line in the 1970's was? "Fly The FRIENDLY Skies". The irony is almost toxic....

Mir · Thu Apr 13, 2017 1:47 pm

blrsea wrote:

Nope, look up the legal opinions of at least 2-3 lawyers in the other thread. All of them are unanimous that this is not denial of boarding for overbooking. And none of the exceptions to be removed applied in this case. That they can do anything and people have to comply is a misconception by many aircrew leading to too many of them being on power trips.

Would be good if the case went to trial and all these issues are resolved, instead of any out of public settlement. Will bring clarity to this practice. If the court rules airlines are right, people will be more careful. if it goes against the airlines, it will be better for the consumers which is now totally one-sided in favor of carriers.

Are they lawyers with expertise in the field? You can find lots of people to weigh in on high-profile issues, but unless they know the field well I'd be taking their opinions with a large grain of salt.

People are making this out to be much more than it is. It was a case of denied boarding due to an overbooked flight (once the deadheading crewmembers were added to the passenger list, the flight became overbooked) that United and the police both handled really badly. United needs to empower their gate agents to be more generous with offered compensation in order to get someone to give up their seat. That's a simple change that would have resulted in the best outcome for everyone involved. This 'they're not allowed to take someone out of their seat' business is going to lead to some unintended consequences down the road, and then we'll have to revisit this whole thing again.

Cubsrule · Thu Apr 13, 2017 1:49 pm

blrsea wrote:
Mir wrote:
blrsea wrote:
There are multiple legal experts who have opined in the other doctor's drag & drop case that the passengers don't have to obey crew's directions if they are illegal. And asking someone to leave the aircraft just because a higher priority passenger or crew came in is not legal and is not covered in CoC terms.

It's denying boarding. It's in the contract of carriage.

Nope, look up the legal opinions of at least 2-3 lawyers in the other thread. All of them are unanimous that this is not denial of boarding for overbooking. And none of the exceptions to be removed applied in this case. That they can do anything and people have to comply is a misconception by many aircrew leading to too many of them being on power trips.

Would be good if the case went to trial and all these issues are resolved, instead of any out of public settlement. Will bring clarity to this practice. If the court rules airlines are right, people will be more careful. if it goes against the airlines, it will be better for the consumers which is now totally one-sided in favor of carriers.

If the other passenger was an FAM, it's a Rule 21(B) refusal of transport and did not violate the contract of carriage. Otherwise, it looks like taking him off would have violated the contract of carriage if his story is true.

94717 · Thu Apr 13, 2017 1:58 pm

nadavatar64 wrote:
UA's PR is worst than a monday morning.

The question here is how much UA spend on commercials every month during a normal year.

This is a big investment.

How much of this investment is now wasted and how long time will it take until people do not connect UA with problem?

If I was flying to or internal in USA the next few month I would right now consider that a UA flight need to be X% much cheaper then the competition to take this specific flight.

This is whats happens when the brand takes a hit. This is also the reason that the value of UA has dropped X% since last week.

seahawk · Thu Apr 13, 2017 2:52 pm

In the end it must be clearly legal to remove passengers who have taken their seats. Sometimes you need to do it for crews you need to transfer, sometimes because the weather changes and you face a weight limitation, sometimes because a valued frequent flier is more important that a person who flies once every 10 years. And it must be clear that passenger have to follow the commands of the crew without questioning at the scene or face consequences.

frmrCapCadet · Thu Apr 13, 2017 2:59 pm

Again, a seated passenger not affecting safety should never be forcibly removed. At the end of the flight the airline always has the option to then put that person on a 'no fly' list. In this case after any objective legal review the airline would have been ordered to pay damages. Of course there is simple no recourse for a wronged passenger. FAA needs to establish an administrative law judge for passengers and airlines. Not an industrial arbitrator - they invariably side with industry.

frmrCapCadet · Thu Apr 13, 2017 3:03 pm

seahawk wrote:
In the end it must be clearly legal to remove passengers who have taken their seats. Sometimes you need to do it for crews you need to transfer, sometimes because the weather changes and you face a weight limitation, sometimes because a valued frequent flier is more important that a person who flies once every 10 years. And it must be clear that passenger have to follow the commands of the crew without questioning at the scene or face consequences.

Bull crap! Weather yes. Transfer a crew? That is the airlines problem, not the passengers. Passengers are buying a flight, not a sweep stake ticket. Now if an airline wants to kick a paying passenger off for any reason, then that needs to be sentence one, paragraph one of the flight contract.

ps - anyone with an IQ over 50 would avoid buying such a seat

seahawk · Thu Apr 13, 2017 3:13 pm

frmrCapCadet wrote:
seahawk wrote:
In the end it must be clearly legal to remove passengers who have taken their seats. Sometimes you need to do it for crews you need to transfer, sometimes because the weather changes and you face a weight limitation, sometimes because a valued frequent flier is more important that a person who flies once every 10 years. And it must be clear that passenger have to follow the commands of the crew without questioning at the scene or face consequences.

Bull crap! Weather yes. Transfer a crew? That is the airlines problem, not the passengers. Passengers are buying a flight, not a sweep stake ticket. Now if an airline wants to kick a paying passenger off for any reason, then that needs to be sentence one, paragraph one of the flight contract.

ps - anyone with an IQ over 50 would avoid buying such a seat

If you kick a passenger you still have to transport him and pay a compensation. Imho what should not be risked is having to discuss with passengers if a reason to remove them from the seat is valid or not. If the crew says out, you are out.

CanadaFair · Thu Apr 13, 2017 3:15 pm

seahawk wrote:
In the end it must be clearly legal to remove passengers who have taken their seats. Sometimes you need to do it for crews you need to transfer, sometimes because the weather changes and you face a weight limitation, sometimes because a valued frequent flier is more important that a person who flies once every 10 years. And it must be clear that passenger have to follow the commands of the crew without questioning at the scene or face consequences.

I think some of you are deliberately trolling with such comments, probably having a good chuckle at the reactions.

Also suspecting single user with multiple accounts posting the same stuff worded differently, maybe not true but so many others posting this type of comment are coming accross as such, calm somewhat unnatural composure almost robotic repatition of the same as if being read from an instruction manual and typed word for word.

Airtrambus · Thu Apr 13, 2017 3:20 pm

As I try not to take sides as all of the facts and details have not come out, I can see a time when an airline needs 1, 2, 3 or more seats on a full flight to position a crew and no one volunteers, then the flight is canceled. The crew then ferry the aircraft with the deadheading crew and the passengers are left to find another flight. Flight canceled for operational reasons. Is this really what the passengers and airline want?

seahawk · Thu Apr 13, 2017 3:21 pm

CanadaFair wrote:
seahawk wrote:
In the end it must be clearly legal to remove passengers who have taken their seats. Sometimes you need to do it for crews you need to transfer, sometimes because the weather changes and you face a weight limitation, sometimes because a valued frequent flier is more important that a person who flies once every 10 years. And it must be clear that passenger have to follow the commands of the crew without questioning at the scene or face consequences.

I think some of you are deliberately trolling with such comments, probably having a good chuckle at the reactions.

Also suspecting single user with multiple accounts posting the same stuff worded differently, maybe not true but so many others posting this type of comment are coming accross as such, calm somewhat unnatural composure almost robotic repatition of the same as if being read from an instruction manual and typed word for word.

Imho you can not have the option in which a passenger debates the direct order of the crew. A passenger will never have the background knowledge to understand if the action is based on a genuine safety concern or commercial interest of the airline. In the end it should not matter at the moment, because the airplane is no courtroom. It should matter when it comes to the compensation claim. Those should be way higher for removing a passenger for commercial reasons and it must be up to the airline to proof that it was purely a safety concern. Imho the safety standard for all passengers would drop, if discussing crew orders becomes acceptable.

TVNWZ · Thu Apr 13, 2017 3:29 pm

D L X wrote:
Sounds like he got FAM'ed.

Ding. Ding. Ding. We have a winner.

frmrCapCadet · Thu Apr 13, 2017 3:30 pm

If an airline wants such rights as Skyhawk thinks it should have, then let that be the first bullet point on the contract, and in the email confirming purchase, and on the ticket the passenger prints out. Then I can avoid the airline. We both will be happy. LOL

Andy33 · Thu Apr 13, 2017 3:38 pm

frmrCapCadet wrote:
If an airline wants such rights as Skyhawk thinks it should have, then let that be the first bullet point on the contract, and in the email confirming purchase, and on the ticket the passenger prints out. Then I can avoid the airline. We both will be happy. LOL

And while it might or might not be a legal contract for domestic flights in the USA, it would not be legal in many of the countries United fly to internationally, in fact even attempting to impose such a contract would result in the airline being prosecuted. Strangely airlines based in these countries manage to survive and make profits.

seahawk · Thu Apr 13, 2017 3:47 pm

frmrCapCadet wrote:
If an airline wants such rights as Skyhawk thinks it should have, then let that be the first bullet point on the contract, and in the email confirming purchase, and on the ticket the passenger prints out. Then I can avoid the airline. We both will be happy. LOL

Every Airline has this right at the moment. The problem is that the compensation is not hefty enough to make such actions painful, if they are not due to real safety concerns. However I do not think that making crew orders open to debate is the right way to solve this problem.

https://ultratechlife.com/blog/before-y ... david-dao/

Flyer732 · Thu Apr 13, 2017 5:26 pm

frmrCapCadet wrote:
seahawk wrote:
In the end it must be clearly legal to remove passengers who have taken their seats. Sometimes you need to do it for crews you need to transfer, sometimes because the weather changes and you face a weight limitation, sometimes because a valued frequent flier is more important that a person who flies once every 10 years. And it must be clear that passenger have to follow the commands of the crew without questioning at the scene or face consequences.

Bull crap! Weather yes. Transfer a crew? That is the airlines problem, not the passengers. Passengers are buying a flight, not a sweep stake ticket. Now if an airline wants to kick a paying passenger off for any reason, then that needs to be sentence one, paragraph one of the flight contract.

ps - anyone with an IQ over 50 would avoid buying such a seat

Tell that to the passengers of the flight that gets cancelled because someone wouldn't give up a seat for a deadhead crew member. Then it becomes a passengers problem, but as long as you get where you're going that's all that matters right? Who cares about everyone else.

masseybrown · Thu Apr 13, 2017 5:27 pm

D L X wrote:
Am I the only one who thinks the "more important passenger" was a federal air Marshall?

I'd hate to find out it was Jeff Smisek.

The Financial Times today had an article claiming that this incident, coupled with federal immigration actions, has caused a large drop in Europe-US flight searches on European booking websites. That's not good news.

Rdh3e · Thu Apr 13, 2017 6:15 pm

D L X wrote:
Am I the only one who thinks the "more important passenger" was a federal air Marshall?

TVNWZ wrote:
Ding. Ding. Ding. We have a winner.

Agreed, which sucks for United because you can't tell a passenger that is the reason.

frmrCapCadet · Thu Apr 13, 2017 6:20 pm

Airlines, like telecommunications, cable service, car rentals, and taxi companies have a sense of entitlement. It was interesting that Bezos expressed worry today that Amazon is feeling comfortable. He doesn't like that, knowing and saying that this is step two in a company going down hill. One antidote to this, he continued, is to keep working at making customer experience yet better.

WesternDC6B · Thu Apr 13, 2017 6:44 pm

TVNWZ wrote:
D L X wrote:
Sounds like he got FAM'ed.

Ding. Ding. Ding. We have a winner.

Perhaps so. Now, for those of us not good with a-net-speak: what is FAMed? Thanks. (I really don't know; I'm not trolling...)

Indy · Thu Apr 13, 2017 7:00 pm

Lemieux wrote:
Ohhhhhh man. UA's social media team just needs to take a week off for what they're about to deal with/what they've already dealt with.

They need a serious vacation after this. I just hope they fly someone other than United. I swear the company appears to be run by thugs. I know I will never fly them. If my choice was staying at home or flying United... I would just stay at home. Sad. Worst job in the world? Cleaning the inside of a raw sewage transport truck... or... United Airlines social medial staffer?

jetwet1 · Thu Apr 13, 2017 7:06 pm

WesternDC6B wrote:
TVNWZ wrote:
D L X wrote:
Sounds like he got FAM'ed.

Ding. Ding. Ding. We have a winner.

Perhaps so. Now, for those of us not good with a-net-speak: what is FAMed? Thanks. (I really don't know; I'm not trolling...)

Federal Air Marshall.....The short version, they show up, say they need a seat, the airline has to provide them with one, in first class (I think) the airline has no choice in this matter, the Marshall will be flying, even if it means a fare paying passenger gets booted.

WesternDC6B · Thu Apr 13, 2017 7:12 pm

jetwet1 wrote:
Federal Air Marshall.....The short version, they show up, say they need a seat, the airline has to provide them with one, in first class (I think) the airline has no choice in this matter, the Marshall will be flying, even if it means a fare paying passenger gets booted.

Thank you! :-{)}}}

waly777 · Thu Apr 13, 2017 7:20 pm

Flyer732 wrote:
frmrCapCadet wrote:
seahawk wrote:
In the end it must be clearly legal to remove passengers who have taken their seats. Sometimes you need to do it for crews you need to transfer, sometimes because the weather changes and you face a weight limitation, sometimes because a valued frequent flier is more important that a person who flies once every 10 years. And it must be clear that passenger have to follow the commands of the crew without questioning at the scene or face consequences.

Bull crap! Weather yes. Transfer a crew? That is the airlines problem, not the passengers. Passengers are buying a flight, not a sweep stake ticket. Now if an airline wants to kick a paying passenger off for any reason, then that needs to be sentence one, paragraph one of the flight contract.

ps - anyone with an IQ over 50 would avoid buying such a seat

Tell that to the passengers of the flight that gets cancelled because someone wouldn't give up a seat for a deadhead crew member. Then it becomes a passengers problem, but as long as you get where you're going that's all that matters right? Who cares about everyone else.

This is not the passengers problem, the airline needs to find alternative means of getting crew across. They could block seats in advance, on the day of check in, blocks can be made which the check in agents cannot override, denied boarding should happen at the counter or the boarding gate.

If you need to offload pax after they are seated, other than for last minute mechanical, increased fuel uplift or a cabin crew getting sick as reasons, then this is poor planning and lack of co-ordination between the affected teams... thus the airline's fault. When you are at fault, you find ways to appease the passenger, not be a brute about it..customer focused airlines know this and ensure this is done politely with appropriate compensation.

I say this as someone who works closely with the pax re-accommodation and ticketing teams.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net