Looks like the NY Post dug up an incident from back in 2013. After allegedly making a scene, the former Miss Venezuela, Carmen Maria Montiel, was zip-tied on a UA flight to BOG. She was later indicted on the charge of interference with a flight attendant. She was acquitted after the captain of the flight testified that he didn't authorize her being restrained/removed. She has filed a civil suit against UA that's pending:

http://nypost.com/2017/04/15/former-bea ... ight-suit/

Article quote:

"According to her account, Montiel asked flight attendant Samuel Oliver for a pillow, but he told her the airline no longer provided them. She complained to him about the service.
Montiel then propped up blankets and laid her head on her husband’s shoulder to sleep. But Lechin 'slapped' her, she alleges, and pushed a call button to summon Oliver, telling him Montiel was 'invading his space.'

The couple continued to argue, and Lechin again alerted the flight attendant that his wife was 'still bothering him,' according to the lawsuit.
Oliver then presented Montiel with a written incident report, telling her it was a 'warning' and she had to sign it. Montiel says she refused, but changed seats to move away from her husband — who had complained she was upsetting their daughter.

Modal TriggerWhen Oliver told Montiel to move to the coach section, she wouldn’t budge. Montiel says that Oliver, after huddling with her husband, recruited two heavyset men who handcuffed the 120-pound woman with plastic zip ties, grabbed her by the shoulders and carried her to the rear of the plane..."

Sounds like they did everyone a favor, but didn't go about it properly. Not sure this deserves a separate thread though. We've got at least four going now and it probably would be best to consolidate them to keep thing easier to follow.

This sounds more like a set up to a cheesy porno. Is the NYP getting it's newsroom copy mixed up with Penthouse again, cause that happens in their bullpen from time to time.

Blimpie wrote:

This sounds more like a set up to a cheesy porno. Is the NYP getting it's newsroom copy mixed up with Penthouse again, cause that happens in their bullpen from time to time.

Only if those doing the zip tying were wearing black leather ski masks, aprons and thigh boots at the time

GlenP wrote:

Blimpie wrote:

This sounds more like a set up to a cheesy porno. Is the NYP getting it's newsroom copy mixed up with Penthouse again, cause that happens in their bullpen from time to time.

Only if those doing the zip tying were wearing black leather ski masks, aprons and thigh boots at the time

You forgot about the horse crops

nitepilot79 wrote:

GlenP wrote:

Blimpie wrote:

This sounds more like a set up to a cheesy porno. Is the NYP getting it's newsroom copy mixed up with Penthouse again, cause that happens in their bullpen from time to time.

Only if those doing the zip tying were wearing black leather ski masks, aprons and thigh boots at the time

You forgot about the horse crops

Oooer, missus!

Just as long as she doesn't bite, anyway. Oooer

The main point here is how long it takes to get a civil complaint through the court system. Happened in 2013 and is unresolved in 2017. No wonder airlines are afraid that people stand on their rights, instead of backing down and sueing later.

Hey, remember when.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-TGDrtlFZHXw/U ... A.1973.jpg

Quoting readytotaxi:

Good, good, but it was jungle country back then

Before I get this thread deleted, I'd imagine that she is going to be granted a settlement after all the recent bad press UA has gotten.

People get drunk and/or belligerent on airplanes. Punishing them is fine. Sounds like she avoided conviction for her crime on a technicality.

Flighty wrote:

People get drunk and/or belligerent on airplanes. Punishing them is fine. Sounds like she avoided conviction for her crime on a technicality.

As long as a single aisle doesn't turn into two, it's all good. I make it a point to catch a medium buzz on every flight.

Sounds like she has a claim against her husband and the airline. They were having marital issues and he used the airline to intervene, who knows why. Maybe to have something in family court to use against her? Hitting your wife for leaning on you is a bit extreme, although it's possible that he told her to stop over and over and at that point she becomes the aggressor. It still doesn't justify dragging her to the back of the plane in ties.

Pax: Hello channel 6, I want to tell you about the horrible experience I had on JetBlue
Channel 6: OK, one of our reporters will get back to you within a week
Pax: Sorry,...I meant United
Channel 6: START TALKING !!!

ON TODAY'S EPISODE:
An impaired man who uses a small Segway for mobility. A United crew who won’t accept TSA’s judgment that the device
should be allowed on the plane. A honeymoon hampered-and a looming threat of arrest.


This on the front page of Yahoo news...as if it's as important as Syria/North Korea Clickbait tile for sure.


https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/unit ... 40076.html

Now if we can just look at it from a normal, run of the mill, mix-up....why do you suppose the gate agent refused the Segway after the UA's special needs desk OK;d it. What could/should the pax have done differently, if anything?




How does this even make the news?

"Trey, honey, see all this s**t going on at United...tell 'em what happened to you"

Seems pretty awful if true. If UA really OK'd the item and then changed tune at the gate that's quite bad. Again, not surprised.

enilria wrote:

Seems pretty awful if true. If UA really OK'd the item and then changed tune at the gate that's quite bad. Again, not surprised.

Yup. Sounds like the passenger did his due diligence and then UA turned around and screwed him.

Well, the good news is that those of us who want UA to rebrand will probably get our wish at this rate!

Well, this is the most important part

According to Harris’s telling,

You know the media isn't really interested in UA's side.

Wonder why a Segway wouldn't be allowed for cargo-check

It may have been a lithium-ion powered Segway. If true, obviously the ball was dropped in informing him he could bring it.

Need to hear more of the story.

since when is the TSA in the business of telling airlines whether or not something is safe for a passenger to have onboard. The TSA's job is security, not determining which electronics and batteries are safe in an airplane. There's really not a story here. Miscommunications and unfortunate mistakes happen at every airline. If the telephone agent mistakenly advised the passenger that his Segway was allowed on the airplane then it's an unfortunate mistake. Right now, for United, every customer service issue they have is being aired via social media and, in some cases, national news outlets - no matter how egregious it is or is not. This doesn't sound like a malicious attempt to make this persons journey more difficult. It is either a mistake made by a reservations agent or a customer service agent. In either case, the passenger will likely be compensated for their error by way of miles or money.

This is a non-story. The media fails to do its due diligence.

What type of battery does the miniPRO use?
The miniPRO features a UL-certified, safe, powerful lithium ion battery for sustainable power. The battery shouldn’t be removed from the unit and should never be stored or exposed to temperatures below 15°F or above 120°F.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/23/news/co ... airplanes/

DocLightning wrote:

enilria wrote:

Seems pretty awful if true. If UA really OK'd the item and then changed tune at the gate that's quite bad. Again, not surprised.

Yup. Sounds like the passenger did his due diligence and then UA turned around and screwed him.

Well, the good news is that those of us who want UA to rebrand will probably get our wish at this rate!

I'm picturing shopping carts full of rattle cans being whisked out of Houston-area Walmarts as we speak. lol

Don't most airlines not allow segways anyway?

ASFlyer wrote:

since when is the TSA in the business of telling airlines whether or not something is safe for a passenger to have onboard. The TSA's job is security, not determining which electronics and batteries are safe in an airplane.

TSA removes hazmat from checked baggage all day, every day.

OSUk1d wrote:

ASFlyer wrote:

since when is the TSA in the business of telling airlines whether or not something is safe for a passenger to have onboard. The TSA's job is security, not determining which electronics and batteries are safe in an airplane.

TSA removes hazmat from checked baggage all day, every day.

Maybe they do, but they do so with security in mind. They don't say what types of batteries and electronics present fire hazards inside an airplane, and whether they're allowed on based on that - the FAA does that. Just had a couple ladies serving themselves from their own mini liquor bottles on a flight two days ago. They said, "the TSA let us bring it on". Doesn't make it okay - the FAA says they can't do that.

flyguy84 wrote:

This is a non-story. The media fails to do its due diligence.

What type of battery does the miniPRO use?
The miniPRO features a UL-certified, safe, powerful lithium ion battery for sustainable power. The battery shouldn’t be removed from the unit and should never be stored or exposed to temperatures below 15°F or above 120°F.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/23/news/co ... airplanes/

A blunder by UA, but lithium batteries cannot be huge and put on an aircraft.

I was very much against UA dragging a passenger off a plane.
On this, I side with UA.

Lightsaber

DocLightning wrote:

Yup. Sounds like the passenger did his due diligence and then UA turned around and screwed him.

Well, the good news is that those of us who want UA to rebrand will probably get our wish at this rate!

Yes the passenger did do his do diligence by calling UA to make sure his Segway could go. The problem is not all segways have the same battery pack and either the United representative or the customer was not sure of which type of batter pack was installed on this particular segway. However FAA regulations are clear lithium-ion power segways are not allowed on any passenger aircraft and at UA all customer service and ramp service as well as their supervisors and managers are required every year to go through hazmat training. Gate agents and ramp personnel are trained to spot the visual difference between a lithium-ion powered segway and a non-lithium-ion powered segways.

What is known is the customer called United special needs desk what we do not know is where the mistake was made was the customer service agent who took his called confused or was the customer confused as to what type of battery was in his segway. From my own personal experience when I use to work at ORD I have seen this happen a few times where a customer shows up with a segway and they thought they had the non-lithium battery pack when in fact the opposite was true an in those cases United does not destroy the segway we held on to it and provided the customer with a manual wheel chair and returned the segway to the customer when they returned home. Personally I believe the customer when he said UA took the segway from him however I highly doubt UA called him and threaten to destroy his segway. That part of his story sound completely false.

lightsaber wrote:

On this, I side with UA.

It is quite a severe discrimination of people with disabilities, and clearly a violation of the Air Carriers Access Act.

"Battery-powered mobility aid means an assistive device that is used by individuals with mobility impairments such a wheelchair, a scooter, or a Segway when it is used as a mobility device by a person with a mobility-related disability."

https://www.united.com/web/en-US/conten ... -Rule.aspx

ASFlyer wrote:

OSUk1d wrote:

ASFlyer wrote:

since when is the TSA in the business of telling airlines whether or not something is safe for a passenger to have onboard. The TSA's job is security, not determining which electronics and batteries are safe in an airplane.

TSA removes hazmat from checked baggage all day, every day.

Maybe they do, but they do so with security in mind. They don't say what types of batteries and electronics present fire hazards inside an airplane, and whether they're allowed on based on that - the FAA does that. Just had a couple ladies serving themselves from their own mini liquor bottles on a flight two days ago. They said, "the TSA let us bring it on". Doesn't make it okay - the FAA says they can't do that.

The FAA is not there enforcing it.

OSUk1d wrote:

ASFlyer wrote:

OSUk1d wrote:

TSA removes hazmat from checked baggage all day, every day.

Maybe they do, but they do so with security in mind. They don't say what types of batteries and electronics present fire hazards inside an airplane, and whether they're allowed on based on that - the FAA does that. Just had a couple ladies serving themselves from their own mini liquor bottles on a flight two days ago. They said, "the TSA let us bring it on". Doesn't make it okay - the FAA says they can't do that.

The FAA is not there enforcing it.

"Harris provided proof that the Segway was UL-certified for fire safety" at the gate.

http://www.newnownext.com/how-united-ai ... n/04/2017/

727LOVER wrote:

Pax: Hello channel 6, I want to tell you about the horrible experience I had on JetBlue
Channel 6: OK, one of our reporters will get back to you within a week
Pax: Sorry,...I meant United
Channel 6: START TALKING !!!

Same rationale that goes into creating more parallel UA threads right now.

By law, airlines are required to offer transport of battery-powered mobility aids, which the DOT even specifically says can include Segways. As to their battery type, UA's own literature says that such devices can use li-ion batteries, and provides rules as to their acceptance. The problem, in this case, is that their Segway with a li-ion battery is probably over the 300 watt hour limit. Even the minipro is has 310 watt li-ion hour battery.

If I can learn this in 5 minutes of googling, then the customer could also have learned this. It is the responsibility of the customer to do their own due diligence, and in this case, the customer fell short.

Lithium ion battery: Lithium ion batteries are classified independently of other battery types. Lithium batteries may overheat and ignite in certain conditions and, once ignited, may be difficult to extinguish. Lithium batteries are considered a hazardous material for which the following restrictions apply:

There must be at least one effective means designed into the wheelchair or mobility aid in order to prevent accidental activation or possible short-circuiting
If you have a collapsible mobility device, the battery must be removed and cannot exceed 300 watt hours.
If you have a non-collapsible device, Federal Regulations allow for one large lithium ion battery to be transported installed in the device and up to two spare batteries to be transported in carry-on baggage. There is no watt hour limit for the battery installed in the device. If you have one spare battery, it must not exceed 300 watt hours. If you have two spare batteries, they must not exceed 160 watt hours each.

The battery policy: https://www.united.com/web/en-US/conten ... chair.aspx
The law: https://www.united.com/web/en-US/conten ... .aspx#sec2
Segway MiniPro: http://www.segway.com/products/consumer ... le/minipro

Aside from the NYP report, is there anything to substantiate this claim, cause I can see make up BS claims as a way to caSh out fast becoming a new trend in the AV world.

OSUk1d wrote:

ASFlyer wrote:

OSUk1d wrote:

TSA removes hazmat from checked baggage all day, every day.

Maybe they do, but they do so with security in mind. They don't say what types of batteries and electronics present fire hazards inside an airplane, and whether they're allowed on based on that - the FAA does that. Just had a couple ladies serving themselves from their own mini liquor bottles on a flight two days ago. They said, "the TSA let us bring it on". Doesn't make it okay - the FAA says they can't do that.

The FAA is not there enforcing it.

Nor is the TSA there to enforce FAA regulations.

Is this "yet another" issue, or just another day at the office for United and every other airline, just people are suddenly going to publicize every non-routine issue that United sees?

It is a non story, items over 100 Wh are normally not permitted in carry on or checked in. With prior approval of the airline up to 160 Wh is permitted.

This device was 310 Wh, exceeded maximum capacity. The TSA has no role in this to determine if they are safe.

Mobility aids are treated differently and are checked in, and packaged correctly for travel by air.

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/he ... teries.pdf

jetmatt777 wrote:

It may have been a lithium-ion powered Segway. If true, obviously the ball was dropped in informing him he could bring it.
Need to hear more of the story.

If this was the Segway "Mini", they are lithium-ion powered, and all US-based airlines have said that these items will not be allowed to fly. The gate agents were obviously aware of the rule. It is not clear whether the airline's acceptance of Segways was based on the full-size (US-based company's) original model, or the newer (but now Chinese-owned) Segway "Mini" model.

Whether or not someone handling disability issues has the authority to override this rule should be the question here, but - unless something was provided in writing from that office specifically allowing the "Mini" - the gate agent was simply following the rules.

jayunited wrote:

DocLightning wrote:

Yup. Sounds like the passenger did his due diligence and then UA turned around and screwed him.
Well, the good news is that those of us who want UA to rebrand will probably get our wish at this rate!

Yes the passenger did do his do diligence by calling UA to make sure his Segway could go. The problem is not all segways have the same battery pack and either the United representative or the customer was not sure of which type of batter pack was installed on this particular segway. However FAA regulations are clear lithium-ion power segways are not allowed on any passenger aircraft and at UA all customer service and ramp service as well as their supervisors and managers are required every year to go through hazmat training. Gate agents and ramp personnel are trained to spot the visual difference between a lithium-ion powered segway and a non-lithium-ion powered segways.
What is known is the customer called United special needs desk what we do not know is where the mistake was made was the customer service agent who took his called confused or was the customer confused as to what type of battery was in his segway. From my own personal experience when I use to work at ORD I have seen this happen a few times where a customer shows up with a segway and they thought they had the non-lithium battery pack when in fact the opposite was true an in those cases United does not destroy the segway we held on to it and provided the customer with a manual wheel chair and returned the segway to the customer when they returned home. Personally I believe the customer when he said UA took the segway from him however I highly doubt UA called him and threaten to destroy his segway. That part of his story sound completely false.

That sounds valid. I think - so far, at least - UA is in the right on this one.

Seems a married couple was denied seating. It will be interesting to see what becomes of this. The media and social media are hating hard and long on UA.

https://www.dallasnews.com/business/air ... et-married

TransGlobalGold wrote:

Seems a married couple was denied seating. It will be interesting to see what becomes of this. The media and social media are hating hard and long on UA.

https://www.dallasnews.com/business/air ... et-married

Seems like a non story based on the article. They tried to sit in Economy Plus (which they hadn't paid for), flight attendant said no, they did not comply and got kicked off. How is this news?

ROSWELL41 wrote:

TransGlobalGold wrote:

Seems a married couple was denied seating. It will be interesting to see what becomes of this. The media and social media are hating hard and long on UA.

https://www.dallasnews.com/business/air ... et-married

Seems like a non story based on the article. They tried to sit in Economy Plus (which they hadn't paid for), flight attendant said no, they did not comply and got kicked off. How is this news?

Conflicting statements in the story. They claim they moved to their assigned seats after being refused the upgrade (presumably before the cop was called).

There really isn't enough in the way of facts presented in the "news" article to make a judgment as to whether their ejection was justified. There are no statements to indicate that they were unruly.

I suspect there was an attitude problem involved, and don't know if it was a FA who had the problem.

This is not actually "cringe worthy", it appears the couple have culpability for not taking their seats and moving without the crew OK. If someone was n their seats then the appropriate thing to do is to let the crew do their job. Instead, from what I have read, they moved up several rows into the E+ seats and did not follow crew instructions to return to their seats.

This is a very different from the Dr. Dao situation as he was in his proper seat.

Tugg

Question. Do we actually read the article before claiming it "cringe worthy" or are we looking for as much attention on the topic as we can get by assigning a sensationalist title? These people were trying to get a product they didn't pay for. Can we stop bashing United now?

I'm suggesting to the mods that we have one "UA is Evil" thread and be done with it. If someone is going to post every single article or incident, it's going to get very old, very fast.

The only cringeworthy part of this is watching the guy try to justify his behavior during the interview.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

I'm suggesting to the mods that we have one "UA is Evil" thread and be done with it. If someone is going to post every single article or incident, it's going to get very old, very fast.

Hopefully the press get bored with all these stories soon. My guess is that they will.

As someone who pays to sit in E+, I have no sympathy for the shmucks who try to sit in empty E+ seats without paying.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

I'm suggesting to the mods that we have one "UA is Evil" thread and be done with it. If someone is going to post every single article or incident, it's going to get very old, very fast.

Agreed 100%, but that doesn't seem to be the prevailing sentiment. I think it's already old.

Getting quite a different story from United vs. the one this guy is telling.

By "asking for an upgrade" I'm sure it was "well nobody else is sitting here, why can't we?" ... the sense of entitlement is running amock.

lightsaber wrote:

A blunder by UA, but lithium batteries cannot be huge and put on an aircraft.

Lightsaber

Unless, of course, it's a 787 and they're powering the plane.

Lithium Ion batteries in Segways are not allowed in any of the pits of any UA aircraft. The NiMh battery powered Segways are allowed. You can tell the difference between the two by looking at the bottom of the device which shows what type of battery it is. Lithium-Ion batteries are easy to spot because the battery design looks like a big zipper. on the base of the battery, which distinguishes itself from the NiMh type.

This is described in our training.