United Airlines - Passenger removal

[pride in battle]

First of all, this isn't a Pilot thing. It is normal practice in the airline industry. It is approved by the governments that issue the Airline Operating Certificate. All airlines overbook flights by a certain percent because passengers often don't show up and the seat would otherwise go empty while someone who wanted to fly and would have turned up doesn't get the chance.

The city match example doesn't compare because they would only overbook by administrative error not policy.

If you hate flying, don't fly. If you are unable to follow a simple instruction because of your fear you may well endanger other people in an emergency. Do you have that right? The crew have a responsibility for safety but it requires the cooperation of the passengers.

It looks like poor customer service if you ignore the fact that he was asked to deplane and chose to remain until he had to be forcibly removed. Someone earlier mentioned a compassionate case. Again not relevant. Comp passengers have a high priority so long as they make the airline aware. He was not a comp passenger he just didn't want to be the one to get off. Well neither did anyone else and in the end someone had to.

Again, I reiterate the case that from the airlines view, inconveniencing 4 passengers on this flight was a better option than not sending the dead head crew. They made that call based on all the facts not just speculation.

I'm not sticking up for the airline because I work in the industry, they are a competitor. I'm just giving an inside perspective. We have the similar rules but the Swiss way would not escalate so quickly. It would however delay things much more and risk cancelling the flight and inconveniencing everyone.

Now you just sound like a knob with a nice pilot suit...
Come Fly With Me???

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

First of all, this isn't a Pilot thing. It is normal practice in the airline industry. It is approved by the governments that issue the Airline Operating Certificate. All airlines overbook flights by a certain percent because passengers often don't show up and the seat would otherwise go empty while someone who wanted to fly and would have turned up doesn't get the chance.

The city match example doesn't compare because they would only overbook by administrative error not policy.

If you hate flying, don't fly. If you are unable to follow a simple instruction because of your fear you may well endanger other people in an emergency. Do you have that right? The crew have a responsibility for safety but it requires the cooperation of the passengers.

It looks like poor customer service if you ignore the fact that he was asked to deplane and chose to remain until he had to be forcibly removed. Someone earlier mentioned a compassionate case. Again not relevant. Comp passengers have a high priority so long as they make the airline aware. He was not a comp passenger he just didn't want to be the one to get off. Well neither did anyone else and in the end someone had to.

Again, I reiterate the case that from the airlines view, inconveniencing 4 passengers on this flight was a better option than not sending the dead head crew. They made that call based on all the facts not just speculation.

I'm not sticking up for the airline because I work in the industry, they are a competitor. I'm just giving an inside perspective. We have the similar rules but the Swiss way would not escalate so quickly. It would however delay things much more and risk cancelling the flight and inconveniencing everyone.

Sorry mate but by this reply you've shown exactly what the problem is and the same attitude Munoz originally showed.

The airline industry is so used to treating its customers like shit that it never occurred to them that anything was actually wrong in what they did. You clearly show that you're prepared to accept and justify it ("those are the rules") without putting yourself in the customer's shoes. And it also clearly shows that Rag Airlines management culture is completely out of synch with what a modern, customer-centric company's should be. A CEO who always thinks that it's someone else's fault, employees who just obey orders and don't think on their feet or think that they're ambassadors for their company and a company that puts its employees before its customers. They've shown themselves to be a shockingly badly run organisation and the CEO's head should roll for that alone.

They fucked up big time in the first instance by letting all the passengers board, when this should have been sorted out at check-in or, at the latest, at the departure gate. Having fucked up, they should have accepted things were what they were and made other arrangements for their relief crew that didn't inconvenience their paying passengers. It should be less than 5 hours to Louisville by road or they maybe should have flown them to Cincinnati, which is only 90 minutes away. Whatever, having boarded the passengers, that should have been it, regardless of whatever they may or may not be entitled to do.

 

[stonerblue]

Should've hid in the bog.

 

[Scottyboi]

Typical American pigs. Surprised they didn't shoot him in self defence. A 69 year old doctor being thrown around like that is a joke, airlines are bent bastards.

 

[Mad Eyed Screamer]

Any excuse for this one..

I line them up, you deliver ;)

 

[Mad Eyed Screamer]

Sorry mate but by this reply you've shown exactly what the problem is and the same attitude Munoz originally showed.

The airline industry is so used to treating its customers like shit that it never occurred to them that anything was actually wrong in what they did. You clearly show that you're prepared to accept and justify it ("those are the rules") without putting yourself in the customer's shoes. And it also clearly shows that Rag Airlines management culture is completely out of synch with what a modern, customer-centric company's should be. A CEO who always thinks that it's someone else's fault, employees who just obey orders and don't think on their feet or think that they're ambassadors for their company and a company that puts its employees before its customers. They've shown themselves to be a shockingly badly run organisation and the CEO's head should roll for that alone.

They fucked up big time in the first instance by letting all the passengers board, when this should have been sorted out at check-in or, at the latest, at the departure gate. Having fucked up, they should have accepted things were what they were and made other arrangements for their relief crew that didn't inconvenience their paying passengers. It should be less than 5 hours to Louisville by road or they maybe should have flown them to Cincinnati, which is only 90 minutes away. Whatever, having boarded the passengers, that should have been it, regardless of whatever they may or may not be entitled to do.

Post of the year.

 

[Mad Eyed Screamer]

Of course, had it been Virgin Airways, the extra passengers could have simply stood in the aisle like they do on Virgin Trains when they over book.....

 

[Mad Eyed Screamer]

Should've hid in the bog.

It was full of smokers....

 

[LWashington]

Should've hid in the bog.

Bad idea, for if you were to be discovered after take off.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

Sorry mate but by this reply you've shown exactly what the problem is and the same attitude Munoz originally showed.

The airline industry is so used to treating its customers like shit that it never occurred to them that anything was actually wrong in what they did. You clearly show that you're prepared to accept and justify it ("those are the rules") without putting yourself in the customer's shoes. And it also clearly shows that Rag Airlines management culture is completely out of synch with what a modern, customer-centric company's should be. A CEO who always thinks that it's someone else's fault, employees who just obey orders and don't think on their feet or think that they're ambassadors for their company and a company that puts its employees before its customers. They've shown themselves to be a shockingly badly run organisation and the CEO's head should roll for that alone.

They fucked up big time in the first instance by letting all the passengers board, when this should have been sorted out at check-in or, at the latest, at the departure gate. Having fucked up, they should have accepted things were what they were and made other arrangements for their relief crew that didn't inconvenience their paying passengers. It should be less than 5 hours to Louisville by road or they maybe should have flown them to Cincinnati, which is only 90 minutes away. Whatever, having boarded the passengers, that should have been it, regardless of whatever they may or may not be entitled to do.

Sounds wonderful. Full of bullshit, but plays well to the masses.

At the outset, in the interest of full disclosure, I work for United Airlines and have for over two decades.

That said, let me explain what did and did not happen....regardless of the preconceived notions and including the fact that I don't think ANY customer should have been dealt with that way.

- The flight was NOT a United Airlines mainline flight, it was one of those "feeder flights" contracted out to, in this case, a Regional Carrier called Republic Airways who provides this service to multiple carriers.
- The flight was booked full. No one was ORIGINALLY being denied boarding, so they started the boarding process.
- At some point during the boarding process Republic Airlines determined they needed to have four crew members on the flight to cover an early morning flight out of Louisville.
- Because this was the last flight to Louisville, Republic decided it needed to offload four passengers.
- As is standard in this type of event, $400, a hotel room, and a seat on the first flight in the morning was offered to four people.
* NOW, there are conflicting reports of whether the passenger agreed to deplane himself and his wife (he was not traveling alone) for $800, etc... and then, once this had been agreed, the passenger then declined. Conversely, there are reports that the agent said it was a lottery. I find this story to be unlikely, as there are procedures for this.
- Regardless, this passenger was selected (self selected or not) for what is called Involuntary Denied Boarding (IDB). This happens all the time, just usually not once the passenger is on the aircraft.
- The gate agent requested the passenger deplane four times and he refused.
- Because of the non-compliance, the gate agent called Airport Security to remove the passenger.
- Airport Security showed up, boarded, and told the passenger he needed to deplane. He refused. They asked multiple times. He continued to refuse.

TO THIS POINT EVERYTHING IS COMPLETELY NORMAL, BUT THIS IS WHERE THINGS WENT OFF THE RAILS...WHEN THE AIRPORT SECURITY PEOPLE TOOK MATTERS INTO THEIR OWN HANDS. NO ONE FROM UNITED AIRLINES OR REPUBLIC AIRLINES EVER TOUCHED THE MAN AND FROM THE VIDEO IT IS PRETTY CLEAR THAT ONLY ONE OF THOSE SECURITY OFFICERS WAS EXTREMELY AGGRESSIVE, NOTABLY THE ONE THAT WAS NOT IN UNIFORM AND POSSIBLY AN UNDERCOVER OFFICER WORKING THE SECURE SIDE OF THE AIRPORT.

- Thereafter, the FACTS of what happened, why and the legal responsibilities of all concerned gets lost in 10 seconds of cell phone video that crosses the world.

I'm not going to condone ANYONE'S behavior here, from the gate agent to the passenger to the security officers to the CEO. What I am going to do is make clear that there will be significantly more information coming out about this incident and the man concerned, who acted "weirdly," especially his comments and actions both during and after the event. To this point, he has engaged two lawyers and a media publicist, and has decided to stay in hospital to recover from his "extensive" injuries. He will probably have his 15 minutes of fame (and infamy when people learn who and what he really is) and probably walk away from this incident with seven figures, of which a few lawyers will also pull down some serious coin. It's the way of the world when these things happen.

For those of you who think ANYONE can stay on an aircraft when ordered to leave, you are so wrong it is funny. The carriage laws allow airlines wide discretion in IDB, as long as it is not discriminatory....so I expect that to be a focus of this man's defence of his actions going forward! Shocker, as evidenced by the reactions from Asia, and especially China.

And, United Airlines is not going to come out of wherever this goes smelling like a rose, nor should it. The escalation should have been dealt with significantly better, but when all is said and done, refusing to comply with an airport security officer is literally asking to be removed by force. Who would do that? Again, I'll be interested in the passenger...

Ok, fire away.