United Airlines - Passenger removal

[ChicagoBlue]

Good job they didn't pick an African American as he probably would have 'fell' on some bullets that happened to be flying around

Yep, that's EXACTLY what would have happened!

Seriously???

 

[BLS]

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.

You say it isn't a pilot thing,but isn't the captain on an aircraft the lawful authority in situations like this,so therefore could have intervened if he had so chosen ?

 

[FantasyIreland]

Apart from the fact none of that was true, it was brilliant!

Thanks for your input CB.

As soon as i saw this incident,i suspected there was far more to it - i wouldnt be surprised to learn that this man knew exactly what he was doing and how the scenario would play out.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

For the right reasons I agree with this. Anyone would. For Airlines to use this to maximise profits is wrong and disgusting customer service and they deserve everything that's coming their way. and hiding behind feeder flights and agents won't wash. This is United Airlines' doing and they will be forever tarnished and rightly so.

MB, I'm sorry to say you misunderstand aviation, who did what to whom, and the lifespan of internet outrage. This is a black eye not blindness. This was not about "maximizing profits," but getting the most paying passengers from A to B as possible. I THINK that is what Aviation is about. No flight is an island. Pilots come from one place, aircraft from another, and FAs for another. Sometimes, the fact that they all come together at the same time in the same place to move one aircplane to another place, then all go their separate ways again and one hour later make it all happen again seems like a miracle, but it happens relatively seamlessly more often than not.

As for "hiding behind" anyone, who is doing that? The CEO has said sorry and willprobably be in front of the cameras all day tomorrow. Let me ask you a question. If someone sat in your office and you told them to leave, what's the SOP? At what point do you call the police? What if the guy STILL REFUSES TO LEAVE? What do you expect the police to do if you refuse to leave, when it is perfectly legal and NORMAL to expect him to comply? A cop overreacted at the end of a long series of events and UAL is going to pay for it. It is what it is and tomorrow there will be something else to outrage the dumbasses who troll the intent for their outrage.

It's good to get the perspective of Airline professionals. I always enjoy both your insights on flight related matters. The law regarding overbooking is wrong and needs changing. Most other businesses have legislation to protect the paying customer, I have learnt today that the airline industry have laws to screw the passenger to help maximise profits. I don't think it's unreasonable, as a customer, to pay for a flight and not have my seat routinely, however routinely that may or may not be, double booked.

Great. This wasnt that. Do you also advocate no changing of flights, no transferring tickets between flights, no standing by for a flight if you show up early? Do you believe all seats should be non-refundable? Did you know that the airlines yield management is some of the most sophisticated real time computing in existence? This is a trillion dollar business and it works pretty much the same way across the globe, but it very, very rarely ends this way or requires force. Let's not reinvent the wheel because one person got a flat tire!

 

[cucumberman]

Thanks for your input CB.

As soon as i saw this incident,i suspected there was far more to it - i wouldnt be surprised to learn that this man knew exactly what he was doing and how the scenario would play out.

That's a moot point isn't it? As soon as someone doesn't want to be IVDB no matter what the letters say to the T, why not exercise some managerial tact and instead of calling law officers, ask the person next in the list of algorithm if they would like to be compensated and see how they react. It takes as much time if not less than the whole scene that ensued.

Those in the industry may say well they won't budge either. Well, did anyone bother at least asking?

 

[ChicagoBlue]

You say it isn't a pilot thing,but isn't the captain on an aircraft the lawful authority in situations like this,so therefore could have intervened if he had so chosen ?

Believe it or not, not necessarily, NO! And, what makes you think the guy would have done what he said he would do (he had already agreed to the $800, a hotel and a new flight before he decided not to!) just because the Captain told him to leave? He wouldn't even listen to the police!

While the door is open, the gate agent is officially "in control" of the flight. In fact, pilots are encouraged NOT to get involved in ground disturbances. That said, I HAVE refused passengers from getting on or staying on the flight, although that is rarely necessary if you manage to talk to passenger one on one. Sadly, sometimes it is too late for the passenger by the time I intervene.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

That's a moot point isn't it? As soon as someone doesn't want to be IVDB no matter what the letters say to the T, why not exercise some managerial tact and instead of calling law officers, ask the person next in the list of algorithm if they would like to be compensated and see how they react. It takes as much time if not less than the whole scene that ensued.

Those in the industry may say well they won't budge either. Well, did anyone bother at least asking?

He had already AGREED to the $800!!!

It is clear you are one of those people who will not accept the facts and the law. Good for you. I'm out!

 

[SWP's back]

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.

Got bored reading that.

It was a cunts trick what they did and their shareholders are now $550m worse off. Which is excellent.

Not the passengers fault that the airline fucked up and needed to move staff.

 

[cucumberman]

He had already AGREED to the $800!!!

It is clear you are one of those people who will not accept the facts and the law. Good for you. I'm out!

Must this be agreed in writing? Or is a verbal agreement an official declaration that cannot be redacted? What are the terms on that?

I'm just interested. I'm not really verbose in this leadership or management lark.

regarding the bolded part. I read law but my field is in intellectual property law and aviation law is beyond me. However, contract law is part and parcel of most law specialisation so I dug up this opinion piece by a Law Professor http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/united-cites-wrong-rule-for-illegally-de-boarding-passenger/

Sounds reasonable to me. What do you think of it? Was the law applied correctly here?

 

[Bill]

I agree more may / will come out of this regarding the actions of both the passenger and the airline.
The bit I refuse to accept is where you say "refusing to comply with an airport security officer....."
In the name of "security" and especially at airports, never have so many people willingly given up their rights and bowed down and become subservient to jumped up security guards in uniforms.
We've all seen them.... power crazy plebs ordering us to take our shoes off and empty our pockets.... making us throw away our bottle of water and whatever liquid the partner has in her bag....
Of course they will always win because at the end of the day the plane won't take off until they get their way. But that doesn't mean to say their way is the right way.
As a punk at heart, I will always follow the four words in the song title by anarchists Dirt.
Object, refuse, reject, abuse.

It is all a big con..... to make us feel that we are safer flying yet in reality they are stripping our freedoms one by one.

Spot on.