Passenger Forcibly Removed From Overbooked UA Flight

[Moody]

Re: Pax forcibly removed from United overbooked flight

No. I agree with you totally when it comes to crew instructions... which is the term you refer to. Passengers must comply with crew instructions.

Agreed.

The issue is on the matter of purely commercial requests. They are completely distinct from crew instructions.

No - now you have lost me .....

Passengers are aware of the difference between an instruction related to the safety and security of the aircraft (you are ineligible to sit in an exit row, or you need to move for weight and balance, or you need to move because this emergency exit is inoperable), and a commercial request (we need to take your seat because it has been sold to another passenger, or we need your seat because we would like to get a crew to another station). And indeed law enforcement are as well (hence why they shouldn't have got involved in this latest incident).

The two in no way can be confused. If a passenger disobeys a crew instruction law enforcement can be called and the passenger removed.

No No No. The United crew followed the contract between their company and the pax. They were dealing with the most awkward overbooking situation - flight already boarded but 4 seats needed to be found for a replacement crew.

Option 1 - offer financial inducements. Result - no takers. Option 2 - select victims for de-boarding based on some pax-value algorithm.

There is no Option 3 apparently. If any of the 4 selected for de-planning were to refuse and get away with it, the whole process breaks down.

So 3 pax complied with the lawful instruction, 1 did not. The crew could not afford to back down. The rest is history .... or rather litigation.

What they should have done - told the Dr "Fine. You can fly .... but you will never fly United again." Then moved on to victim #5. Rinse and repeat .... perhaps with an increasing jackpot to the person who complies.

Simples.

 

[get me outta here]

Re: Pax forcibly removed from United overbooked flight

Very entertaining:

https://twitter.com/hashtag/NewUnitedAirlinesMottos

Some funny memes here. (Dont need twitface account)

 

[OATEK]

Re: Pax forcibly removed from United overbooked flight

Change aircraft. Don't issue a new boarding pass....

Whilst this is overall a pretty amazing event, I'm a little bemused by discussions about obeying the instructions. It would be an unlawful instruction if you were told to punch the passenger next door. In that case, you're being told to do something that itself is against the law. But, getting off the aircraft is not against the law, so what you're being told to do is not an unlawful instruction. Whether the gate agent had the right to issue the instruction is a different argument entirely.

It has always seemed to me that trust in the crew, both in the cabin and on the flight deck, is an essential part of flying. OT I know, but this is one of the factors that I consider in making a booking. But if we finish up with these crew members requiring someone to leave the plane after boarding in similar circumstances to Dr Dao, then I think that trust will erode. I can't see whether flight crew were actually involved in the incident, but agree with moody - the appropriate response is to up the compensation until a volunteer is found, and not arbitrarily choose one member of a couple travelling together to oust by force or otherwise.

 

[drron]

Re: Pax forcibly removed from United overbooked flight

So I just checked the price for tonight's AA 1840 flight ORD-$321 in first class.
For the flight in just under 4 hours time-$602 in F.
So if they had offered F on AA in 1 hours time for the same flight sector may they have just got their 4 volunteers?

 

[CaptJCool]

Re: Pax forcibly removed from United overbooked flight

They did as the passenger got back on after he was removed.
I would think anyone onboard would have a good chance at a modest financial settlement from UA as well as the millions they will pay out to the passenger removed.

As a point of note, when UA EX Hawaii to Australia had the side of the cabin vanish, even the PAX way down the back received $30,000. (Friend of a friend who was onboard that day... )

And the airline didn't fold then even though 8 or so lost their lives.

If you didnt see the mashable video video of the pre-drag discussion taken by a PAX in the row immediately behind it was pretty civil and the tone of voice was matter-of-face even if he did say well, youll have to drag me off then.

ANNOUNCMENTS which explain the situation to all passengers on board offering incentives to de-plane would have done the trick. But no those flight attendants can't think for themselves. There ain't no script for this.

Hi all, we are really sorry but at very late notice we need to ask 4 of you to deplane so we can accommodate 4 of our flight crew who need to get to Louisville to run a service later in the day. For the inconvenience we will offer you....lounge access and $$$ and an alternative on the next available flight regardless of airline. Plus plus
now, this flight won't be leaving until this rearrangement is completed so we would appreciate your patience until that occurs"


I LOVE social media for exposing these OTT It's fame game-on to 'drag' kicking and screaming companies who think it's about moving planes to deliver the customer service you reasonably expect to receive when paying to be moved.

Passengers are the life-blood of cash-flow not the stupid plane.

Rule 1. The customer is always right
Rule 2. When the customer isn't right refer to rule 1.

 

[Princess Fiona]

Re: Pax forcibly removed from United overbooked flight

Though at that stage he was concussed-the proposed statement of claim states that was one of the diagnoses at the hospital.As well when you look at him being dragged up the aisle he is unconscious.So he got back on the plane as a direct result of his significant head injury.

I must admit I didn't look too closely but the two videos I saw he had his eyes open being dragged up the aisle with some blood visible at the mouth.

 

[Quickstatus]

Re: Pax forcibly removed from United overbooked flight

Customer is not always right but they are not always wrong either.

Crew instructions are supposed to be followed and for many years airline passengers have stayed silent while airlines treated them poorly and with disrespect because on the plane cabin crew are the law. This one incident highlights how disconnected the airline industry really are from their customers. Eventually there will be a pushback. Dao did that

So many times in history, uprisings occur because the powers do not see the underlying resentment.

Respect and look after your customers and your customers will willingly respect your authority.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Re: Pax forcibly removed from United overbooked flight

Change aircraft. Don't issue a new boarding pass....

Whilst this is overall a pretty amazing event, I'm a little bemused by discussions about obeying the instructions. It would be an unlawful instruction if you were told to punch the passenger next door. In that case, you're being told to do something that itself is against the law. But, getting off the aircraft is not against the law, so what you're being told to do is not an unlawful instruction. Whether the gate agent had the right to issue the instruction is a different argument entirely.

The Qantas conditions of carriage (for example) define the situations in which Qantas can refuse carriage, and the conditions in which passengers must obey instructions. It is carefully worded covering safety or security - not 'any request'. That's what's meant by a 'lawful request' in the situation of air travel. Not that the request is legal (you can ask anyone just about anything), or that the request is 'not illegal'. It must be one that relates to safety or security:

[h=2]10. Refusal of Carriage and Denied Boarding[/h][h=3]10.1 Refusal of Carriage[/h]

Even if you have a Ticket and a confirmed reservation, we may refuse to carry you and your Baggage if any of the following circumstances have occurred or we reasonably believe will occur:

• if carrying you or your Baggage may put the safety of the aircraft or the safety or health of any person in the aircraft in danger or at risk
• if you have used threatening, abusive or insulting words towards our ground staff or a member of the crew of the aircraft or otherwise behaved in a threatening manner
• if carrying you or your Baggage may materially affect the comfort of any person in the aircraft
• if carrying you will break government laws, regulations, orders or an immigration direction from a country to which you are travelling or are to depart from
• because you have refused to allow a security check to be carried out on you or your Baggage
• because you do not appear to have all necessary documents
• if you fail to comply with any applicable law, rule, regulation or order or these Conditions of Carriage
• if you fail to complete the check-in process by the Check-In Deadline or fail to arrive at the boarding gate on time
• because you have not obeyed the instructions of our ground staff or a member of the crew of the aircraft relating to safety or security
• because you have not complied with our medical requirements
• because you require special assistance and you have not made prior arrangements with us for this
• if you are drunk or under the influence of alcohol or drugs
• if you are, or we reasonably believe you are, in unlawful possession of drugs
• if your mental or physical state is a danger or risk to you, the aircraft or any person in it
• if you have committed a criminal offence during the check-in or boarding processes or on board the aircraft
• if you have deliberately interfered with a member of our ground staff or the crew of the aircraft carrying out their duties
• if you have put the safety of either the aircraft or any person in it in danger
• if you have made a threat
• because you have committed misconduct on a previous flight and we have reason to believe that such conduct may be repeated
• because you cannot prove you are the person specified on the Ticket on which you wish to travel
• because you are trying to use a Flight Coupon out of sequence without our agreement
• if you destroy your travel documents during the flight
• if you have refused to allow us to photocopy your travel documents
• if you have refused to give your travel documents to a member of Our ground staff or the crew of the aircraft when we have asked you to do so
• if we reasonably believe you will ask the relevant government authorities for permission to enter a country through which you are Ticketed as a transit Passenger
• because your Ticket:
  - is not paid for
  - has been reported lost or stolen
  - has been transferred
  - has been acquired unlawfully
  - has been acquired from someone other than us or an Authorised Agent
  - contains an alteration which has not been made by us or an Authorised Agent
  - is spoiled, torn or damaged or has otherwise been tampered with, or
  - is counterfeit or otherwise invalid.

In any of the situations in this 10.1, we may remove you from a flight, even after you have boarded, without any liability on our part, and cancel any subsequent flights on the Ticket.

and

[h=2]11. Conduct During Flight[/h][h=3]11.1 Obey Directions[/h]

To maximise passenger comfort, safety and security, you must comply with the following requirements, and all other reasonable directions of any crew member on your flight with us, when on board:

• stow Cabin Baggage under the seat in front of you or in the overhead lockers
• take care when you open overhead lockers, since Cabin Baggage may move during flight
• keep your seatbelt fastened when seated
• remain seated with your seatbelt securely fastened during turbulence
• stay seated as directed, in particular while the aircraft is moving on the tarmac
• do not smoke
• if you drink alcohol, drink only in moderation and only alcohol served on your flight with us as part of our inflight bar service
• use infant and child restraints as directed
• do not behave in a manner to which other passengers may reasonably object, and
• if asked by a member of the crew acting reasonably, you must give your passport or other travel document to them for safe custody until the end of the flight.

We may also ask you not to operate any electronic devices including cellular telephones, laptop computers, recorders, radios, CD players, electronic games, laser products or transmitting devices, remote or radio controlled toys that could interfere with the flight. If you fail to comply with our requests, we may retain the device until the end of the flight. Hearing aids and heart pacemakers are permitted.

It's probably true that many cases the situation would escalate so that it moved from a case of following (or not) a request into interfering with crew duties. That itself becomes a crime. But in the case of Dr Tao, who remained calm, didn't threaten, didn't present a danger... there's no law that is being broken.

In that case, the airline doesn't have the right to boot the passenger just because the gate agent or crew feel like it, nor to call police to enforce a purely contractual issue.

 

[RooFlyer]

Re: Pax forcibly removed from United overbooked flight

The Qantas conditions of carriage (for example) define the situations in which Qantas can refuse carriage, and the conditions in which passengers must obey instructions. It is carefully worded covering safety or security - not 'any request'. That's what's meant by a 'lawful request' in the situation of air travel. Not that the request is legal (you can ask anyone just about anything), or that the request is 'not illegal'. It must be one that relates to safety or security:
<snip>.

I reckon the words in bold below would cover just about ANY situation of Qantas (in this case) wanting to de-board a passenger.

Even if you have a Ticket and a confirmed reservation, we may refuse to carry you and your Baggage if any of the following circumstances have occurred or we reasonably believe will occur:

A 'reasonable' belief is exclusive to the Qantas crew member at the time. If they say that they have that 'reasonable belief', then its game over. The 'contract' says nothing about having to demonstrate that 'reasonable belief' at the time - you are instructed to de-board. You may be able to seek redress later, but your cough is still off that plane, on pain of security enforcement.

 

[DC3]

Re: Pax forcibly removed from United overbooked flight

While choosing to leave the aircraft prior to the doors closing is not unlawful, staff unlawfully directing a passenger to leave needs to be properly addressed.

Seems like a lack of training for airline staff.

Edit: And if the airline needs the seats, keep offering more $$$$. Some passengers will jump on it when the price is right.

 

[anat0l]

Re: Pax forcibly removed from United overbooked flight

Rule 1. The customer is always right
Rule 2. When the customer isn't right refer to rule 1.

That's a dangerous pretext to have.

Customers, like all reasonable people, should be treated as reasonable human beings.

They are not always right. Give them a carte blanche that they can always claim to be right and you are opening up a minefield.

Imagine if this was enshrined as a law. Now a customer can do whatever they want and claim that it is their right as a customer to be always treated as right. Even if we exclude actions which are obviously compromises to safety or security, that's still a lot they can do which most people might agree is not reasonable nor fair.

Note that companies are not always right either. At least so far, they are still run by humans, too. That is the main reason why we put them onto notice, not because the "customer is always right".

Even the Japanese, who are amongst the most respectful to their customers, do not simply bow down absolutely to every customer request, because they also know that the customer is not right all the time. (It does help considerably that even customers, or at least members of society in Japan, have a sense of honour and personal integrity on average far exceeding that of western societies).

 

[oz_mark]

Re: Pax forcibly removed from United overbooked flight

While choosing to leave the aircraft prior to the doors closing is not unlawful, staff unlawfully directing a passenger to leave needs to be properly addressed.

t.

Having asked a few uS reaidents, it is not clear to me that what Umited did was unlawful.

Not that it should have got to whete id did...

The Australian sutuation is irrelevant.

 

[Skyring]

Re: Pax forcibly removed from United overbooked flight

I have no problems about complying with crew instructions. Even if I don't understand it (say, for purposes of load distribution), if it's for safety and security, then that's end of story.

But Dr Dao's case wasn't about that. This was about the airline making life easier for itself. Sure, they had a valid reason for wanting their crew in Louisville, but that shouldn't be on the shoulders, nose, and teeth of a random passenger.

Ultimately, it comes down to common sense and understanding, rare commodities when the chips are down and the clock is ticking.

I'm pessimistic about standards lifting. If anything, I expect to see more videos of poor behaviour going viral.

 

[Quickstatus]

Re: Pax forcibly removed from United overbooked flight

Apparently AA is no longer going to deplane a passenger in favour of another.

That they and other airlines have such a practice is repugnant to say the least

 

[DC3]

.... Ultimately, it comes down to common sense and understanding, rare commodities when the chips are down and the clock is ticking ....

Exactly .... and how difficult is that? But they choose Use of Force instead.

 

[Quickstatus]

It appears that UA did not offload Dao's luggage when he was evicted at ORD
It was flown to SDF then delivered by road to his medical practice when he was still in a Chicago hospital.

Perhaps his address on the ticket was the practice address. This just serves to fuel the outrage. UA just could not care less. It meant that he and his wife only had the clothes on their backs when he was evicted and admitted to hospital. Reprehensible!.
They had time to get his luggage when the entire plane was offloaded for "cleaning" purposes.

Why randomly select a passenger who is travelling with his wife and with checked luggage who is transiting in ORD from LAX?.
Surely such a passenger would be one to leave alone?.

.....

UA pilots union releases statement about incident:
https://consumermediallc.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/ualmec-statement-2017-04-13.pdf

I don't agree that the flight was not a proper United airlines flight. It was a UA ticket, the aircraft carries UA livery, the crew wear UA uniforms (even though republic was the underlying company)

 

[MEL_Traveller]

United has announced it is changing its crew booking policy... they must be booked no later than 60 minutes prior to departure. United changes crew booking policy after passenger dragged off plane | Reuters

 

[amaroo]

Re: Pax forcibly removed from United overbooked flight

<snip> I'm a little bemused by discussions <snip>

Bemused is correct.

No T&C in place for de-boarding a seated passenger.... for a frivolous reason
According to the chairman of the Chicago aviation committee, the officers may not have the legal authority to board the aircraft

Dr Dao is the Man! He is changing the aviation industry (for the better) and will no doubt make a truckload of $$$$$ out of it.

 

[kpc]

It appears that UA did not offload Dao's luggage when he was evicted at ORD
It was flown to SDF then delivered by road to his medical practice when he was still in a Chicago hospital.

Perhaps his address on the ticket was the practice address. This just serves to fuel the outrage. UA just could not care less. It meant that he and his wife only had the clothes on their backs when he was evicted and admitted to hospital. Reprehensible!.
They had time to get his luggage when the entire plane was offloaded for "cleaning" purposes.

Why randomly select a passenger who is travelling with his wife and with checked luggage who is transiting in ORD from LAX?.
Surely such a passenger would be one to leave alone?.

.....

UA pilots union releases statement about incident:
https://consumermediallc.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/ualmec-statement-2017-04-13.pdf

More evidence that UA just doesn't care. The UA pilots and their union should keep their mouths shut IMHO...their statement does not help the situation and probably inflames it even more!

 

[Quickstatus]

I am sympathetic toward the pilots- they had no involvement that I can discern. no pilot wants an injured passenger in their aircraft. They are caught up unnecessarily in a very messy saga.

Im sure pilots generally don't care who is seated behind them, so long as they strap in and don't cause any problems, off we go!