United Flight Forcibly Removes Passenger

[Edward64]

I used the word "cattle" in a prior post, apparently GRRM is PO'd and he also used the word "cattle".

George R.R. Martin Slams United Airlines: CEO 'A Disgrace'

Game of Thrones creator George R.R. Martin gave us the Red Wedding, beheadings, and hordes of killer ice zombies.

But even he can’t stomach United Airlines.

"I don't often comment on current events, but the story about the passenger that United Airlines beat bloody and dragged off a flight — for no reason but to accomodate some of their own deadheading employees, and despite the fact that he had a ticket that he'd bought and paid for and was doing nothing but sitting peacefully in his assigned seat — has me seeing red," the author wrote Tuesday on his LiveJournal blog.
:
After re-sharing the video, Martin said he was "outraged" by the footage and even more upset by the "mealy-mouthed corporate bullshit" the company and CEO put out. The fantasy author harkened back to days when passengers were treated as paying customers instead of cattle.

Luckily, United doesn't exist in Westeros, or it might have to defend itself in trial by combat.

[Young Drachma]

No, the media did not identify the wrong David Dao as United's passenger - LA Times

[dawgfan]

So his side claims that he suffered a broken nose, two lost teeth and a concussion during his removal.

The concussion - if true - could explain why he raced back on to the plane after he was dragged off.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

So his side claims that he suffered a broken nose, two lost teeth and a concussion during his removal.

The concussion - if true - could explain why he raced back on to the plane after he was dragged off.

I don't think we need an explanation why he tried to get back on the plane after being forcibly dragged off. I would like an explanation of HOW he got back on the plane after being forcibly dragged off.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

I don't think we need an explanation why he tried to get back on the plane after being forcibly dragged off. I would like an explanation of HOW he got back on the plane after being forcibly dragged off.

Some folks are using the fact he got back on as evidence that he was already acting crazy before he was removed. I'm just saying that - if he was concussed from the removal - his behavior afterwards is not necessarily indicative of his state of mind before.

[Logan]

Why United Was Legally Wrong to Deplane David Dao

[Thomkal]

as if it wasn't bad enough for United...

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/13/scorp...ource=Facebook

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Logan

Why United Was Legally Wrong to Deplane David Dao

Interesting, I hope he is correct and (re)confirmed in the lawsuit.

[PilotMan]

April 13, 2017

UAL MEC Statement Regarding United Express Flight 3411

As the story of United Express Flight 3411, operated by Republic Airline, continues to virally circulate in the news and on social media, your United Master Executive Council (MEC) has intentionally withheld judgment because of the rapid pace at which information, both accurate and inaccurate, has been released and manipulated.*

The safety and well-being of our passengers is*the highest priority*for United pilots, and this should not have escalated into a violent encounter. United pilots are infuriated by this event. This occurred on one of our contracted Express carriers, separately owned and operated by Republic Airline, and was ultimately caused by the grossly inappropriate response by the Chicago Department of Aviation.

It is important to review these baseline facts:

1.***** This violent incident should never have happened and was a result of gross excessive force by Chicago Department of Aviation personnel.

2.***** No United employees were involved in the physical altercation.

3.***** Social media ire should properly be directed at the Chicago Aviation Department.

4.***** This occurred on an Express flight operated by Republic Airline, as such, the flight crew and cabin crew of Flight 3411 are employees of Republic Airline, not United Airlines.

5.***** United Airlines CEO Oscar Munoz has apologized for United Airlines, the actions of the Chicago Department of Aviation, and the actions of our Express partner, Republic Airline.

On April 9, 2017, United Express Flight 3411, operated by Republic, was preparing to depart Chicago O’Hare (ORD) to Louisville (SDF). Republic Airline made the decision to assign four of their crewmembers to deadhead on Flight 3411 within minutes of the scheduled departure. Although four passengers would have to be removed from this flight to accommodate the Republic crew, the goal was to get the other 70 passengers on their way to SDF and ensure a flight crew needed the next day would also be in place. By all reports, the Republic flight crew was courteous and calm throughout the event, and three passengers left the flight voluntarily for compensation. After repeatedly asking the fourth passenger to give up his seat to no avail, the gate agent requested the assistance of law enforcement.

For reasons unknown to us, instead of trained Chicago Police Department officers being dispatched to the scene, Chicago Department of Aviation personnel responded. At this point, without direction and outside the control of United Airlines or the Republic crew, the Chicago Department of Aviation forcibly removed the passenger.*

Members of*local airport law enforcement are normally important security partners who assist aircrews in ensuring the safety of everyone on the airplane. This event was an anomaly and is not how United or the police are expected to treat passengers when there is no security threat.

United pilots have always been the true leaders of this company, and our fellow employees count on us to continue to do what we do best—deliver a world class product and safely transport our passengers around the world. We cannot let this huge distraction affect our ability to do our jobs. We have successfully flown through more turbulent times, and we will weather this storm as well.

Ultimately, United must be measured by more than this one incident on a single United Express flight; this airline is comprised of more than 82,000 employees, including over 12,500 pilots, working every day to safely fly around the globe. For 91 years, United has earned the trust of millions of passengers, and we will continue earning their trust, despite the incident on this United Express flight. The United Airlines MEC is confident that the steps we are taking as a company will ensure this type of inexcusable event never happens again.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Logan

Why United Was Legally Wrong to Deplane David Dao

That is one technicality. Years our precedence and standard procedure across all airlines say otherwise.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

That is one technicality. Years our precedence and standard procedure across all airlines say otherwise.

What technicality are you referring to?

[Logan]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

4.***** This occurred on an Express flight operated by Republic Airline, as such, the flight crew and cabin crew of Flight 3411 are employees of Republic Airline, not United Airlines.

From Statement #2 from Munoz:

"Our employees followed established procedures for dealing with situations like this. While I deeply regret this situation arose, I also emphatically stand behind all of you, and I want to commend you for continuing to go above and beyond to ensure we fly right."

Good enough for him, good enough for me.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Logan

What technicality are you referring to?

His entire argument rests on the definition of boarding.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Logan

From Statement #2 from Munoz:

"Our employees followed established procedures for dealing with situations like this. While I deeply regret this situation arose, I also emphatically stand behind all of you, and I want to commend you for continuing to go above and beyond to ensure we fly right."

Good enough for him, good enough for me.

From his point of view, as CEO and then being contracted under him they are. From the pilots perspective they are not. He has to take ownership, is his operation. However, they are not direct UAL employees.

[Coffee Warlord]

BTW, PilotMan. Thanks for posting in this thread at all. I'm sure you're already thoroughly sick of discussing this anywhere and everywhere.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

His entire argument rests on the definition of boarding.

And the rules that govern taking seats from paid customers deal with overbooking, which isn't what happened here (and part of his argument which you overlooked in calling that his "entire" argument). So?

[molson]

Even if it's a violation of the contract of carriage to pull him off the plane, that's still just a breach of contract and a civil matter. It doesn't necessarily mean that the passenger buys an actual property right on the plane with that license. If you have a contract with someone to be on your private property, you can kick them out. But you could owe them damages, or in this case, the cost of the ticket and any other damages associated with having to leave the plane, plus any other damages mandated by the government for a scenario like this (and I'm sure he would argue that it was a foreseeable damage to be injured by police officers, but that may be a stretch, since everyone else managed to get off the plane OK, and since this is a pretty rare occurrence). So I don't know that that's SO much of an issue here, in that, simply kicking him off the private property, in itself, shouldn't result in a ton of damages. Companies engage in efficient breaches all the time. Though maybe this is a context where the government should pass legislation imposing additional civil penalties when airlines do this to people.

[jeff061]

United's badge on the plane, purchase site, tickets, boarding pass, don't care who they contracted to serve their customers. I work for a company that provides consulting services. If I decide to utilize a contractor to perform work on my behalf and they fuck everything up, I can't say well it wasn't MY company's fault, blame the contractor!

Guess I don't know who "UAL MEC" is or the relevancy/importance of their statement or if they speak for United.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

BTW, PilotMan. Thanks for posting in this thread at all. I'm sure you're already thoroughly sick of discussing this anywhere and everywhere.

I'm still away until and on vacation till Sunday, but the number of misstatements, and wrong beliefs about the way things work is maddening. I think the union did a pretty good job in detailing things from the pilot perspective.

As someone who worked for a carrier, that was owned by Delta, when 5191 happened, Delta was quick in distancing themselves from us. In fact, Delta threw us under the bus a number of times, even though they owned us. The lawsuits in 5191 were against Comair, not Delta.

The fact that United took ownership and is paying the price for it solidifies my feeling about the company. The Spirit CEO has come out and thrown Republic under the bus, but United did not. They could have though.

The biggest frustration is that airport security is getting off free here. No United employee touched a passenger. United does not have authority over the police who showed up, and made the decision to use force. From my perspective, we'd have been bystanders in that situation, deferring authority to the local police. Especially once force was applied.

Even at the gate the gate agent is in charge of the plane and passengers. Our job is to get ready to fly. Until that door closes, that's it. Many flight attendants don't even keep us in the loop even when things aren't going right. If they have a problem, we call the gate to handle it.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Logan

And the rules that govern taking seats from paid customers deal with overbooking, which isn't what happened here (and part of his argument which you overlooked in calling that his "entire" argument). So?

But there are rules the determine the order in which people will be removed. It wasn't random, like had been reported. It's like I said other places, based on a multitude of factors from ff status and ticket type, to check in time among others.

The flight wasn't booked to above capacity, however Republic had the ability to book above. They had to put their passengers into the system, and that made the flight over booked. That was a business decision to keep at least, if not more, than 76 other passengers from being displaced. It would have been more because of how tightly utilized planes and crews are used. The domino effect happens quickly.

So it wasn't overbooked, in the sense that passengers know, but from an operational sense, because there were more passengers than seats it was. I don't know how the legal guys are going to argue that, but there's a lot of minutiae to wade though. It's not cut and dried.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by jeff061

United's badge on the plane, purchase site, tickets, boarding pass, don't care who they contracted to serve their customers. I work for a company that provides consulting services. If I decide to utilize a contractor to perform work on my behalf and they fuck everything up, I can't say well it wasn't MY company's fault, blame the contractor!

Guess I don't know who "UAL MEC" is or the relevancy/importance of their statement or if they speak for United.

Welcome to the business where the contractor is a company not just a business entity. Contractors take the blame all the time. Trump got elected doing just that.

The UAL MEC is the pilots union leadership, under ALPA. The larger pilots union. They speak for the pilots of the company.

[jeff061]

Placing the blame by killing the partnership, cutting pay or similar measures, sure Placing blame as a PR move? I don't see that ever working. These customers bought a ticket from United, not "Republic Airline". No one wants to hear how this wasn't 100% United's responsibility.

As for needing a response from the organization that speaks for the pilots, this seems to me something that can only do more harm than good if the wrong things are said. I don't see anyone blaming the pilots for this, no statement needed. This is shitty policies and lack of customer respect purposely put in place by executives, the CEO confirmed this with his internal memo.

I understand you are getting harassed for your take because of your position, however I see your opinion as a different perspective. I don't feel you or your peers need to defend yourselves or even offer any response at all.

[jeff061]

The biggest frustration is that airport security is getting off free here. No United employee touched a passenger. United does not have authority over the police who showed up, and made the decision to use force. From my perspective, we'd have been bystanders in that situation, deferring authority to the local police. Especially once force was applied.

This is simply because people are paid customers of United, not airport security. United made the decision to call them. I doubt anyone disagrees that security reacted horribly, however I don't think it's any mystery why United is getting hammered.

Their well deserved reputation and continual placement of being dead last(or near to it) on customer satisfaction surveys certainly doesn't help. There is a legion of unhappy customers thrilled to put the screws to them.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Some folks are using the fact he got back on as evidence that he was already acting crazy before he was removed. I'm just saying that - if he was concussed from the removal - his behavior afterwards is not necessarily indicative of his state of mind before.

Having had 4 or 5 concussions of varying degrees, I highly doubt that would be the reason for it. Yes, being concussed may make you act "off" or maybe be short tempered, but I never found it result in a complete change of personality.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by jeff061

No one wants to hear how this wasn't 100% United's responsibility.

This is shitty policies and lack of customer respect purposely put in place by executives, the CEO confirmed this with his internal memo.

I understand you are getting harassed for your take because of your position, however I see your opinion as a different perspective. I don't feel you or your peers need to defend yourselves or even offer any response at all.

That's all anyone wants to believe. They don't want to learn, they don't want to know, they only want to scream for blood.

This whole thing is so overblown right now. I mean, how many people even know that there was a school shooting where a teacher and a student died. There was a policeman who punched out a jaywalker. There are so many other newsworthy stories that are getting buried, because all anyone wants is the airline.

From an employee perspective the CEO came out and supported his employees. If he had turned and burned on them, things would be worse in the long run.

How many positive news stories about this airline get buried? How many thousands of people have been helped by employees bending over backward to make sure that someone made a flight they might have missed? Or employees who went above and beyond to make someone's trip memorable. How many times to employees visit hospitals, schools, take special care of vets. We operate charters for numerous baseball, football, college teams. We carry the Olympians, to and from.

Sit back and bitch about it all you want, but the fact is people want to be mad. They want to feed that irrational anger inside of them. They don't give two shits about anything other than to feed some strong desire to make someone pay because they feel like this guy was in the right.

The pilots union isn't throwing anyone under the bus either. Facts are facts. Ignoring facts to suit your vision of the situation isn't going to change that.

Every employee is now in the cross hairs. From verbal assaults on social media to verbal assaults in airports. That's not going to make things better.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by jeff061

This is simply because people are paid customers of United, not airport security. United made the decision to call them. I doubt anyone disagrees that security reacted horribly, however I don't think it's any mystery why United is getting hammered.

And just what would you have them do? I mean, for christs sake. Procedures exist for a reason. Do you know how many times I've had police meet an airplane at the gate because of passengers? How many times I've had passengers removed from a flight? It's not a whole lot, but it's enough. It happens. People get removed. We were #2 for takeoff once and the flight attendants called up and were like go back. Two people need taken off because they won't listen after multiple attempts. And back we went and poof, they were gone.

There is no freedom to act like a dick on a plane. None. If you can't follow guidance, you can't be trusted to help in an emergency, you can't be trusted to follow the rules in an emergency, you're putting everyone's life in jeopardy if that's the case. You shouldn't be, and can't be allowed on a plane. This isn't like anything else in our society. It's not a bus, or a cab. It's not an amusement park ride. My life depends on passengers listening. Your life depends on me. If you can't understand where your right to dictate the situation and mine are then you are free to drive, or fly on someone else.

This is a not a job where high risk is acceptable. It's become the safest mode of transportation in our world for a reason. It's taken decades to get to this point, and we aren't going to change that.

[molson]

It sucks that passengers are using this as an opportunity to be dicks to airline employees who had nothing to do with any of this.

[jeff061]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

And just what would you have them do?

As I think just about everyone has stated. Offer more money or risk this outcome. The guy wasn't being a dick until United serviced him. Why you are trying to equate this to a drunk guy causing a disturbance, I don't know.

Again, this is an issue at the executive level. According to Oscar, the situation was handle perfectly and according to company guidelines. So until United's shitty leadership team makes changes, I wouldn't expect the folks in the field to behave differently. It's not like this is the only United incident, they had this reputation long before all this went down. They have a company culture of "Fuck the customer" and that starts at the tip top.

[Edward64]

I complained to Delta about my experience couple weeks ago and Delta gave me a gift voucher. Yesterday, they gave me 20K miles (a couple other colleagues got it also).

I was clear to Delta that I did not blame it for the weather and cancellations but I expressed my displeasure at poor customer service - not getting call backs, when I did talk to someone poor knowledge on trying find me options, lack of communication at the gate etc.

[cuervo72]

Violence aside, bumping passengers for crew is just bad optics from a consumer standpoint. Far from "the customer is always right" or even that the customer is a priority, it's "convenience to our business operations trumps your customer experience." Or in physical form, our employees are more important travelers than you. And that's pretty shitty when you're paying for a service.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

They want to feed that irrational anger inside of them. They don't give two shits about anything other than to feed some strong desire to make someone pay because they feel like this guy was in the right.

...which is precisely why it's a bad PR move for the union to make a public statement like that right now. Say nothing. Let it pass. The public will be outraged at something new in a few days. Instead, various powers that be keep giving the people something new to feed that irrational anger.

[Edward64]

There are legitimate reasons why a customer should not be bumped even if he/she was picked at pseudo-random. Wedding, sick parent/child, a doctor having to operate etc.

I wonder what airline policy is to handle those situations? It seems there needed to be a bi-directional conversation, some empathy and flexibility, definitely offering more compensation/goodies to him/others etc.

I think everyone was short tempered because of the total systemwide fiasco the week before, the situation escalated and it didn't need to, there were still other options. Poor customer service, no/little empowerment, a difficult passenger, do the easy thing and call the cops.

I agree the whole story is not out yet. I look forward to seeing this play out in the courts. Regardless of that outcome, all airlines are reviewing this and we'll never (hopefully) see this again.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by molson

It sucks that passengers are using this as an opportunity to be dicks to airline employees who had nothing to do with any of this.

Agreed.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Violence aside, bumping passengers for crew is just bad optics from a consumer standpoint. Far from "the customer is always right" or even that the customer is a priority, it's "convenience to our business operations trumps your customer experience." Or in physical form, our employees are more important travelers than you. And that's pretty shitty when you're paying for a service.

If you look at it with a narrow view of just the four passengers that got involuntarily denied boarding, sure. But as I mentioned before in the thread, it is better to upset four passengers or is it better to upset a plane load (or more) of passengers on flights that would be cancelled if that crew didn't make it to Louisville? Sometime you have to pick from a list of shitty choices. There is a balance you have to take between the customer service and business ops. The business ops is what actually gets the planes from point A to point B. If you take the tact that only customer experience matters, then things can get bad quickly on the business ops side. The inventory for airlines, the seats on a plane, expire as soon as the cabin door closes and the plane takes off. They can't put them back on a shelf to be used later, or added on to another flight to make more room.

People are already stressed at the airport from security, etc. So when things happen that throw things out of whack, it gets amplified. If you look at the numbers posted earlier, United is one of the better airlines at avoiding bumps, both voluntary and involuntary.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I agree the whole story is not out yet. I look forward to seeing this play out in the courts. Regardless of that outcome, all airlines are reviewing this and we'll never (hopefully) see this again.

No chance it gets that far.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Logan

No chance it gets that far.

Yeah, probably not. There'll be some sort of post mortem though with lessons learn and how things will change ... that'll be good enough for me.

[molson]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Violence aside, bumping passengers for crew is just bad optics from a consumer standpoint. Far from "the customer is always right" or even that the customer is a priority, it's "convenience to our business operations trumps your customer experience." Or in physical form, our employees are more important travelers than you. And that's pretty shitty when you're paying for a service.

I can get why it's a necessarily evil sometimes, there's a lot of moving parts. But there's a much higher risk of confrontation, bad PR, and screwing over customers when these calls are made so late. I wonder how often that happens, when that call is made minutes before a flight leaves when passengers have already boarded.

Maybe that's one area for potential legislative form, that airlines have a cutoff period, like passengers do. There's much more likely to be a good solution for this inevitable problem when you start offering compensation well before boarding starts. People are more flexible then, and there would be more options to catch other flights or make whatever arrangements they need. Give the airline every incentive to get that crew, or another crew, to that next flight (which was the next day, and not that far away), any way they can without kicking a paying customer off of a flight.

[Logan]

PilotMan, two discussion items for you if you don't mind:

- Have you ever been in a similar situation where you needed to be transported to a destination to work another flight, and you ended up literally taking the seat of an already seated passenger because the flight was fully booked? How'd that go if so?

- I know flights can get cancelled if service time limits are exceeded. How does it work if an in-air delay (circling because gates aren't available, etc) causes you or your crew to go beyond the limit? Is there a penalty that the airline pays? Does it go to the affected personnel or into some kind of fund?

[molson]

Originally Posted by cartman

But as I mentioned before in the thread, it is better to upset four passengers or is it better to upset a plane load (or more) of passengers on flights that would be cancelled if that crew didn't make it to Louisville?

I've mentioned that here too, but the more I think about it, I'd much rather know my flight was cancelled or delayed hours in advance than be kicked off a plane last second. You just are going to have fewer options to get on with your life in the latter example. Now when it's 4 being screwed in that mater v. 70 being inconvenienced on the other flight, then maybe it still makes sense to kick of the 4, but that should really be a last resort.

And I was buying the narrative that this other flight would have been cancelled until I read that it was the next day. Could United not have paid for the crew to fly on another airline that night or the next day? Or was there a union thing that prevented that?

It's possible that there really was no option, and it's true that there's always going to be rare difficult situations. But if the airlines can end this practice, completely, I think it would be worth it for them, even it means more delayed flights. I'm always amazed at how good the airlines are at re-booking me when it's clear that I'm going to miss a connection or something hours in advance. With United, it usually happens automatically. A few times, they actually get me home faster than I would have if I hadn't missed a connection. But that ability to do that goes out the window when these decisions are make minutes before a flight leaves.

If involuntary bumps happen at least an hour before the flight boards, and they go to the passenger and tell that that they're getting a free dinner, nice hotel room, vouchers, and a personal apology and direct connection to customer service if they need anything else, there would be much less angst. There's nothing more stressful than seeing the ground staff scrambling to find volunteers minutes before boarding. If they can't have all that taken care of an hour or two before the flight, it might just be better to bite the bullet and cancel or delay future flights, and then they have the time to appropriately deal with THOSE passengers. From a passenger perspective, and this is probably an inaccurate perceptoin, but it just feels like the airlines don't really understand the life complications that come from being kicked off a flight like that. They could improve that perception by offering more money, treating these passengers better, etc.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

The flight wasn't booked to above capacity, however Republic had the ability to book above. They had to put their passengers into the system, and that made the flight over booked. That was a business decision to keep at least, if not more, than 76 other passengers from being displaced. It would have been more because of how tightly utilized planes and crews are used. The domino effect happens quickly.

But what circumstances would lead to those 4 needing to go only on that plane, only in the timeframe between when they opened the gate & took off?

If there truly is an unusual and rare reason why it had to be done (and wasn't a screw up by booking or those 4 crew members not notifying someone in time), that seems like a perfect time to take the unusual and rare step of offering more than $800.

Originally Posted by cartman

If you look at it with a narrow view of just the four passengers that got involuntarily denied boarding, sure. But as I mentioned before in the thread, it is better to upset four passengers or is it better to upset a plane load (or more) of passengers on flights that would be cancelled if that crew didn't make it to Louisville?

Like molson has re-iterated, flight was the next day 300 miles away. If there are Union reasons it was the only option, then maybe those need to be made more flexible, or the amount they offer passengers in those rare situations should be more flexible. But purely logistically it's clearly possible to get from Chicago to Louisville by the next day in a multitude of ways, whether that's connecting through other airports or airlines, or renting/having a car rented for you.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Having had 4 or 5 concussions of varying degrees, I highly doubt that would be the reason for it. Yes, being concussed may make you act "off" or maybe be short tempered, but I never found it result in a complete change of personality.

We'll just have to disagree on this then. Concussions can cause severe disorientation and amnesia, both of which could explain why he acted so rashly to get back on the plane from which he'd just been forcibly removed.

Does this absolutely explain his behavior? No, but it's certainly possible, enough so that anyone saying what he did after being removed from the plane (and possibly concussed) as evidence he deserved what happened needs to rethink that position.

[bhlloy]

Think Molson hits it on the head for me here. If there's physically no way for those 4 to get to Louisville and still put on that flight tomorrow, then I'm far more willing to be OK with passengers getting bumped in that situation. Sorry doctor, maximize happiness and all that (even though the United crew still could have handled it better and that security officer should never work in the field again)

If it was just to save some money for United so they didn't have to pay for more expensive transport, they still deserve all the bad press they are getting.

And the guy is still a self-centered dick who escalated the whole situation.

[molson]

Originally Posted by molson

If involuntary bumps happen at least an hour before the flight boards, and they go to the passenger and tell that that they're getting a free dinner, nice hotel room, vouchers, and a personal apology and direct connection to customer service if they need anything else, there would be much less angst. There's nothing more stressful than seeing the ground staff scrambling to find volunteers minutes before boarding. If they can't have all that taken care of an hour or two before the flight, it might just be better to bite the bullet and cancel or delay future flights, and then they have the time to appropriately deal with THOSE passengers.

United says it's going to make sure any crew that needs to fly is on the plane an hour before takeoff. Good move.

United changes crew booking policy after passenger dragged off plane

[Toddzilla]

This pretty much hits the nail on the head as to what incensed me the most..

hxxps://medium.com/@trailmikks/an-open-letter-response-to-the-pilots-wife-open-letter-b0c20896c64a

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by molson

United says it's going to make sure any crew that needs to fly is on the plane an hour before takeoff. Good move.

United changes crew booking policy after passenger dragged off plane

Incorrect. Crew is typically booked well in advance for flights in which we are flying on. This will prohibit last minute booking for crew that may need to relocate to a new plane or that may need to get to base, if the flight that they would be flying on is overbooked. If the flight isn't overbooked, my guess is that crew will still be able to be booked and fly as normal.

As long as the crew are booked and checked in at least 1 hr prior to the flight they will be fine. Crews will still board with higher priority than regular paying passengers, and will still create oversold situations when they need to travel, and passengers will still need to be bought off, but it will keep last second situations like the one we saw recently.

There are situations where for one reason or another the system will not let me check in early for a flight. Then, let's say I'm working and running behind, by the time I get to the plane and haven't checked in I wouldn't be allowed on the flight, assuming that the seat will have been given away. No idea what would happen there, but a lot of behind the scenes shifting and possibly cancellations. This isn't something to be worried about on a regular basis. The vast majority of crew movement won't be impacted by any of this. However, there will be instances, like bad weather, where crews are allowed to fly positive space to get into base to operate, and because of displacements, shifting schedules, and delayed flights, crews might have less to choose from, or not make it because of it.

Most of this is below bar of concern for Joe Public. But I figured I'd clarify your statement and it's impact.

[PilotMan]

This has been going around behind the scenes and I'll add it here. I'm neither confirming or denying it, nor am I making any implications about it. Simply that it exists and seems to have some legs.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

This pretty much hits the nail on the head as to what incensed me the most..

hxxps://medium.com/@trailmikks/an-open-letter-response-to-the-pilots-wife-open-letter-b0c20896c64a

I wish it had been the Chicago Police. Nobody has any idea why the Security officers who did show up did and not the Chicago PD. Again, that's out of the jurisdictions of the airline.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

But what circumstances would lead to those 4 needing to go only on that plane, only in the timeframe between when they opened the gate & took off?

Many. It was the last operation that the crew could get to SDF and get legal rest to be able to operate the flight in the morning and get that flight out on time. There were no other crews available to operate that morning flight. That could be the result of mechanical or weather delays earlier in the day, or an aircraft being taken out of service somewhere else. It's all dominoes. A butterfly flaps its wings one place and shit happens somewhere else. It never ends. Day after day, the balance between scheduling, maintenance and maintaining the integrity of the flight schedules is juggled. There are never days where things just work the way they are supposed to. Never. It's much to dynamic of a system.

If there truly is an unusual and rare reason why it had to be done (and wasn't a screw up by booking or those 4 crew members not notifying someone in time), that seems like a perfect time to take the unusual and rare step of offering more than $800.
Like molson has re-iterated, flight was the next day 300 miles away. If there are Union reasons it was the only option, then maybe those need to be made more flexible, or the amount they offer passengers in those rare situations should be more flexible. But purely logistically it's clearly possible to get from Chicago to Louisville by the next day in a multitude of ways, whether that's connecting through other airports or airlines, or renting/having a car rented for you.

FTR, a crew in a car is still on duty. That crew would need to have enough duty in their current day to get there, then have required rest to operate the next day schedule. The FAA and employee contracts dictate all of that. I would seriously question that as a reliable option in this case. The passengers who did not voluntarily give up their seats are still entitled to the mandated maximum set forth by government regulations, no matter what the last offer from United was.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Logan

PilotMan, two discussion items for you if you don't mind:

- Have you ever been in a similar situation where you needed to be transported to a destination to work another flight, and you ended up literally taking the seat of an already seated passenger because the flight was fully booked? How'd that go if so?

There have been many situations where I was booked as a passenger on an oversold flight. Yes, there have been situations where that meant that the company was suddenly oversold, but none where the passengers were already on the plane, that I can remember. It's a lot easier to deny boarding when you're not on the plane. The last handful of passengers on an oversold flight are typically not given seat assignments. The computer basically notes ahead of time who is the bottom of the pecking order and gives them seat request cards. The gate agent has to tell them that they may not get a seat because of whatever, but that they are looking for volunteers. If that passenger doesn't get on, then the rebooking and reaccomodation process begins. Most times there are non-revs that are removed, which is frustrating as hell if you're doing that, especially when you're already on the plane.

- I know flights can get cancelled if service time limits are exceeded. How does it work if an in-air delay (circling because gates aren't available, etc) causes you or your crew to go beyond the limit? Is there a penalty that the airline pays? Does it go to the affected personnel or into some kind of fund?

The rules are deep. There's a bit of wiggle room between what we are scheduled and what our maximums are. Weather that causes diversions doesn't count against us, unless we simply can't get back off the ground again, but if the company reassigns us from our normal schedules then the rules are more strict again. There are times where crews might be between the contract limit and the FAA limit and can exceed the contract to continue the operation. That's up to each individual and the situation.

It's pretty complicated too. International crews are different than domestic. Reserve different from line holders. Rules based on what time zone you started in, where you rested at, how long it was, time of day you're working. It goes on and on.

Penalties for breaking the FAR's (regs) are steep. It's completely up to the employee to be responsible for knowing that, but the company tries to give us that information to help. That doesn't happen at the regional level. Each person is responsible for knowing their limits. The FAA can levy steep fines (but may not) for exceeding them, not unlike the DOT and truckers.

If you've got a cancellation because of a crew, it only needs to be 1 crew member. Each person might be on a completely different schedule, so the integrity of the crew is only as good as when the first person drops dead, so to speak.

If that's late in the day, or a severely delayed flight, or at an out station, you're not going to find a replacement for them, and that's going to cause the cancellation.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by jeff061

As I think just about everyone has stated. Offer more money or risk this outcome. The guy wasn't being a dick until United serviced him. Why you are trying to equate this to a drunk guy causing a disturbance, I don't know.

Again, this is an issue at the executive level. According to Oscar, the situation was handle perfectly and according to company guidelines. So until United's shitty leadership team makes changes, I wouldn't expect the folks in the field to behave differently. It's not like this is the only United incident, they had this reputation long before all this went down. They have a company culture of "Fuck the customer" and that starts at the tip top.

Jeff Smisek? Yes

Oscar Munoz? No