MERGED United Passenger Kicked Off/NO FIGHTING

This forum is for discussions on the noteworthy events, people, places, and circumstances of both the past and the present (note: pop culture etc... is on the back porch).
Post Reply
User avatar
JustinR
Posts: 1852
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 2:53 am

Re: UA Passenger kicked off

Post by JustinR »

Greg wrote:I agree completely. That's what that power is *for*, descended from maritime traditions that existed for exactly the same reason. Thank you for being so concise.

NOW, tell me how throwing someone off a plane, for purely airline internal administrative reasons, directly in contradiction to previous airline policy and arguably in contradiction to the relevant contract, is related to the safety of the passengers and crew?
I have presented the link to the United Airlines Conditions of Carriage, the contract between the airline and the paying passenger. Again, I will ask you to show me where United has done anything other than what is clearly spelled out in the contract. I have no idea what "previous policy" you are referring to, but only the current CoC between the airline and the passenger is relevant, because contracts can and do change.

Passengers are taken off all the time for a variety of reasons. The fact that United had piss-poor planning doesn't make this case special. It certainly should influence potential customer's willingness to do business with United Airlines, but yes, they are in business to make money, and it was cost effective to remove revenue passengers to reposition a flight crew. As a business that owns the aircraft, and is providing a service, they DO have the right to tell you to get off their aircraft, just like any other business entity.
I'm glad you seem to have caught on. Because you know what is dangerous? Calling the bully boys to drag an innocent paying passenger off a plane - they had to make everyone deplane to clean up the bloodstains after - to resolve your personnel scheduling issue. As came up in the Eric Garner case, it's always worth remembering that *any* application of force, even just a little to secure compliance, can be fatal.

So airline guys, are you prepared to kill your customers because you have a scheduling problem?
He first presented that power as unqualified, by implication absolute. Which is absolute bullshit.
First of all Greg, don't put words in my mouth. I did no such thing. I don't know why you seem so bent out of shape at me personally about this.

Go back and read my first post in this topic. I think I made it VERY clear that I felt the use of force by the Chicago PD was excessive and unwarranted based on the limited facts as we know them right now.
So I presented a very simple ad absurdum demonstrating said power is clearly not absolute.

Recalibrate, be more specific.

He did, and shot himself. Because even he admits that the powers of the flight crew are for a specific purpose, which does not apply here.
You're mixing apples and oranges here. It wasn't the flight crew that chose to remove the passenger, it was the gate agent in charge of the boarding of the aircraft. That agent was undoubtedly acting on orders from the station operations office that made the decision to take a departure delay in order to get the deadheading crew onboard.

The problem here is that the passenger neither understood the CoC, nor complied with a lawful request from the business to vacate the aircraft, a situation that we would have been COMPENSATED for under the CoC. There's another word for that breach of contract, and it's called trespassing.

What happens when someone is on your private or commercial property, you decide they need to leave, and they refuse? You call the police and let them inform the individual they are required by law to leave. That is exactly what United Airlines did. After that, it was up to the CPD, whom I'm not even remotely going to defend because I think *THEY* were in the wrong here in their use of force.
It's a fancy bus and tricky to operate, but no it's perfectly accurate.
Ok then. Go get your private pilot certificate, instrument rating, commercial certificate, multi-engine rating, flight instructor rating with instrument and multi-engine privileges, Airline Transport Pilot certificate, and a type rating in a transport category aircraft, then we'll talk.
And I said it for a reason, to puncture the big head God complex that seems to take the form of 'you must obey my every command no matter what' that certain parties seem to suffer from.
Again, I don't know why you see the need to lump me in this group, but whatever.
"The armory was even better. Above the door was a sign: You dream, we build." -Mark Owen, No Easy Day

"My assault weapon won't be 'illegal,' it will be 'undocumented.'" -KL
User avatar
First Shirt
Posts: 4378
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 11:32 pm

Re: UA Passenger kicked off

Post by First Shirt »

Having spent a bit of time as a crew dog on some of Uncle Sam's Aerial Circus vehicles, I can say that while some of the pilots were absolutely amazing in their mastery of the skills and talents needed to keep an aluminum sensory-deprivation tube aloft, and under some really ridiculous circumstances, some of them should not have been allowed to RIDE the short bus, much less drive it. And since most of the civilian airline pilots got their start flying for Uncle Sam, I'm not going to speculate on their abilities and skills. But I absolutely will NOT fly anywhere, on any airline, if there is a reasonable alternative (like, can I drive it in 24 hours or less).

Of course, there was the [strike]stewardess[/strike] flight attendant that told me that I had to have my flip-flops on while flying, for safety reasons. Apparently, flip-flops are safer than bare feet in an emergency. She got really pissed when I laughed at her, but she couldn't do anything about it, because I put the silly things on.
But there ain't many troubles that a man caint fix, with seven hundred dollars and a thirty ought six."
Lindy Cooper Wisdom
User avatar
JustinR
Posts: 1852
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 2:53 am

Re: UA Passenger kicked off

Post by JustinR »

FelixEstrella wrote:Right. The moment the company decided that "their people" were more important than paying customers. And you wonder why people are pissed off.
No, I don't wonder at all. I see it every day I am at work. We are in the passenger service business, and the airlines do a HORRIBLE job of providing a positive and pleasant travel experience. I do everything in my power to rail against ridiculous corporate polices that piss off our paying passengers. But airline management doesn't listen to the minions in the trenches.
"The armory was even better. Above the door was a sign: You dream, we build." -Mark Owen, No Easy Day

"My assault weapon won't be 'illegal,' it will be 'undocumented.'" -KL
User avatar
Netpackrat
Posts: 13983
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2008 11:04 pm

Re: UA Passenger kicked off

Post by Netpackrat »

Here and elsewhere I keep seeing people bringing up the fine print on the back of the ticket, as though that means anything now. Courts regularly invalidate one sided contracts. Honestly at this point the rest of the industry needs to be leaning hard on United to get them to settle, before the case winds up in court.
Cognosce teipsum et disce pati

"People come and go in our lives, especially the online ones. Some leave a fond memory, and some a bad taste." -Aesop
rightisright
Posts: 4286
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 9:41 pm

Re: UA Passenger kicked off

Post by rightisright »

Computer programmers are nothing more than glorified typists.
User avatar
JustinR
Posts: 1852
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 2:53 am

Re: UA Passenger kicked off

Post by JustinR »

skb12172 wrote:The testimony from one of my colleagues...
A couple of years ago I vacationed in Utah. I was having some severe stomach problems and upon boarding the United Airlines flight I stowed away my carry-ons and proceeded to the rear of the plane towards the restroom. A United Airlines stewardess stood in front of the bathroom door refusing to let me in. I explained that I wasn't feeling well and really needed to use the restroom.

The stewardess insisted that I get off the plane and use the restroom in the airport Lobby. I protested but sat down quietly waiting for the plane to take off. About five minutes later the authorities came on board forcing me to get off the plane stating that I failed to follow the instructions of the stewardess. Of course I missed my flight. Ban United Airlines
Everyone from my colleague up to comedians Alec Baldwin and Bill Engvald have seen enough surly flight attendants on power trips, and had enough run ins with tham, that we just aren't buying it anymore.

The local conservative radio guy who is on the air for the two hours before Rush, tied the heavy handed airline and PD response to being just another consequence of the post 9/11 "zero tolerance" culture in our society.

As we have established many times on here, zero tolerance quickly gets you in trouble because it is also zero thinking and zero discretion.
I too have run into flight attendants on power trips, and have no intention of making excuses for them, because I think it's bull too. But for every one anecdotal story you can pull up about flight attendants that legitimately need to be put in their place, I can come up with five stories of passengers just from my own experience that never learned in kindergarten how to play nicely with others. A long history of passenger travel experience within the airlines shows that passengers that start to be uncooperative on the ground tend to be the ones that escalate in the air, to either verbal abuse of crew or other passengers, physical abuse, or even potential sabotage of aircraft fixtures or systems. If you can't follow simple (and 99% of the time) legitimate requests from crew members, it's usually not a good sign for them of things to come. I've flown with a lot of flight attendants in 11 years so far, and they put up with a lot of shit from rude passengers that is completely unwarranted. I've only had to call LEO's to my flight twice; once for a passenger that became verbally abusive to my flight attendant at the gate and was removed from the flight, and once for a passenger that acted very suspiciously in flight and was questioned by authorities when we arrived at our destination. There's always three sides to the story, the two sides and the truth.
For the record, Justin, you are moving masses of civilians via transport. It ain't Top Gun.

All the same, I also think you were coming across with a bit of a god complex.
You're right, it's not. But I am responsible for the safety and safe operation of a multi-million dollar aircraft, two other crew members, and 50 passengers that have entrusted me with their lives to get them where they are going safely. So when passengers start to become non-compliant, you're darn right that I become protective of my crew, aircraft, and other passengers, because they are my responsibility while onboard.
"The armory was even better. Above the door was a sign: You dream, we build." -Mark Owen, No Easy Day

"My assault weapon won't be 'illegal,' it will be 'undocumented.'" -KL
Greg
Posts: 8486
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 2:15 pm

United - discuss principles, no fighting?

Post by Greg »

Lock this if need be, but I'd like to take another stab at this. This incident has clearly struck a nerve, and I'd like to explore what that might be.

Some people have said things better than I, so I'll start with some links.

https://authoramiegibbons.wordpress.com ... ernet-mob/

https://accordingtohoyt.com/2017/04/14/the-first-stone/

Are too many commercial pilots former military? Is it a cultural issue? Because, whether it actually is or not, it seems that a majority of the public is viewing this whole issue as (yet another) example of abuse of power. Quasi governmental, official, power that flight crew have indirectly been handed, even more so after 9/11.
Maybe we're just jaded, but your villainy is not particularly impressive. -Ennesby

If you know what you're doing, you're not learning anything. -Unknown
Sanity is the process by which you continually adjust your beliefs so they are predictively sound. -esr
User avatar
scipioafricanus
Posts: 1298
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:08 pm

Re: United - discuss principles, no fighting?

Post by scipioafricanus »

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... eyre-wrong
Capitalism is unpopular for four reasons: banks, health-insurance companies, cable providers, and airlines. These all have something in common.
If there is a Stairway to Heaven, is there an Escalator to Hell?
If God wanted men to play soccer, he wouldn’t have given us arms. - Mike Ditka
User avatar
MiddleAgedKen
Posts: 2871
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 8:11 pm
Location: Flyover Country

Re: United - discuss principles, no fighting?

Post by MiddleAgedKen »

scipioafricanus wrote:http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... eyre-wrong
Capitalism is unpopular for four reasons: banks, health-insurance companies, cable providers, and airlines. These all have something in common.
I think it was Churchill who allegedly said, "The problem with capitalism is capitalists. The problem with socialism is socialism."
Shop at Traitor Joe's: Just 10% to the Big Guy gets you the whole store and everything in it!
User avatar
slowpoke
Posts: 1231
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 4:09 pm

Re: United - discuss principles, no fighting?

Post by slowpoke »

What I found interesting is a couple of things.
The airlines operate in Europe. European regulations define boarded as on the plane and its closed and going. There are no definitions in the FAA regs for boarded. So the airlines used to the euro defintions act like it is the definition here.
Links to the United carriage contract and saying "see they can do it," when a detailed reading with a touch of understanding of contract law says otherwise. The contract never defined boarding, so its going to be general usage. I think a lot of airline employees are in this mode where they've always thought it meant one thing, when it didnt.

The other is that all of the airlines have been operating like this even though it is against FAA regs.
Here is the best writeup from the legal perspective I have found.http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2017/04/ ... -fail.html

Things are going to end up changing systemically because of this. How is the question. I expect the airlines to sneakily push for regulations removing thier ability to oversell the flight. They have to have the regulation. They will realize that is a better change for them than the alternatives that are more travelor friendly, like requiring all bumps to be voluntary, where passangers start to push the costs higher. But I also wonder if a new law or regulation for improper/unlawful flight crew orders becoming a felony doesnt happen too.

I expect if I was the doctor I would offer to settle for 25% of thier stock. I would point out that I would be going through their flight records to show that they systematically violated 14 CFR 250.2a and as such should lose thier carrier status and ability to operate. It would be a conspiracy to violate passangers rights and the FAA regs to save money. But then if I need a lawyer Ive gone to vindictive watch it burn mode.
"Islam delenda est" Aesop
Post Reply