On 4/15/2017 at 7:12 PM, Boomer said:

Got nothing to do with discrimination.

I agree.

Since I'm the person who first brought up Rosa Parks, I should clarify. The reason I drew the analogy between Rosa Parks and Dr. Dao was to get at the question of whether you always, automatically, need to obey authority.  Both of these cases have to do with someone who refused to give up a seat when instructed.  In the case of Rosa Parks, the authorities were on much firmer ground than they were in Dr. Dao's case - the Montgomery bus was a municipal bus, and the driver and police were enforcing a municipal law.  So Mrs. Parks broke a law and disobeyed a law enforcement order. She did it because she thought the law was unjust.  The courts eventually agreed - they also decided the law was unconstitutional, and it was struck down.  

But that only happened because she and others disobeyed, and their cases went to the courts.  So that tells us that there are sometimes grounds for breaking a law, and the courts and the US Constitution provide mechanisms for challenging laws.  In other words, disobedience to authority is something society provides for, and it can lead to better conditions.

In Dr. Dao's case, as we've seen, the airline and the police didn't have legal authority - law enforcement commentary tells us that that was a business dispute.  In contrast to Mrs. Parks, Dr. Dao didn't break the law. So it could be argued that Dr. Dao was even more justified - legally, that is - in refusing to comply.  The moral scope of Mrs. Parks' disobedience was, of course, much greater.  But broadly speaking, both of them defied authority in ways that led to change.

Mrs. Parks was a more effective activist - she was a secretary in her local NAACP chapter and had a background in civil rights actions.  She also kept much more strictly to the bounds of nonviolent resistance.  Dr. Dao was at least emotionally violent.  He was more of an accidental activist, not a deliberate one.  

But the social benefit is still there.

Both are two very different circumstances but both were pretty much a boiling point for each of them. Rosa Parks will always be a hero to many, Dr Tao not so much. 

Sometimes people do act out on what they perceive as being a wrong, 1 in a million of those circumstances will make the news, and 1 in a billion will become of historical significance. Dr Tao is a 1 in a million, Rosa Parks is 1 in a billion.

And yes as Alan pointed out, Dr Tao didn't live with injustice daily like Rosa Parks did, this was just his reaction to that situation.

18 hours ago, RedSpinnaker said:

I see three outcomes of this debacle:

1 - CoC language modified regarding denied boarding. Likely a clause giving the airline more latitude in making the determination (since you can't conceivable cover/list every possible situation) who flies on a particular flight or not.

2 - Denied boarding will take place at the gate, even if a pax has a boarding pass. They'll call you up, tell you sorry, issue you a boarding pass for your next flight.

3 - If for some reason they do need to remove someone once already boarded, ask nicely, if they say "no", deplane all the passengers/crew, start over, see #2 above.

Lol, #3 will have the entire plane gunning for the relevant pax, not just Airport Security!

 

 

I could see #3 happening, bus companies already do this, if their is a dispute on the bus they eject the entire bus instead of singling out any individuals, they take the bus out of service and it is up to the passengers to find other buses. Airlines could adopt a similar policy.

Not saying I like it but I could see this happening as well

4 hours ago, ytzpilot said:

 

I could see #3 happening, bus companies already do this, if their is a dispute on the bus they eject the entire bus instead of singling out any individuals, they take the bus out of service and it is up to the passengers to find other buses. Airlines could adopt a similar policy.

Not saying I like it but I could see this happening as well

 

1) Sounds expensive for the airline

2) Absolutely horrible publicity, and instead of one passenger inconvenienced, you have planefuls of people

3) Probably less expensive in every way to pay some passenger an outrageous amount of money to de-plane

 

A lot of discussion now about what to do in case of a situation that was never supposed to arise in the first place.  People are assuming that an airline can just ask anybody to get off an airplane at will.  That is not the case.  We are allowed to only unseat people for cause, and those causes are limited to safety and compliance reasons, not for overbooking.  Overbooking issues are supposed to be resolved at the gate prior to boarding.  So as to prevent situations like this.  

What happened was because of people working for United/Republic not following procedure.  In a previous post, I said either scheduling forgot to list or the gate agent forgot to block the four seats for them, causing this mess.  But there is a third, which I was reluctant to say earlier, but that is they were not supposed to even be on that flight.  United announced some 'new' rules about booking and check in requirements for deadheaders ahead of a flight in this wake, but these are not new at all. There already exists rules that schedulers are supposed to follow that restrict them from placing ad hoc deadheaders into already full flights.  It may very well have been that these restrictions were ignored that day by somebody at Republic, precipitating this huge mess for their mainline partner.

25 minutes ago, KevinAu said:

A lot of discussion now about what to do in case of a situation that was never supposed to arise

Absolutely well said Kevin, and I believe very accurate.

The personnel at Regional Airlines in the states are supposed to have the same training as the main carrier, but we know this is not the case from the back office all the way through to the flight deck (though I don't mean to imply this affects safety).  They just don't have the finances and resources to train and operate as well as bigger companies. I believe Kevin's take of this is spot on, especially given the realistic nature of regional airline operations in the U.S.

Best wishes to everyone!

You couldn't make this one up.... I bet they wish they could rescind this choice lol:

http://www.prweek.com/article/1426909/united-airlines-ceo-oscar-munoz-named-prweek-us-communicator-year

 

3 hours ago, Chock said:

You couldn't make this one up.... I bet they wish they could rescind this choice lol:

http://www.prweek.com/article/1426909/united-airlines-ceo-oscar-munoz-named-prweek-us-communicator-year

 

They tried to skin it back...

http://www.prweek.com/article/1430341/united-airlines-needs-better
 

Quote

The incident has shed much light on our choice of the United CEO as Communicator of the Year at the PRWeek Awards last month. It’s fair to say that if PRWeek was choosing its Communicator of the Year now, we would not be awarding it to Oscar Munoz.

And again here...

http://www.prweek.com/article/1430636/pr-lessons-al-golin-united-flight-3411
 

Quote

 

As most of you probably know, PRWeek got caught up in the United situation because we had awarded CEO Oscar Munoz with our Communicator of the Year title at our annual gala in New York last month.

In Sports Illustrated cover jinx fashion, United had already blotted its copybook on the communications front since then with the #leggingsban incident, but it really doubled down with its botched initial response to the Flight 3411 incident.

A tone-deaf tweet from Munoz and an ill-advised internal note to staff that was distributed widely totally missed the mark communications-wise, containing phrases such as "re-accommodate" and another one that described Dao as "disruptive and belligerent."

The initial responses came late and seemed to bear the hallmarks of a legal department looking to cover itself rather than an empathetic response in line with United’s stated values of "making every flight a positive experience for our customers" and to "treat passengers fairly and consistently in the case of oversales."

Values have to go beyond platitudes on the written page and must be lived every day by every member of an organization, especially in a service industry such as an airline where the first line of communications is customers’ face-to-face interaction with United staffers.

 

The other trade publications were not kind...

http://adage.com/article/media/pr-week-tamps-united-airlines-related-pr-crisis/308628/

Quote

 

In more innocent times -- three weeks ago -- PRWeek had praised Mr. Munoz thusly:

Only two months and change after having undergone a heart transplant, Oscar Munoz returned full time in March 2016 to his role as CEO of United Airlines. Since then, he has continued the unlikely turnaround of United, a feat made more extraordinary given his health crisis just six weeks after he took on the airline's top job. An excellent leader who understands the value of PR, Munoz's ability to connect and share with employees his vision for the airline, and get them to rally behind it, are key reasons PRWeek's editors have named him 2017 Communicator of the Year.

The internet commentariat has not only been busily retweeting the above tweet, but suggesting that PRWeek retract the award -- or perhaps go back in time and avoid honoring Mr. Munoz in the first place.

"We're very talented, but we're not psychic," PRWeek Editor in Chief Steve Barrett told me. 

 

I have to say, my chosen profession is an embarrassment a lot of the time...

As a Crew member i find it pretty hard to read some of the stuff people write with no obvious knowledge of just how Airlines work. And just how aeroplanes work and why they work.

People saying United where not operating "In passenger Interests" by paxing crew around.

Now did anyone think "why" crew are required to be paxed around many times atlate notice?

Why would they pax crew in preference to 4 passengers?

How many hundreds of passengers where delayed/cancelled because Dr Dao cant follow a simple instruction. And in not following a simple instruction he proved to the crew he was not "safe" to be on an aeroplane.

You see aeroplanes are not democracies nor do they have the freedom of a democracy for a reason.

YOUR SAFETY.

Ladies and Gentleman this is your Captain speaking, unfortunately we have a small fire going caused by our number two engine. Because of new passenger rights thanks to Dr Dao we can no longer order an evacuation..we are going to conduct a vote to see if we should evacuate the aircraft or not. Those in favor of heading for the slides raise your hands...ok the nays have it.

Sounds pretty stupid hey...but hey evacuate evacuate evacuate is just another "instruction" just like "Sir please get off the aircraft".

So by proving he could not follow an instruction "place your bag in the overhead locker", "fasten your seatbelt", "get up from your seat stand in the isle" he proved he was not fit to fly from a "safety" viewpoint by failing to meet any of the pre flight requirements every passenger is subject to.

Being "fit" to fly is not just a physical thing. Even if the dead headers did not arrive I would of offloaded him as a clear risk to other passengers..ie "jump down the slide" his response "no im not leaving the aircraft". 

You see as crew they must make an assesment of your fitness to fly on every flight and little do you know but they are assesing every person prior to departure.

Irrespective of the reason open flagrant disobedience of an instruction is "Perfectly reasonable grounds" for an offload. Very few Captains would allow open flagrant disobedience to any crew instruction and if they do they are asking for trouble.

The fact that crew needed to be onloaded by itself should flag that UAL where acting in passenger interests. Maybe not the 4 being offloaded but do you think aircraft operate themselves?

Lets see hypothetical scenario.

Aircraft A suffers weather delays causing crew A to run out of duty hours..or maybe the crew are rerouted to cover other delays etc....or maybe a sick crewmember is offloaded meaning crew A is out of hours....Crew B get phone call head to the airport get on flight B to such and such a place to get aircraft A moving again. If it doesnt move the 180 pax get cancelled and the fact the aircraft A is grounded cancels another up to 3 maybe 4 sectors meant to be operated by Aircraft A later in the day so up to 750 people are heavily disrupted...not 4 by being offloaded and gaving accomodation etc paid for.

Now if you think offloading 4 pax off flight B to fit the crew on to cover flight A so 750 dont get cancelled/disrupted then you have never heard the wise words of Dr Spock... "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few".

Maybe Dr Dao should of watched Star Trek rather than thinking he was so important that he can disrupt up to 750 maybe even more other peoples day?

The video of Dr Dao daring the security guys to drag him off and failing to co-operate with staff is all the evidence I would need as a Captain to have him removed from the aircraft on safety related grounds.

 

 

 

 

 

Mr Howie,

Your authority, as you perceive it... is not quite in tune with the reality of the situation.

As for the need to shuttle employees... it would have cost far less to charter a business jet than the cost of the vouchers offered at $800 per passenger... and let's not even get started on the cost of the stock drop and the probable cost of the pending law suit.

 

Yeah, I don't think you quite get the whole picture... might want to rethink it a bit.  Just a smidge.  You only have that job as long as there are paying customers.

I think Ed if you take a look through the FAR's at the powers of the Pilot In Command you will see i have understated the powers...

The legal responsibility of being the pilot in command extends to far beyond just what you see in a flight simulator. In fact flying the aeroplane is only a small part of the job.

It also extends what is allowed for in the US Constitution.

An aeroplane is not a democracy...

In Australia here is "some" of the powers. This is just an excert...

CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 - REG 309

Powers of pilot in command

             (1)   The pilot in command of an aircraft, with such assistance as is necessary and reasonable, may: 

                     (a)  take such action, including the removal of a person from the aircraft or the placing of a person under restraint or in custody, by force, as the pilot considers reasonably necessary to ensure compliance with the Act or these Regulations in or in relation to the aircraft; and 

                     (b)  detain the passengers, crew and cargo for such period as the pilot considers reasonably necessary to ensure compliance with the Act or these Regulations in or in relation to the aircraft. 

             (2)   A person who, on an aircraft in flight, whether within or outside Australian territory, is found committing, or is reasonably suspected of having committed, or having attempted to commit, or of being about to commit, an offence against the Act or these Regulations may be arrested without warrant by a member of the crew of the aircraft in the same manner as a person who is found committing a felony may, at common law, be arrested by a constable and shall be dealt with in the same manner as a person so arrested by a constable.

 

 

Please note Pilot In Command powers are pretty much universal and mirrored from country to country per ICAO regulations.

PS not getting into a debate just telling you how it really workS in the real world where hundreds of aircraft break down, are delayed and run late. Statements like "United where not acting in the best interests off passengees" being accepted as reasonable are ridiculous.

Dr Dao flagrantly and belligerantly disobeyed a crew instruction. Regardless of his reasons he presented himself as a passenger unsafe to travel as he failed his basic test of being cooperative and able to follow instructions. Please note at that point its no longer an offlad based off the dead heading crew but "should" of been a safety related offload. 

Why do you think drunk passengers are banned?

Imagine a scenario where you now expect a crew member to risk there life in an evacuation to assist a non co-operative Dr Dao or maybe go back into a burning aircraft to save him.

Enjoy your debate but in the real world we dont have weeks to sort out what was right or wrong we just have to deal with what was the "safest" option.

On three occasions i have had to offload between 25-45 people after or during boarding due to late weather changes requiring large amounts of extra fuel.

Imagine if i was carrying Dr Dao...oh im not getting off you dont need fuel do you Captain...and thats exactly what everyone here is proposing.

Hence i imagine everyone will lose now with airlines being forced to cancel flights and go empty rather than randomly pick offloads if volunteers cannot be found.

For that thank Dr Dao.

 

 

1 hour ago, DEHowie said:

Hence i imagine everyone will lose now with airlines being forced to cancel flights and go empty rather than randomly pick offloads if volunteers cannot be found.

Yet more proof that no matter how thoroughly something is explained, and how absolutely heinous an incident is that the entire world cringes and collectively shakes its head in disbelief, and how obvious the priorities are... some folks simply don't get it.

Greg

Darren

Reg 309 needs to be read in the context of the Act and Regulations as a whole, rather than in isolation.

Even in isolation, it does not give the pilot in command a "blank cheque". The power is limited, including to what the pilot in command "considers reasonably necessary to ensure compliance with the Act or these Regulations".

The Australian lawyer in me can't help wondering what breach of the Civil Aviation Act and the Civil Aviation Regulations would have existed to trigger the exercise of the Reg 309 power if the Dr Dao incident had occurred in Australia.

Gary