The irony of these arguments about the authority of the commander is that I suspect the PIC in question has been busy spending the last couple of weeks drawing up a whole list of reasons why this incident had absolutely nothing to do with them.

As a resolution of the scenario i out up what we did was.

Offload all the bags which gained us another 1500Kg then as per what Alan said did a second call to get an additional 5 passengers. We informed them all the bags wouid stay so we coukd maximize pax uplift so if anyone wanted to stay with there bags then departed.

As per normal weather was fine we landed 100Kg under max.

Anyway back to my original post.

In summary my view of what "should" of happened.

First UAL mesed up in allowing him on in the first place.

Once he was requested to deplane and he failed to comply the Captain had every right to offload him(this did not happen) on grounds that he displayed clear disobedience of crew instructions and belligerance towards crew and security. This is covered clearly in previous posts.

On reboarding he clearly yelled "kill me now" and again should of been offloaded as there is NO WAY im carrying any passenger ever who comes on an aircraft im Captain of with that mental state. He was clearly unfit to fly. Anyone thinking otherwise has clearly never had the safety of 20-400 peoples lives in there hands.

The job of being a Captain is far from easy and challenging on numerous levels most if which have nothing to do with flying. We are frequently placed in positions we would rather not be. Being proactive, positive and taking responsibility is something we do every day. Responsibility is a weight more and more people dodge, deflect and palm off to others. Just look at the SQ 777 report for an example of a crew failing to be any if the above.

The wellbeing of ALL passengers is our NUMBER 1 priority over and above our responsibility to some if not all company priorities. An individual disrupting hundreds of others and displaying all the things we dont want and cannot accept legally is the issue.

My responsibility is for ALL passengers including disruptive ones. If they cannot follow simple instructions, fail to listen and refuse instructions then carry him or her is being negligent in upholding my responsibility to him/her and all the other passengers. 

We are always thinking about the worst case ie an evacuation, can this passenger get off is requested, can they follow instructions ie block that exit all of that is what we are thinking about while passengers are thinking whats on the dinner menu.

Its nowhere near as simple as it appears and passengers best interest is always at heart...now best interest isnt getting a seat its "can they survive in the event of an emergency".

Thats the point who can give me a guarrantee with 100% certainty that the Dr could having clearly disobeyed every crew instruction and request all of a sudden be depended on to follow instructions in an emergency evacuation?

Ive made my position as clear as i can as a safety hazard he should not of flown and if I was Captain he would of been offloaded on those grounds nothing to do with boarding passes etc. Even if another volunteer was found his behavior failed every basic pre flight safety check crew use to ensure passenger safety both the person in question and the other passengers.

Enjoy your talk im off to do some simming..

 

 

 

 

 

Mr. Howie,

Your approach would have removed you from your job if you had been PIC of that aircraft.  Despite what you think, if you cost the airline millions of dollars... they're going to get rid of you.  Just imagine the wonderful performance review you'd get that year... 

 

Your authority isn't designed to deal with what happened at the beginning and once the company stepped outside their legal bounds, any further efforts on your part to enforce being outside those legal bounds would actually make things far worse.  Authority is never absolute and there is always a penalty for stepping across that invisible line.

Well, I guess the beauty of circular logic is its irrefutability.  If you smash somebody's face in and knock them silly, of course they're unfit to fly.

Mr Howie

I care not for scenarios which in this case try to distract from Dr Dao's rightful position, upholding some kind of arbitrary regulation unknown to the flying public. They have more to do with flight planning (your responsibility as Captain, btw) and matters of genuine safety which also come under Captains responsibility/Authority, however these examples genuine or not, have little to do with the circumstances aboard UA flight 3411 to an otherwise peaceful calm law abiding passenger under duress and intimidation, rationalising a commercially bad decision made by inept gate staff and undertrained security.

Surely every passenger aboard might come under the same intimidation practices, responding in the same manner as Dr Dao. In the Video footage he looked compliant or eventually was made compliant with an unreasonable demand (if that's what you require). Imagine getting the blond lady sitting forward of Dr Dao as he is being yanked aggressively, humiliated, dragged up the aisle, she; ((saying "O my god, Oh my god, what are you doing")) do you think she or anyone else might have been so compliant, non argumentative & as passive as Dr Dao, had they been the one singled out for such treatment (I wonder). Even the big guy in the orange t-shirt directly in front aisle seat, seemed to want nothing to do with what was happening in the row directly behind (camera phone out though) as though glad it wasn't him being so mistreated, (security may have had bigger issues getting him to comply in the tight cabin space).

A perfect example of just how bad things happen, when apparently good people stand/sit by and do nothing. Token gesture with a camera phone seems to have done the trick though, but only with regard to securing some new world type fascination with getting viral hits on youtube. Thank God the unseemly events on video were picked up for the right reasons where human rights prevail over absolute authority.

Airport Security were clumsy, aggressive and minimally trained, and it was their actions which endangered the safety of all passengers in nearby seats & heading for the exit. Who knows what might transpire under such circumstances if met with a different type of person. I am glad they did not have weapons or if they did, choose not to use them.  Rather than leave the situation to be mismanaged by gate/boarding staff, if the Captain assuming his authoritative role as Captain, had spoken to Dr Dao or any one of the boarded passengers for safety reasons or even intervened with 'Captains Authority' during the escalation, not forgetting PIC has the Authority to remove even the security guards if they are unreasonably threatening his aircraft or passengers under his charge. None of this might have transpired, infact the Captain might have sided with the plight of his passenger, and so ordered the deadheaders to find another alternative. 

Before making such a rash decision as Captain you should consider all lawful and circumstantial contingencies. Contact your flight OPS, confer with gate agent, recommend higher incentives, protect your passengers from unreasonable action, maybe look in the mirror, ask yourself if you or members of your own family were legitimately boarded, and waiting patiently for departure, could possibly be tossed violently from a flight under such inept commercial circumstances, or contrived safety arguments for the sake expediency,  or weather delay recalculations.

Enlisting the assistance of security who are inadequately trained in both legal implications and the true measures of their own authority. They too should join you in the lounge where you can discuss how close you came to overstepping your authority. Get yourself a good calculator to work out the many possible alternative contingencies rather than exercising arbitrary authority & potential violence to resolve your weather / fuel / pax / baggage / distance and weight dilemma, and yes even the bumping of fare paying PAX in favour of staff taxi services.

Your aircraft is not configured for the intended flight destination. There are a set number of seats / fuel / PAX and baggage, weight and balance are all contingencies you as the PIC and your FO would supposedly have calculated many times previously. Call flight ops, but do not under any circumstances dare to unlawfully manhandle / have manhandled any passenger for any other reason than the safety of the aircraft or its passengers. 

I would advise that you head back to the lounge, these calculations are well beyond your skill rating. Before you order your first drink. Drop by flight ops to surrender your wings. It is clear that you need another aircraft to complete the airlines contractual agreements, you may be demoted for your inability to make the calculations.

Or

Apply for a freight carrying job where these awkward passenger human rights do not need to be a factor in your decision making process. You can offload freight with extreme prejudice with all the authority you believe you have, in order to make your oh so important journey back to home base.  Freight does not have feelings and will not hold you to your contractual obligations, freight does not usually behave belligerently but can become unwieldy and on occasion unruly. Your unbending authority should have no trouble addressing the situation (on the ground).  
Oh if it weren't for these darned complicated human customers with all their need to be treated respectfully, your business ethics and reasoning would be perfect.

 

Under the circumstances Dr Dao found himself, having been asked if he would voluntarily remove himself from the aircraft, having said NO, (as it was a voluntary request only) (my guess is that the staff knew they were on shakey ground the moment they proposed their otherwise deadhead Pax solution, reaction's of NO would have been priceless, as they had already overstepped their authority, they pressed the ugliness which ensued). He was within his rights to remain calmly seated until such compensation enticements reached acceptable levels (so as to alter his flight arrangements), either for himself or another passenger, as this was purely a commercial non-safety issue, the violent manhandling of a passenger causing actual bodily injury, either by lack of training or pure aggression to have ones own way, is inexcusable.

When Dr Dao takes all of the key & bit players in this incident to court, (and it should go to court so that airlines, authorities, & corporations in general learn a valuable /harsh lesson, nothing should be concealed by nondisclosure / gag orders or settlement upon secrecy). When he is awarded damages, the amount should be multiplied, regulations reviewed and modified for common sense and flexibility.

Intimidation to the point of creating a situation that was not present, is never going to cut the mustard, you can't arbitrarily for reasons which aren't safety related, randomly select a Law abiding individual and subject them to such intimidation until you get the desired reaction, to make your justification a matter of authority absolute or otherwise.

Perhaps, dead head crew scheduled for other flights can be transported to their destination at low cost aboard an outbound freighter, they are after all being transported for the purposes of fulfilling a commercial obligation.

Your assertion that Dr Dao yelled "Kill me now" is absolutely false. Please review the video's.
Please also look up the meaning of the word "belligerence" it is very specific in terms of behavioural characteristics, I believe your assertion of belligerence is clearly wrong.

Here are some words associated with the meaning :belligerency noun 

affray, aggression, aggressiveness, altercation, animosity, antagonism, assault, attack, battling, bellicosity, belligerance, clashing, combat, combativeness, conflict, contentiousness, contestation, controversy, discord, disputation, dissension, disturbance, encounter, enmity, feud, fighting, fracas, hostility, impugnment, inimicality, malevolence, martiality, melee, militancy, opposition, oppugnancy, oppugnation, pugnacity, resort to arms, revengefulness, riot, rivalry, scuffle, siege, sparring, state of siege, state of war, strife, time of war, tumult, tussle, unpeacefulness, violence, warfare, warlikeness, wartime, wrangle.

These words do however describe the actions of Gate agent / staff and security perfectly!

How one could suggest the Good Doctor was at any time such a person displaying these characteristics. It was not until the situation was unlawfully escalated, that a brief resistance actually occurred. (The physical act of wrenching this passenger from his window seat into the aisle saw to that).

Any assertion that Dr Dao was in any way belligerent, mentally ill, or had yelled at any time during the ordeal or afterward, is further character assassination and potentially defamatory.

(except for the short scream during the act of violence upon him, which broke his nose, broke his teeth, dislodged his glasses and had him semi conscious while being dragged) resulting in his unsteady disoriented condition when re-entering the aircraft, I believe he only muttered the words "Must go home, Must go home" in broken English.

To quote (paraphrase) 'Top Gun' Carrier commander to Maverick & Goose after Mig encounter, flyby C/T - In which case 'flying rubber dog do do, in and out of Hong Kong' may be the only responsibility you should expect. Enjoy your simming it is far safer from a legal standpoint.

It is not only Dr Dao and his legal reps who are watching........ much of the civilised world is also watching.

Draconian thuggery is on trial and we expect a result.

I'm still confused by Darren's what if scenario. I know I digress. Arriving at a destination 8 tonnes overweight - did the plane not have 8 tonnes worth of fuel to jettison? Or... have I missed something?

It's really of no consequence in relation to what occurred, it's just an attempt to muddy the waters regarding the incident on United Flight 3411.

Flight 3411 was not overloaded, nor was it overbooked, nor was there any weather impacting the amount of fuel it could carry for any possible alternate diversions, nor was it an emergency situation of any kind, it was simply full and the gate staff cocked up in not holding some seats for their staff, prior to letting people board.

Given that, in light of this incident, some airline supervisors have now been authorised to offer up to $9,950 to a potential bumped passenger, if you times that by four, I'm pretty sure that would cover the cost of chartering a little plane to fly four crew members somewhere, potentially quite a big aeroplane actually if you are prepared to pay nearly 40 grand, hell, you could probably buy a Piper Cherokee for not very much more than that lol. Moreover, any decent PR person could probably also put a positive spin on such a decision with a quick press release and make United actually seem friendly and considerate, which would be easily worth 40 grand in goodwill to any large company.

That's what most people (including me) said on the first couple of pages of responses on this thread, because it is simple common sense, a commodity which was quite evidently in short supply on the day of this incident, since it is likely to cost United a shedload more than just shy of $40,000 to make the problems go away, and gagging orders notwithstanding should they settle out of court, unless United's CEO has a time machine, nobody is ever likely to forget what an insensitive, and frankly incompetent twit he's demonstrated himself to be in relation to this matter, and the fact that he's not resigned shows that he wouldn't know decency if had flashing lights and bells attached to it.

OK, time for another thought experiment.

It's been argued here that Dr. Dao's reaction establishes that he's dangerous - i.e. unwilling or unable to follow crew instructions.

But before he was given the instruction, he wasn't doing anything.  He was sitting in his seat, minding his own business.

Let's say that the gate agents had decided to "de-board" (Orwell would've loved that!) a different passenger.

So here's Dr. Dao, still on the flight as it takes off.

He's the same person.  He has the same capacities and limitations - including the fact that he's unwilling or unable to follow crew instructions.

But we don't know that - because we haven't put it to the test.

So we've just taken off with a dangerous passenger on board.  The safety of our flight is at risk.

That's where we come out if accept that Dr. Dao's refusal to leave the plane is inherently a safety risk.

What's the remedy?  I guess we need to add a new safety screen - give every passenger an unreasonable order, and see how each passenger reacts.  Then toss the ones that resist.

The above is another indication, I think, that Dr. Dao wasn't a safety risk.  There was no safety issue.  If you think there was, then you also have to accept that United created it.

Another thought experiment - passenger #1 has his bag in the aisle, and refuses to put it in the overhead.  That's a safety risk.  He has to comply with the order.

Passenger #2 has stowed his bag in the overhead.  He's totally compliant and minding his own business - until a flight attendant comes along, removes his bag from the overhead, places it in the aisle, and says to the passenger, "your bag is in the aisle - you've created a dangerous situation - I'm ordering you off the plane."  

Passenger #2 is Dr. Dao.  Not an exact analogy, but it illustrates the point that Dr. Dao finds himself in a situation created and instigated by the airline - not one that existed before the airline put its business policy into play.

BTW, as others have pointed out here, United doesn't content that Dr. Dao created a safety risk.  Here's an excerpt from Statement #4 issued by CEO Munoz:
 

Quote

First, we are committing that United will not ask law enforcement officers to remove passengers from our flights unless it is a matter of safety and security.  

Emphasis mine, once more.

The statement doesn't suggest, "we were right to call on law enforcement because it was a matter of safety and security."  It's equivalent to saying, "we won't do this again because it wasn't a matter of safety and security."

So... remedies.  Avoid United, obviously. But that's not easy to do.  I'm struggling with this myself at the moment.  In June, I've got to fly from Washington DC to Cleveland for a family event.  Most of the nonstops are United.  I think there's one on American, and that's the one I'll probably book.  But beyond that, everything's a connecting flight through someplace like Atlanta (Delta) or Boston (JetBlue).  The connection turns a one-hour flight into a five-hour flight.

The root problem - as one of the articles I linked to earlier points out - is that the long trend of deregulation, followed by consolidation, has created effective monopolies on a great many routes.  The airlines hold most of the cards.  This disadvantages passengers.  Interestingly, it also disadvantages crew, who are mostly in a terrible bargaining position.  Worth noting that airline professionals in this thread who defend the airlines are in a real way taking sides against their own economic interests.  The bigger story, for me, is not just the airline brutalizing its passengers - it's the airline also brutalizing its own people with low wages, punitive policies and terrible working conditions, in order to give full advantage to its shareholders.  

Maybe a touch of Stockholm Syndrome in the pro-United camp?
 

 

And the fallout continues...

The FT (among others) reports that Munoz will not become chair of United Continental in 2018 as previously planned.  The change is said to have been initiated by Munoz.  It's being taken as a direct reaction to the 3411 incident.  He might still become chair in future - but it won't be automatic.

Am not pasting anything from the article, per the FT's request, but you can find it (it's short) at the link.

 

13 hours ago, skelsey said:

The irony of these arguments about the authority of the commander is that I suspect the PIC in question has been busy spending the last couple of weeks drawing up a whole list of reasons why this incident had absolutely nothing to do with them.

If I were him, I'd be doing the same, though with the direct assistance from either the union or my personal attorney.

Still more, from The Wall Street Journal, posted tonight (paywall, so no link):
 

Quote

In a federal filing on Friday, United said its board is planning to adjust managerial incentive compensation to focus more on performance measures related to customer service....

United... said its management and board “take recent events extremely seriously” and are in the progress of changing its compensation structure so incentives in 2017 “are directly and meaningfully tied to progress in improving the customer experience and in the necessary cultural and process changes in support of this goal.”

 

And here we go again! One would think that every airline worldwide would be on a high state of alert to defuse all customer confrontations with extra helpings of customer care, especially with the atmosphere as it is, right now.

But maybe not.

We will be hearing more of this.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/american-hit-me-plane_us_58faea72e4b00fa7de14ac08?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009

 

And of course, there was also the passenger assaulting an AA pilot at mci.

http://nypost.com/2017/04/20/passenger-picks-fight-with-pilot-after-flight/

It's getting dicey out there.

I guess with Delta's wx meltdown and United's little incident, American was feeling a little left out...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4434620/American-Airlines-employee-challenges-passenger-FIGHT.html

 

The way it should be. The PIC took control of the American Airlines situation and resolved it!