Passenger dragged off overbooked United flight

[Alan_A 1,650]

7 minutes ago, KevinAu said:

The plane, flightcrew and four deadheaders were Republic, but the gate agents were United.  The security was Chicago Aviation Police.

Ah, good to know.  Thanks for clarifying.

[VeryBumpy 272]

33 minutes ago, ytzpilot said:

He really isn't a bad guy, he is just very bad at being a bad guy. 

 

Or maybe he's a genius.

After seeing overbooking procedures from his other flights, it's possible he has thought about this situation before hand, and should it arise, has planned this 'act of defiance' well ahead of time. You know, similar to Russian and Chinese people that are captured on car cams faking being hit by a car in the street.

United definitely has things to answer to but that is expected in big business. What I don't expect is disrespect for authority that is happening more and more.

Again, I would expect this resisting arrest from some young punk, not an elderly, intelligent gentleman. Or maybe as Ron suggests, gentlemen are a rarer thing nowadays.

[lownslo 592]

10 minutes ago, VeryBumpy said:

Or maybe he's a genius.

After seeing overbooking procedures from his other flights, it's possible he has thought about this situation before hand, and should it arise, has planned this 'act of defiance' well ahead of time. You know, similar to Russian and Chinese people that are captured on car cams faking being hit by a car in the street.

United definitely has things to answer to but that is expected in big business. What I don't expect is disrespect for authority that is happening more and more.

Again, I would expect this resisting arrest from some young punk, not an elderly, intelligent gentleman. Or maybe as Ron suggests, gentlemen are a rarer thing nowadays.

Much of this post is nonsensical and an afront to any customer (including you, it's just that you don't realize it yet).

But you are correct about one thing, gentlemen are a rarer thing nowadays.  United and it's employees/agents are proof of that.

Greg

[Matthew Kane 1,343]

I am imagining he just wanted to get home to his Family. I think for Easter Weekend I am going to be watching Planes, Trains and Automobiles again, because sometimes you just want to get home to your family 

[Alan_A 1,650]

1 hour ago, VeryBumpy said:

Or maybe he's a genius.

After seeing overbooking procedures from his other flights, it's possible he has thought about this situation before hand, and should it arise, has planned this 'act of defiance' well ahead of time. You know, similar to Russian and Chinese people that are captured on car cams faking being hit by a car in the street.

United definitely has things to answer to but that is expected in big business. What I don't expect is disrespect for authority that is happening more and more.

Again, I would expect this resisting arrest from some young punk, not an elderly, intelligent gentleman. Or maybe as Ron suggests, gentlemen are a rarer thing nowadays.

Sorry - too much here to process.  

Passenger who planned and watched and waited, biding his time, waiting for the moment he knew was coming, when he'd be chosen at random out of a horde of passengers.  And then he'd seize the moment and bring a poor, authority-disrepected airline to its knees!

Big business that injures people needlessly, but "that is expected." (Not expected in any big business I've ever been a part of).

Authority that must be respected by meek, compliant, gentlemanly civilians.

Not a world that I recognize... or particularly want to.

Puts me in mind of the White Star Line, which stopped Titanic employees' pay at 2:20 a.m. on April 15.  Why pay for a full voyage if employees didn't work the whole voyage?  And then they invoiced the deceased band members' families for the cost of lost uniforms, since the band members were contractors and they owed the company for uniform costs.  

Now that was a time when people dressed their best and prepared to go down like gentlemen!

[Matthew Kane 1,343]

17 minutes ago, Alan_A said:

Not a world that I recognize... or particularly want to.

I'm with you, I have three rules to live by in life

1. Never lose sleep over people, let them lose sleep instead

2. Never live underneath people. (ie apartments etc)

3. Never work for large corporations or governments or large organizations etc

Follow those three rules and you will be happy for the rest of your life

 

As for this guy on the plane, refer to rule number 1

[VeryBumpy 272]

Has anyone seen any news interview or report with several of the other passengers to get a full and true view of what happened?

 

>1. Never lose sleep over people, let them lose sleep instead

Isn't this very selfish and inhumane or am I not understanding it properly?

[Matthew Kane 1,343]

27 minutes ago, VeryBumpy said:

Has anyone seen any news interview or report with several of the other passengers to get a full and true view of what happened?

 

>1. Never lose sleep over people, let them lose sleep instead

Isn't this very selfish and inhumane or am I not understanding it properly?

It is called First World Problems. Plenty of people make problems out of nothing because they don't have enough problems or whatever. I choose not to get sucked into all that stuff. I won't lose sleep over people and their first world problems. Guy on the plane has his own problems, doesn't need me in New Zealand worrying about it. I can save that energy to be used in more positive ways to make a difference in other ways instead. 

Currently all my time and money has gone into starting a new small business. You get to employ others and we have a 'living wage' policy. You get to improve things for others that way, but I won't be seeing a pay check for a very looooong time. Makes me feel good though working with others and seeing them grow.

http://www.livingwage.org.nz/

[RedSpinnaker 35]

Regardless of how the situation got to the police being on the plane (and I believe that UAL was 100% in the wrong for a number of reasons in letting it get this far), and you are asked the leave the plane by law enforcement, you do not take an attitude, refuse law enforcement's request and tell them "Then you'll have to drag me off".

Onboard the aircraft with the LEOs is NOT the time to take a social justice anti-police state stance, you will lose 100% of the time. Should have deboarded then dealt with it at the gate (calling a lawyer if needed).

Again, UAL let this devolve to the point law enforcement was needed. That's on UAL/RAH for the public affairs mess and cleanup. But when it gets to officers asking you to leave, you get up and leave. While the good Doctor wasn't responsible for the events leading up to him being denied transport, he did cross a line by not following crew/law enforcement instructions to exit the aircraft. So, he's not 100% blameless in all this.

Personally, I would have refunded his entire ticket price in full, banned him from future travel on UAL, and pointed his lawyer to the Chicago Aviation Police for how he was treated in the video.

[KevinAu 441]

By intervening and ordering him off the aircraft, the police overstepped their authority.  A properly trained police officer would have recognized this as a 'civil matter' and politely stepped back from action, even if requested by the gate agent.  This was not a safety of flight matter, he was not threatening, verbally or physically, any other person, he was not intoxicated, he was only refusing to vacate a seat which he had bought from United.  Denying boarding is one thing, and the power for the airline to do that is fairly liberal, to include the wearing of leggings.  Removing a person who is already rightfully seated is an entirely different thing, which requires a higher threshold to be crossed.  Mainly for reasons of safety, criminal activity, intoxication, etc., not for merely giving the seat to someone else for whatever reason.

Yes, those of us who are smarter would have complied with the officer's order, lawful or not, and sort it out later.  However, keep in mind that customers come from all walks, from all sorts of backgrounds, life experiences, customs, and intelligence since the airlines sell tickets to anybody without question.  Applying yoir own expectations of how one should behave onto a customer is therefore foolish.  While the gate agent and the officers were *professionals* within their professional environment.  One should expect that they would have been capable of falling back on the training they should have received, the rules that they should have known, and exercise some judgement and common sense to resolve the situation that would not have resulted in such a magnificently bad outcome for the company.

[RedSpinnaker 35]

8 minutes ago, KevinAu said:

By intervening and ordering him off the aircraft, the police overstepped their authority.  A properly trained police officer would have recognized this as a 'civil matter' and politely stepped back from action, even if requested by the gate agent.  This was not a safety of flight matter, he was not threatening, verbally or physically, any other person, he was not intoxicated, he was only refusing to vacate a seat which he had bought from United.  Denying boarding is one thing, and the power for the airline to do that is fairly liberal, to include the wearing of leggings.  Removing a person who is already rightfully seated is an entirely different thing, which requires a higher threshold to be crossed.  Mainly for reasons of safety, criminal activity, intoxication, etc., not for merely giving the seat to someone else for whatever reason.

I don't think it's that easy. Call likely was a pax who was refusing to deboard the airplane at the crew's request (again, the failure of getting to this point aside). Is it law enforcement's responsibility to parse carriage contracts on scene? They were faced with a request to remove a non-compliant passenger from the airplane (and yes, they could have done this a number of better ways).

What about a situation that during/after the boarding process and final load is calculated, the aircraft is overweight? Too much baggage, or additional fuel needs to be onloaded for wx, and the only options are deplane some pax, or cx the flight? If a pax is selected (however so) and they refuse, what's the recourse? If law enforcement is called, do you expect them to determine that this is a safety of flight issue, and not a "civil" issue?

The fact of the matter is that in the US, in our post 9/11 society, once law enforcement is called for a non-compliant passenger, all bets for a reasonable resolution to the pax immediate satisfaction (or even what is "right") are out the window. It is most definitely not a perfect world, but it's what we have. Onboard the aircraft is not the location to make a stance to change it.

Again, UAL (and in some part the RAH crew) should have been able to handle this without calling the LEOs. If they weren't empowered to think outside the box and solve issues without immediately calling 911... then that's another management failure.

[Silicus 881]

The problem with airport personal and gate agent is often that they see you - the traveler - as a nuisances, rather than someone who gives them a job.  There are exceptions of course. I have met some very nice once.

But some shouldn't really work with paying passengers and I am sure, this type of gate agent called security, too dim, sour and bitter to find a better solution.

[Alan_A 1,650]

1 hour ago, RedSpinnaker said:

Personally, I would have refunded his entire ticket price in full, banned him from future travel on UAL, and pointed his lawyer to the Chicago Aviation Police for how he was treated in the video.

I understand the point you're making, but if we were both in the room with United and trying to give them advice, I would have disagreed with you.  Here's why.  The outside world isn't going to see distinctions between United and Chicago Aviation Police, they're going to see the whole thing as United's problem.  And the outside world isn't wrong - Chicago Aviation Police is there because United asked them to be there.  And while the passenger's reaction isn't ideal, the bigger point is that he's basically minding his own business until United comes along to roust him out of his seat.  So the stress starts with United.  If you refund him and then ban him, it's going to look like you're passing the buck for a situation you created.  You lose the public relations battle right there.  Better to take full blame, compensate him heavily and fall on your sword.

Another point - lots of people are calling this a public relations problem.  It's not.  It's a business/management problem.

I'm repeating myself, but since we keep coming back to this notion that the passenger should have had a better, calmer reaction - sure, his reaction makes things worse.  But it's a reaction - he didn't start it, the company did something to set him off.  Air travel is extremely stressful - especially for somebody at the end of the day who's exhausted and thinking only of getting home.  I've been in that state myself and I'm usually not at my best under those circumstances.  I'm not sure that I would have been dragged from my seat - but I would have been angry and vocal as all get-out, and it would have been a hell of a scene.  Again, it's no test at all for the airline (or the hotel, or whatever) to handle people who are calm and relaxed.  The test is when they're angry and agitated.  The last thing you want to do in those circumstances is escalate a confrontation.  But that's what they did.  Big picture, again - the airline had lots of options at its disposal for how to handle the situation. They chose an escalation path.  It's on them.  The passenger had far fewer choices - he had a bad situation handed to him.  He could have done better.  But if the airline had done better, the situation never would have happened in the first place.  

[Alan_A 1,650]

3 hours ago, VeryBumpy said:

Has anyone seen any news interview or report with several of the other passengers to get a full and true view of what happened?

Well, the starting point was a couple of extended videos taken by passengers, and posted to social media by passengers.  Long-running with lots of commentary.  So I think the answer is yes.

[HighBypass 2,339]

5 hours ago, RedSpinnaker said:

What about a situation that during/after the boarding process and final load is calculated, the aircraft is overweight?....

I'm pretty sure in that scenario, if the problem was explained to the pax (pure & simple laws of physics, plane doesn't fly etc.) then passengers would have been far more understanding than if a bunch of deadheaders showed up late. Perhaps show them the crash video of the overloaded  Aerosucre cargo 727 to get the point across..

Hell, if the deadheaders were type-rated they could have flown themselves to were they needed to be in a Lear or some such (number of hours on duty considered).

Edited April 13, 2017 by HighBypass
addition