69-year old passenger doctor David Dao dragged off overbooked United Express flight UA3411

[Passenger]

I'm pretty sure there is an ICAO standard that says the commander is the final authority who stays on board or not, whatever the reason. Your reference talks about what a person on board can not do, not what the commander can do.

Yes, there is legislation that states that the captain is the final authority onboard: the FAA describes this as “Responsability and Authority of the Pilot in Command”, in their 14CFR91.3: The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/CFR-2 ... l2-sec91-3
But even with the above powers, the commander must respect the FAA regulations and the Contract of Carriage that his airline has signed. Once a passenger has boarded the aircraft, Rule 21 of Uniteds' Contract of Carriage applies. Rule 21 is the chapter "Refusal of Transport" that states when a passenger may be offloaded. At not one moment, the passenger assaulted or threatened or intimidated a crew member. He did not interfere with crewmember’s duties. He wasn’t agressive, he wasn’t drunk, he wasn’t showing any form of intoxication. Those are the only reasons why the commander was allowed to get him off.

I tend to agree with sean1982 here. If you are denied boarding or denied flight and you don't agree, you:
- discuss and explain why you think they are wrong;
- if that doesn't work, you take legal action afterwards.
There is a big difference between not respecting consumer rights (which indeed might have not have respected here) and not following the law...

Consumer rights ARE the law.

This article on LawNewz.com (US) confirms there is a difference between "denied boarding" and "refusal of transport":
http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/united- ... passenger/

[sean1982]

boarding isn't concluded until the doors of the aircraft are closed. Whether the customer was already on board or not doesn't matter .... it is still denied boarding. Onlt once the aircraft starts moving under it's own power, then refusal of transport kicks in

[luchtzak]

boarding isn't concluded until the doors of the aircraft are closed. Whether the customer was already on board or not doesn't matter .... it is still denied boarding. Onlt once the aircraft starts moving under it's own power, then refusal of transport kicks in

I disagree, you should deny a boarding at the gate, not inside an airplane. Unless for unruly, drunk, ... passengers...

[sn26567]

Delta reacts faster than United: they now enable front-line employees to offer volunteers up to $2000, and even up to $9950 by supervisors.

Isn't there a business to be made by travelling on flights likely to be overbooked, and then volunteering to be bumped after negotiating a high compensation?

[luchtzak]

Isn't there a business to be made by travelling on flights likely to be overbooked, and then volunteering to be bumped after negotiating a high compensation?

Profession: bumped passenger

[Passenger]

boarding isn't concluded until the doors of the aircraft are closed. Whether the customer was already on board or not doesn't matter .... it is still denied boarding. Onlt once the aircraft starts moving under it's own power, then refusal of transport kicks in

It's becoming pathetic how you insist and persist to blame the passenger in this story. Even United's CEO has admitted guilt meanwhile.

"Denied boarding means "not allowed to board". Once a passenger has been allowed to pass the gate and enter the aircraft, he is a boarded passenger. No matter when the doors close, no matter when the aircraft runs on own power, no matter when take off happens.

Your view is also contradicted by United's own Conditions of Carriage, which splits up Denied Boarding (Rule 25) and Refusal of Transport (Rule 21):
https://www.united.com/web/en-US/conten ... aspx#sec21
Rule 21 Refusal of Transport
UA shall have the right to refuse to transport or shall have the right to remove from the aircraft at any point, any Passenger for the following reasons:
A.Breach of Contract of Carriage – Failure by Passenger to comply with the Rules of the Contract of Carriage.
B.Government Request, Regulations or Security Directives...
C.Force Majeure and Other Unforeseeable Conditions...
D.Search of Passenger or Property...
E.Proof of Identity...
F.Failure to Pay...
G.Across International Boundaries...
H.Safety...
I.Any Passenger who...causes UA any loss, damage or expense...

[pilot_gent]

Consumer rights ARE the law.

This article on LawNewz.com (US) confirms there is a difference between "denied boarding" and "refusal of transport":
http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/united- ... passenger/

Pfff I still think any business owner can decide who to allow on their property, regardless of sector.

The laws you and United are quoting are allowable reasons to refuse service to a passenger, although they have a contract.

My reply was btw not intended to defend United. They obviously breached the contract with the passenger.

The rules of carriage you cite of United are part of a contract between passengers and United. They are not the law...

[Passenger]

Pfff I still think any business owner can decide who to allow on their property, regardless of sector.

Actually, no. We don't live in a totally free and libertian society (luckily because there are too many crooks out there). So though we call it a free-market economy, there are a lot of rules to be followed.

Example, your restaurant holder: he's allowed not to serve me. But he is not allowed to say that's because I'm black or yellow or green. Because when I have witnesses of that call, I can sue him. And when I'm in the middle of my main course, the restaurant owner has no right to allow other people to smoke, saying "this is my restaurant, I do what I want in my restaurant".

[Passenger]

And to make things worse for United: the three 'policemen' that dragged the man off the plane, were not three federal policemen, but three airport security officers from the Chicago Department of Aviation.

Meanwhile, the United pilots blames Republic Airline:
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/ ... rustration

Full text UAL MEC (United - Master Executive Council):
https://www.alpa.org/~/media/UAL/Files/ ... -04-13.pdf

[sean1982]

Im not defending one or the other. United doesnt state when boarding is complete in their terms and conditions. This is just international air law ...

[Stij]

My conclusion: the industry ubderstands again the pax are more than self loading cargo... they re human beings...

Stij

[sn26567]

American updated its contract of carriage on Friday, said spokesman Ross Feinstein.

"In light of recent events, American has updated its conditions of carriage, which states that we will not involuntarily remove a revenue passenger, who has already boarded, in order to give a seat to another passenger," Feinstein said.

He said American will work "to ensure we set compensation amounts properly in order to obtain the correct number of volunteers."

Also, United is "in the process of conducting a thorough review of our policies, including how we incentivize customers in these situations," said spokeswoman Megan McCarthy. The carrier "will publicly communicate the full results of our review and the concrete actions we will take by April 30."

[Passenger]

With all respect for Alexandre de Juniac, IATA's Director-General and CEO: contrary to what he states in his blog (see below), the incident has nothing do with aviation safety. It's about a cascade of stupid decisions that were not directly related to a flight.

https://www.aviation24.be/airlines/united- ... -incident/

From the blog of Alexandre de Juniac, Director General and CEO of IATA: Taking a wider stance on overbooking

Everybody who watched the video of a passenger being dragged off UA flight 3411 earlier this week was shocked. That includes me. Whatever the reason, what happened was clearly unacceptable. And United has recognized that. My job is not to be an apologist for a truly regrettable situation. Nor is it to be a judge or arbiter between airlines and their passengers. But I do have the responsibility to defend the reputation of an industry that I am proud to call the business of freedom. And working with our 265 members, IATA’s goal is to make flying safe, efficient and sustainable.

Each day some 10 million passengers board planes. And 100,000 flights will take them safely to wherever they are going, almost always without incident. That is no less than a modern day marvel of technology, coordination and dedication to safety. Aviation has a big impact on our world. This year will see four billion people and 55 million tonnes of cargo transported safely. Global air transport is so reliable that its positive impact on our daily lives can become invisible—connecting people over great distances, linking businesses to global markets, adding real world experiences to the education of our youth, creating opportunities for jobs that welcome tourists and availing the planet to journeys of exploration.

Aviation is also a challenging business. Every take-off and landing involves complex coordination among many different people. Bad weather, overcrowded infrastructure, strikes, natural disasters, and public health issues are among the long list of events on one side of the world that can lead to disruptions a continent away. Absolute dedication to safety could see a last minute change of aircraft or a flight delay to fix the problem. And the 63 million people employed in making travel possible are human. Sometimes they make mistakes. In a service business amends need to be made swiftly and with the human touch.

There can be no justification for what we saw on that video. But the response must be more thoughtful than headlines painting an entire industry with the hue of a single and very regrettable incident. Many political and opinion leaders have weighed in on a discussion that has gone global with amazing speed. Questions have been raised about passenger rights, procedures for denying boarding to passengers, the actions of local law enforcement, and overbooking practices. Every accident that is investigated makes aviation safer. We will learn lessons from this too. But at the risk of sounding old-fashioned, the best results will not come out of angry, knee-jerk responses that seek resolution in 140 characters, or a newspaper comment piece written before the entire incident has revealed itself.

Where do we go from here? United has pledged to take immediate concrete action to ensure this never happens again and announced a thorough review of its relevant policies and actions addressing oversold situations and incentivizing volunteers, with a report by 30 April. But, if there is something in this incident that requires changes at an industry level the next step is a robust dialogue. To relieve any cynics out there, that’s not a stall tactic. Rather, it is a proven process to produce the best result. Airlines and governments both want passengers to reach their destination safely, efficiently and without incident. That’s our common goal—and a proven platform to make flying even better.

[sn26567]

United Airlines on Friday changed its policy on commuting staff, saying it will now require them and crew members to check into flights 60 minutes before departure.

[Passenger]

Uniteds' CEO Munoz apparently hasn't sent an e-mail to his staff yet, telling them they must be upmost flexible regarding onboard seating events during the next days, weeks and months.

So stories like this appear in the news today - all over the world:

Bride and groom headed to Costa Rica for their wedding got kicked off their United flight out of Houston on Saturday afternoon.

The incident took place on United Airlines Flight 1737 which was headed from Houston (IAH) to Liberia, Costa Rica (LIR). The couple, along with their friends, were flying from Salt Lake City and had a layover at George Bush Intercontinental Airport. Michael Hohl, the groom, said he and his fiancé, Amber Maxwell, were the last to board the plane. According to Hohl, they noticed a man was spread across their row napping when they approached their seats, 24 B and C. Not wanting to wake the man, Hohl said they decided to sit a three rows up in seats 21 B and C. He said they didn't think it would matter because the flight was half full with multiple empty rows. “We thought not a big deal, it’s not like we are trying to jump up into a first-class seat," said Hohl.“We were simply in an economy row a few rows above our economy seat.”

In a Boeing 737-800 like the one the couple was on, United considers Row 21 "economy plus," an upgrade.

After sitting, Hohl said a flight attendant approached and asked if they were in their ticketed seats. The couple explained they weren't and asked if they could get an upgrade, but instead they were told they needed to return to their assigned seats. Hohl said after complying with the flight attendant's demand, a U.S. Marshall came onto the plane and asked them to get off. The couple cooperated and got off the plane without incident, but they still don't understand why. "They said that we were being disorderly and a hazard to the rest of the flight, to the safety of the other customers," said Hohl.

United Airlines claims they actually tried to sit in an upgraded seat "repeatedly" and they "wouldn't follow crew instructions." The airline provided this statement on Saturday: "We’re disappointed anytime a customer has an experience that doesn’t measure up to their expectations. These passengers repeatedly attempted to sit in upgraded seating which they did not purchase and they would not follow crew instructions to return to their assigned seats. We’ve been in touch with them and have rebooked them on flights tomorrow."

The bride and groom were rebooked for another flight the next morning, but Hohl said they won't be flying United again and described the whole situation as "quite strange." “I think customer service and the airlines has gone real downhill,” said Hohl. "The way United Airlines handled this was really absurb.”

Source:
http://www.khou.com/news/local/bride-an ... /431644313

[sean1982]

You pay for economy, you sit in economy unless you were involuntary upgraded at the gate ... its simple no?

[convair]

You pay for economy, you sit in economy unless you were involuntary upgraded at the gate ... its simple no?

Right. The passengers' and United's versions of the incident differ, so we don't know who's right. But surely some people will try and take advantage of the Chicago incident to bully crews ( and not only on United) in order to improve the service or treatment they receive.

I still condemn the behaviour of United's crew in the Chicago incident btw.

[Passenger]

You pay for economy, you sit in economy unless you were involuntary upgraded at the gate ... its simple no?

Seems you haven't read the article and/or you haven't listened to the tv report. The couple went to their seats (row 24 Economy), and they saw that the guy in the ail seat was asleep. So instead of waking him up, they took two seats on row 21 (the almost empty Economy Plus). Not allowed, indeed. Sure. So a cabin crew member came to them and told them they had to move to their assigned seats. According to the passengers, they did so. But two minutes later, according to the passengers, a marshaller came onboard and ordered them to deboard. According to the airlines, and I quote from the article, "these passengers repeatedly attempted to sit in upgraded seating which they did not purchase and they would not follow crew instructions to return to their assigned seats". Strange report from the airline: they want us to believe that the passengers tried it "several times". Very unwise thing for passengers to do so, specially because all US citizens know that they would risk to be beaten then.

So yes, they initially sat down in the wrong seats. But that is no reason to offload passengers. When it happens, the crew simply orders passengers to move to their assigned seats. End of story. I wouldn't say it happens on every flight that passengers take wrong seats, but it surely happens frequently.

[sean1982]

If they move straight away sure, I wouldnt want to ask twice and definatly not three times ... and believe me some people's eyesight seems to be so bad that 53J looks like 17A

[Stij]

If they move straight away sure, I wouldnt want to ask twice and definatly not three times ... and believe me some people's eyesight seems to be so bad that 53J looks like 17A

You probably know that when people travel by plane, some pack their brains in their luggage? In other words... some really are so stressed they really can t think logically anymore. On the other hand... maybe it s due to all the little security and airline rules. If you don t fly often... it has become rather difficult to fly...

Stij