UA and kicking passengers off their planes (James Fallows Article in The Atlantic)
May 7, 2013, 2:29 pm
#31
Original Member
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Maryland
Programs: UA MM Gold, Marriott LT Titanium
Posts: 23,735
May 7, 2013, 4:59 pm
#32
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: PDX
Programs: AA LT PLT (3.6+ MM), UA 1K LT Gold, Hilton LT Diamond, Bonvoy Gold.
Posts: 1,660
Anyone have any idea what the captain is talking about when he says "1. You cannot take pictures, I assume because of security, but they are paying to have the secondary barriers that protect the cockpit removed from our aircraft."
Specifically the bolded part. I thought current thinking was to increase cockpit security...
Specifically the bolded part. I thought current thinking was to increase cockpit security...
May 7, 2013, 5:07 pm
#33
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: London
Programs: UA GS
Posts: 2,438
Anyone have any idea what the captain is talking about when he says "1. You cannot take pictures, I assume because of security, but they are paying to have the secondary barriers that protect the cockpit removed from our aircraft."
Specifically the bolded part. I thought current thinking was to increase cockpit security...
Specifically the bolded part. I thought current thinking was to increase cockpit security...
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/union-...225420734.html
May 7, 2013, 5:14 pm
#34
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 4,645
Anyone have any idea what the captain is talking about when he says "1. You cannot take pictures, I assume because of security, but they are paying to have the secondary barriers that protect the cockpit removed from our aircraft."
Specifically the bolded part. I thought current thinking was to increase cockpit security...
Specifically the bolded part. I thought current thinking was to increase cockpit security...
It's one thing for CO to say that they don't want pilots to be protected by that security barrier, but what I found most astounding, and what the pilot may have been pointing to when he used the word "pay" is that this regime is incredibly cheap, cutting every cost and benefit they can cut. Against that backdrop, where every last fraction of a cent in expenses is being eliminated without much regard for the downstream implications of those cost cutting actions, why would they actually *spend money* to *remove* a security feature that other well qualified individuals determined was necessary?
I can understand that the are cheap and they don't want to pay for that security feature, but to actually spend money to remove it, when it would be cheaper to just leave it as-is, was a very strange decision.
May 7, 2013, 5:28 pm
#35
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Houston
Programs: UA Plat, Marriott Gold
Posts: 12,686
Villox provided the explanation. Adding to that, it was a big discussion topic here when it was announced.
It's one thing for CO to say that they don't want pilots to be protected by that security barrier, but what I found most astounding, and what the pilot may have been pointing to when he used the word "pay" is that this regime is incredibly cheap, cutting every cost and benefit they can cut. Against that backdrop, where every last fraction of a cent in expenses is being eliminated without much regard for the downstream implications of those cost cutting actions, why would they actually *spend money* to *remove* a security feature that other well qualified individuals determined was necessary?
I can understand that the are cheap and they don't want to pay for that security feature, but to actually spend money to remove it, when it would be cheaper to just leave it as-is, was a very strange decision.
It's one thing for CO to say that they don't want pilots to be protected by that security barrier, but what I found most astounding, and what the pilot may have been pointing to when he used the word "pay" is that this regime is incredibly cheap, cutting every cost and benefit they can cut. Against that backdrop, where every last fraction of a cent in expenses is being eliminated without much regard for the downstream implications of those cost cutting actions, why would they actually *spend money* to *remove* a security feature that other well qualified individuals determined was necessary?
I can understand that the are cheap and they don't want to pay for that security feature, but to actually spend money to remove it, when it would be cheaper to just leave it as-is, was a very strange decision.
May 7, 2013, 7:35 pm
#36
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 1,627
Seems to me like the cause of the drama is the post-merger CO rules and practices, far more than the fact that employees involved were previously employed by pre-merger UA.
May 7, 2013, 7:51 pm
#37
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Redwood City, CA USA (SFO/SJC)
Programs: 1K 2010, 1P in 2011, Plat for 2012,13,14,15 & 2016. Gold in 17 & 18, Plat since
Posts: 8,825
I would feel better about the article had the author gone to the trouble of interviewing a number of UA pilots, and possibly other staff, about the issues brought up by this pilot's letter. But it's just too darned easy to toss something up with a bit of editorial comment and pass it off as important, meaningful content... when it might only be one person's view amplified by the 'net.
Last edited by Mike Jacoubowsky; May 7, 2013 at 10:05 pm Reason: typo
May 7, 2013, 8:35 pm
#38
Join Date: Jul 2010
Programs: Delta PM
Posts: 74
May 7, 2013, 9:51 pm
#39
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Ann Arbor DTW
Programs: United, Delta, American
Posts: 89
I find it ridiculous that angry parents would cause a flight to be diverted. What a waste of time and money to make that decision over something as silly as a movie on IFE. If the parents became belligerent or violent, then I could understand landing the plane, however, why couldn't the purser simply turn off IFE and announce there is some sort of technical difficulty with the system? Yes, that would be unfair to the rest of the passengers wanting IFE. Is it no longer possible for people in power to make creative solutions to problems rather than going to extremes of following oversimplified rules and regulations? It seems like in US society, whenever something is disliked or out of the ordinary, a rule is made adversely affecting the rest of us who already use common sense. Or perhaps we are no longer trusted by those in management or privileged positions so that those under them can make decisions on their own.
May 7, 2013, 9:54 pm
#40
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Ewa Beach, Hawaii
Posts: 10,907
I find it ridiculous that angry parents would cause a flight to be diverted. What a waste of time and money to make that decision over something as silly as a movie on IFE. If the parents became belligerent or violent, then I could understand landing the plane, however, why couldn't the purser simply turn off IFE and announce there is some sort of technical difficulty with the system? Yes, that would be unfair to the rest of the passengers wanting IFE. Is it no longer possible for people in power to make creative solutions to problems rather than going to extremes of following oversimplified rules and regulations? It seems like in US society, whenever something is disliked or out of the ordinary, a rule is made adversely affecting the rest of us who already use common sense. Or perhaps we are no longer trusted by those in management or privileged positions so that those under them can make decisions on their own.
May 7, 2013, 10:15 pm
#41
Suspended
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Apex, NC
Programs: UA, DL, AA, SK, AC, NH, Starwood, Choice, Hilton
Posts: 414
I find it ridiculous that angry parents would cause a flight to be diverted. What a waste of time and money to make that decision over something as silly as a movie on IFE. If the parents became belligerent or violent, then I could understand landing the plane, however, why couldn't the purser simply turn off IFE and announce there is some sort of technical difficulty with the system? Yes, that would be unfair to the rest of the passengers wanting IFE. Is it no longer possible for people in power to make creative solutions to problems rather than going to extremes of following oversimplified rules and regulations? It seems like in US society, whenever something is disliked or out of the ordinary, a rule is made adversely affecting the rest of us who already use common sense. Or perhaps we are no longer trusted by those in management or privileged positions so that those under them can make decisions on their own.
Tampering with aircraft equipment -> passengers being removed. Novel idea, huh?
May 7, 2013, 10:22 pm
#42
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 4,645
May 7, 2013, 10:54 pm
#43
fomerly known as LandingGear (not Landing Gear)
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 833
I heard something similar, that there was quite a fuss.
May 8, 2013, 2:36 am
#44
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Independent! But mostly BKK, BCN, SFO, PDX, SEA...
Programs: Lawl COVID
Posts: 1,060
This confirms what we've suspected all along, and helps keep me well clear of any United airplane.
May 8, 2013, 4:16 am
#45
Join Date: Nov 2012
Programs: MileagePlus
Posts: 190
Funny sort of like the military...but I def feel for when those that are making decisions that are affecting those are throughout so disconnected from the deckplates that they do not know how their "ideas" affect those.