No LEO Dragging Policy - Consequences?
Apr 12, 2017, 3:53 pm
#16
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 63
Body cameras might solve legitimate situations where force is necessary. Just a thought. Also there are many situations that merit people being taken off of flights.
The outrage about this situation and not to beat a dead horse was that they could have handled it better.
As many have said before, and what they simply are failing to acknowledge as the simplest answer is, offering more when they need volunteers. Whether this be in vouchers, cash or otherwise. They need to rethink there incentivizing, especially when they are in the wrong.
The outrage about this situation and not to beat a dead horse was that they could have handled it better.
As many have said before, and what they simply are failing to acknowledge as the simplest answer is, offering more when they need volunteers. Whether this be in vouchers, cash or otherwise. They need to rethink there incentivizing, especially when they are in the wrong.
Apr 12, 2017, 4:38 pm
#17
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: SFO
Programs: COdbaUA Platinum 2MM
Posts: 5,532
I know I can't control the thread, but many of you are talking about what IDB compensation should be offered, which is NOT at all the topic. Someone sitting in your seat, or annoying a teenager, isn't a "how much cash can we offer" problem.
My question is, if the rule is "LEO's don't pull out paying, seated passengers," in what circumstances will UA (or any other airline - because I bet the rules are going to change for all of them in the next few weeks) authorize their FAs and GAs to call the LEOs and risk another incident?
My question is, if the rule is "LEO's don't pull out paying, seated passengers," in what circumstances will UA (or any other airline - because I bet the rules are going to change for all of them in the next few weeks) authorize their FAs and GAs to call the LEOs and risk another incident?
Apr 12, 2017, 4:40 pm
#18
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: MSP
Programs: Fallen Plats, ex-WN CP, DYKWIW; still a Hilton Diamond & Club Cholula™ R.I.P. Super Plats
Posts: 25,415
Apr 12, 2017, 5:24 pm
#19
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: SJC, SFO, YYC
Programs: AA-EXP, AA-0.41MM, UA-Gold, Ex UA-1K (2006 thru 2015), PMUA-0.95MM, COUA-1.5MM-lite, AF-Silver
Posts: 13,437
Federal law says a pax has to obey the crew.
If the issue is one where the plane can safely fly with the problem pax onboard in the wrong seat then arrest the pax causing a problem when the plane arrives and the pax leaves the plane.
If the issue is one where the plane cannot safely fly with the problem pax onboard then the plane doesn't move, the pax are told the flight is canceled, and when the problem pax leaves, arrest him.
One or two pax doing time in supermax will cure this problem pronto.
Easy peasy.
If the issue is one where the plane can safely fly with the problem pax onboard in the wrong seat then arrest the pax causing a problem when the plane arrives and the pax leaves the plane.
If the issue is one where the plane cannot safely fly with the problem pax onboard then the plane doesn't move, the pax are told the flight is canceled, and when the problem pax leaves, arrest him.
One or two pax doing time in supermax will cure this problem pronto.
Easy peasy.
Apr 12, 2017, 5:43 pm
#21
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 563
Federal law says a pax has to obey the crew.
If the issue is one where the plane can safely fly with the problem pax onboard in the wrong seat then arrest the pax causing a problem when the plane arrives and the pax leaves the plane.
If the issue is one where the plane cannot safely fly with the problem pax onboard then the plane doesn't move, the pax are told the flight is canceled, and when the problem pax leaves, arrest him.
One or two pax doing time in supermax will cure this problem pronto.
Easy peasy.
If the issue is one where the plane can safely fly with the problem pax onboard in the wrong seat then arrest the pax causing a problem when the plane arrives and the pax leaves the plane.
If the issue is one where the plane cannot safely fly with the problem pax onboard then the plane doesn't move, the pax are told the flight is canceled, and when the problem pax leaves, arrest him.
One or two pax doing time in supermax will cure this problem pronto.
Easy peasy.
Apr 12, 2017, 5:45 pm
#22
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 563
Body cameras might solve legitimate situations where force is necessary. Just a thought. Also there are many situations that merit people being taken off of flights.
The outrage about this situation and not to beat a dead horse was that they could have handled it better.
As many have said before, and what they simply are failing to acknowledge as the simplest answer is, offering more when they need volunteers. Whether this be in vouchers, cash or otherwise. They need to rethink there incentivizing, especially when they are in the wrong.
The outrage about this situation and not to beat a dead horse was that they could have handled it better.
As many have said before, and what they simply are failing to acknowledge as the simplest answer is, offering more when they need volunteers. Whether this be in vouchers, cash or otherwise. They need to rethink there incentivizing, especially when they are in the wrong.
Apr 12, 2017, 5:59 pm
#23
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: SJC, SFO, YYC
Programs: AA-EXP, AA-0.41MM, UA-Gold, Ex UA-1K (2006 thru 2015), PMUA-0.95MM, COUA-1.5MM-lite, AF-Silver
Posts: 13,437
The crew can order you to disrobe. It can threaten arrest upon destination. The federal officer will be there, investigate, let the pax go, and arrest the crew for making a false report.
Easy peasy.
Apr 12, 2017, 5:59 pm
#24
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Body in Downtown YYZ, heart and mind elsewhere
Programs: UA 50K, refugee from AC E50K, Marriott Lifetime Plat
Posts: 5,132
Once again, Mr. Munoz is going tone-deaf to a situation that was entirely manufactured by his corporation.
Removing a pax, under certain circumstances, has it's place. Some of the reasons outlined in the OP's first post are clear examples of this.
If airlines want to fully book / overbook leaving themselves with zero wiggle room, that's fine by me. But they should live by the sword and die by it as well. If stuff happens and the airlines suddenly finds themselves needing 4 seats, then they should simply pay for it. Law enforcement should not enter into this equation.
Put it this way - if Dr. Dao was at the gate and denied boarding, if he had called the cops would they have forcibly put him on the plane? So why then should they forcibly remove him when the airline itself has manufactured a problem?
Removing a pax, under certain circumstances, has it's place. Some of the reasons outlined in the OP's first post are clear examples of this.
If airlines want to fully book / overbook leaving themselves with zero wiggle room, that's fine by me. But they should live by the sword and die by it as well. If stuff happens and the airlines suddenly finds themselves needing 4 seats, then they should simply pay for it. Law enforcement should not enter into this equation.
Put it this way - if Dr. Dao was at the gate and denied boarding, if he had called the cops would they have forcibly put him on the plane? So why then should they forcibly remove him when the airline itself has manufactured a problem?
Apr 12, 2017, 6:10 pm
#25
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 297
The crew can order you with the coach BP to leave F. You can stay there under the Munoz policy, but the crew lets you know this is theft, trespass, and disobeying a crew member, and a police report will be made while the plane is enroute to its destination. A federal LEO will probably meet the accused offender, and will probably arrest the pax.
The crew can order you to disrobe. It can threaten arrest upon destination. The federal officer will be there, investigate, let the pax go, and arrest the crew for making a false report.
Easy peasy.
The crew can order you to disrobe. It can threaten arrest upon destination. The federal officer will be there, investigate, let the pax go, and arrest the crew for making a false report.
Easy peasy.
Apr 12, 2017, 6:16 pm
#26
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 17,435
Drunk and disorderly is a criminal offense. Arrest can be warranted.
Accusation of molestation must be taken seriously. If accused won't move, move victim. Inform both that they will be held at destination for investigation by police.
Weight and balance is an obvious safety issue. Empty the plane, pilot isn't going anywhere like that. Reboard plane individually, distributing weight as needed.
All three of these idiots are refunded any return ticket costs and are banned for life.
Seat poachers? Meh. It's a seat on a plane. Within the same cabin, Southwest manages to carry passengers without assigned seats all the time.
The guy who bought a coach ticket but squatted in first? That's grand theft. Move or be arrested and charged at destination.
Accusation of molestation must be taken seriously. If accused won't move, move victim. Inform both that they will be held at destination for investigation by police.
Weight and balance is an obvious safety issue. Empty the plane, pilot isn't going anywhere like that. Reboard plane individually, distributing weight as needed.
All three of these idiots are refunded any return ticket costs and are banned for life.
Seat poachers? Meh. It's a seat on a plane. Within the same cabin, Southwest manages to carry passengers without assigned seats all the time.
The guy who bought a coach ticket but squatted in first? That's grand theft. Move or be arrested and charged at destination.
Last edited by WineCountryUA; Nov 25, 2017 at 1:32 am Reason: unneeded vulgar comment
Apr 12, 2017, 6:17 pm
#27
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: SJC, SFO, YYC
Programs: AA-EXP, AA-0.41MM, UA-Gold, Ex UA-1K (2006 thru 2015), PMUA-0.95MM, COUA-1.5MM-lite, AF-Silver
Posts: 13,437
If the order being disobeyed is that of the GA, and if the crew doesn't want to repeat that order, then:
- for the case of the W&B requiring a pax to move or leave, the plane can stay put, the crew can leave, and the airline can suffer the financial consequence.
- for the case that allows the plane to takeoff with the pax disorderly and/or in the wrong seat, he can be met by a federal officer on arrival.
Easy Peasy.
Apr 12, 2017, 6:18 pm
#28
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: MSP
Programs: Fallen Plats, ex-WN CP, DYKWIW; still a Hilton Diamond & Club Cholula™ R.I.P. Super Plats
Posts: 25,415
Federal law says a pax has to obey the crew.
If the issue is one where the plane can safely fly with the problem pax onboard in the wrong seat then arrest the pax causing a problem when the plane arrives and the pax leaves the plane.
If the issue is one where the plane cannot safely fly with the problem pax onboard then the plane doesn't move, the pax are told the flight is canceled, and when the problem pax leaves, arrest him.
One or two pax doing time in supermax will cure this problem pronto.
Easy peasy.
If the issue is one where the plane can safely fly with the problem pax onboard in the wrong seat then arrest the pax causing a problem when the plane arrives and the pax leaves the plane.
If the issue is one where the plane cannot safely fly with the problem pax onboard then the plane doesn't move, the pax are told the flight is canceled, and when the problem pax leaves, arrest him.
One or two pax doing time in supermax will cure this problem pronto.
Easy peasy.
Up to now, the common wisdom has been that after a certain point, it's better to IDB than to keep offering more for VDB. I'll bet United is rethinking those parameters.
I'd also suggest a DOT rule that once a passenger's properly issued boarding pass is scanned at the gate & he starts down the jetway, he cannot be bumped. The airline has until the boarding pass is scanned to get it right; after that point, the passenger gets passage!
Apr 12, 2017, 6:26 pm
#29
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: LHR, HKG
Programs: gate lice
Posts: 315
Through a combination of public outrage, lousy customer service reputation, bad luck and poor decisions, the United CEO has now announced a new policy:"We are not going to put a law enforcement official to take them off," Munoz told ABC's "Good Morning America" on Wednesday. "To remove a booked, paid, seated passenger -- we can't do that."
So what will be the practical results of this new policy? Notwithstanding urban myth, it is not a crime to ignore the requests of flight crew, only to interfere by intimidation, threat, etc. So you must assume, for each of the scenarios below, that the customer is patient and calm and doesn't make any contact with the flight crew members. And assume that the flight crew members aren't going to lie about what happened. (If you assume the flight crew is going to lie then anything is possible, but that doesn't help the discussion.)
First, the Captain has now lost a LOT of authority. Because what they say no longer goes because their employer, UAL, has said that LEO's won't get involved UNLESS . . . (and that is this thread - what is the "unless" where UAL is willing to risk: a) an employee contradicting the words of the CEO; b) risking a video of a paying passenger being dragged, bloody, through the plane.
Okay, so which of these do you think will allow a LEO dragging a paying passenger off:
1. You get to your aisle seat and someone else is sitting there. They advise you that you can have their middle seat in the back of the plane, because they are sitting in your seat with their friends. The FA asks the person to move and they indicate that they are happy with their current seating as a paid, boarded passenger.
2. You get to your first class seat and someone else is sitting there. They have a coach boarding pass. They indicate that they like this seat better and, when requested by the FA to move, they indicate that they are happy with their current seating as a paid, boarded passenger.
3. A passenger appears to be drunk and has already barfed, twice, into the bag, missing a little bit each time. The passenger is asked, by the FA, to leave. They indicate (politely) that they are happy with staying on the plane as a paid, boarded passenger.
4. A passenger is accused, by the teenager next to them, of inappropriate touching on the shoulders and elbow. There is no evidence (no witness, no video). The FA asks the adult to move to a different seat. The passenger indicates that they are happy with their current seating as a paid, boarded passenger.
5. A passenger, after getting the plane, changes into a T-shirt which says "Al Queda was right" and it has a picture of the Twin Towers burning. The FA asks the passenger to cover the T-shirt. The passenger indicates that they are happy with their current seating as a paid, boarded passenger.
6. After boarding, the Captain announces that for weight and balance purposes, everyone needs to sit behind row 10. A group of four large men, who are sitting in row 3, indicate that they are happy with their seating as paid, boarded passengers.
So what will be the practical results of this new policy? Notwithstanding urban myth, it is not a crime to ignore the requests of flight crew, only to interfere by intimidation, threat, etc. So you must assume, for each of the scenarios below, that the customer is patient and calm and doesn't make any contact with the flight crew members. And assume that the flight crew members aren't going to lie about what happened. (If you assume the flight crew is going to lie then anything is possible, but that doesn't help the discussion.)
First, the Captain has now lost a LOT of authority. Because what they say no longer goes because their employer, UAL, has said that LEO's won't get involved UNLESS . . . (and that is this thread - what is the "unless" where UAL is willing to risk: a) an employee contradicting the words of the CEO; b) risking a video of a paying passenger being dragged, bloody, through the plane.
Okay, so which of these do you think will allow a LEO dragging a paying passenger off:
1. You get to your aisle seat and someone else is sitting there. They advise you that you can have their middle seat in the back of the plane, because they are sitting in your seat with their friends. The FA asks the person to move and they indicate that they are happy with their current seating as a paid, boarded passenger.
2. You get to your first class seat and someone else is sitting there. They have a coach boarding pass. They indicate that they like this seat better and, when requested by the FA to move, they indicate that they are happy with their current seating as a paid, boarded passenger.
3. A passenger appears to be drunk and has already barfed, twice, into the bag, missing a little bit each time. The passenger is asked, by the FA, to leave. They indicate (politely) that they are happy with staying on the plane as a paid, boarded passenger.
4. A passenger is accused, by the teenager next to them, of inappropriate touching on the shoulders and elbow. There is no evidence (no witness, no video). The FA asks the adult to move to a different seat. The passenger indicates that they are happy with their current seating as a paid, boarded passenger.
5. A passenger, after getting the plane, changes into a T-shirt which says "Al Queda was right" and it has a picture of the Twin Towers burning. The FA asks the passenger to cover the T-shirt. The passenger indicates that they are happy with their current seating as a paid, boarded passenger.
6. After boarding, the Captain announces that for weight and balance purposes, everyone needs to sit behind row 10. A group of four large men, who are sitting in row 3, indicate that they are happy with their seating as paid, boarded passengers.
An IDB'd pax after UA messed up with its deadheading organization and VDB negotiation is very different from many of your scenarios.
Now obviously, when I say that LEO should be involved -- it should be in a reasonable manner without excessive force; force should only be used as a last resort. The fact that the PD put the three officers involved on leave is telling that UA3411 incident was out of the ordinary.
1) and 2) justify LEO involvement. Nothing about UA3411's incident has to do with a seat poacher. You are entitled to your seat and your seat only, particularly in the fare class you paid/were awarded for. Y pax who upgrade themselves to F can go to hell.
3) Happens every day without much press. Nothing controversial about drunk pax. Drag him/her out, usually to the applause of other pax.
4) Move the teenager instead of moving the adult (first move should always be to separate the two) and then call LEO to assess the situation. Although I'd imagine if there was a case of sexual harassment in the scenario you describe -- when LEO arrives it would devolve into a case of he-said she-said. Especially in Y class, accusations of inappropriate touching happens all the time. But I am not a legal expert nor a trained officer. Not sure.
5) Covering T-shirt has nothing to do with seating. Is the pax posing a security threat with his T-shirt? Leave him be.
6) This is a safety/security issue. If row 3 is a higher class than row 10 then UA should defuse the situation first by offering compensation for the op-down but only use LEO when the situation collapses.
In every situation, UA should take every reasonable step to avoid calling LEO. And LEO should take every reasonable step to avoid the application of force.
Apr 12, 2017, 6:27 pm
#30
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: MSP
Programs: Fallen Plats, ex-WN CP, DYKWIW; still a Hilton Diamond & Club Cholula™ R.I.P. Super Plats
Posts: 25,415
That lack of anticipation will cost them dearly. All of the airlines should be looking at this and adjusting their policies so as to avoid this situation in the future.