Do you feel unsafe or as though your safety is vulnerable on a United flight?
Apr 13, 2017, 9:17 pm
#61
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2012
Programs: AAdvantage Executive Platinum, Delta Silver Medallion, Marriott Bonvoy Ambassador
Posts: 14,105
For myself, no. For my elderly family members, yes I do feel their safety is compromised by flying UA.
I fly enough to know how to handle myself.
But, I can't help thinking what would have happened if I had booked a flight for my 80+ year old grandmother and a situation like what happened on 3411 started to unfold. She would have been very confused and thought that the GA was making a mistake. I can just imagine my grandmother sitting in her ticketed seat getting flustered trying to explain that she has a ticket and is in the right seat. What would United do?
There is an anti-customer culture leftover from before Oscar started. Obviously not all UA staff hate customers, but there is a definite lack of compassion in how UA deals with them.
I will keep flying UA but I won't continue to book my family on them.
I fly enough to know how to handle myself.
But, I can't help thinking what would have happened if I had booked a flight for my 80+ year old grandmother and a situation like what happened on 3411 started to unfold. She would have been very confused and thought that the GA was making a mistake. I can just imagine my grandmother sitting in her ticketed seat getting flustered trying to explain that she has a ticket and is in the right seat. What would United do?
There is an anti-customer culture leftover from before Oscar started. Obviously not all UA staff hate customers, but there is a definite lack of compassion in how UA deals with them.
I will keep flying UA but I won't continue to book my family on them.
I am the one that makes travel arrangements in our family, and she has already asked me not to book her on UA. I understand, and, tbh, I agree.
Apr 13, 2017, 9:42 pm
#62
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Tucson
Programs: UA Gold , Marriott Platinum. Both earned BIS/Nights
Posts: 78
Not at all.
Absolutely silly: like an aviation accident it was a series of cascading events. The real problem here is the "aviation security " i.e. They were not sworn Law Enforcement. ONLY a LEO should have been called.
Absolutely silly: like an aviation accident it was a series of cascading events. The real problem here is the "aviation security " i.e. They were not sworn Law Enforcement. ONLY a LEO should have been called.
Apr 13, 2017, 9:53 pm
#63
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Somewhere I've Driven To
Programs: HiltonHonors, IHG Hotels, DL Skymiles
Posts: 2,070
Not sworn law enforcement ?....what were they, the airport janitorial staff ?
Apr 13, 2017, 9:56 pm
#64
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 350
I disagree that everything that took place after the aviation police were called was the fault of the aviation police. The kindly Dr bears some responsibility. As you mention later in your post, rational behavior would include compliance with authority and hash it out later.
I am not all that sure that the officers will or should be, fired or otherwise disciplined for their actions. I say this because we do not have all of the videos yet (and most likely, never will) and the videos we have do not show enough to understand exactly what was going on and what forced was used and what force was called for.
We know that he was asked to deplane and then the police were called for what essentially was, at that point, a trespasser.
I was a police officer for many years and, although I have never had to take law enforcement action on a bus, train or plane, I can tell you that when someone resists being taken out of a car, someone is likely to get hurt. Not with malice but with necessity. There are so many things for a perpetrator to grab on to and such a small confined space in which to work that there is usually injury. And when you are in the fight, you just hope it is not you that is injured.
We hear that the officers were placed on administrative leave. That means nothing at this point other than that the department is taking this seriously and investigating. The department can't have the liability of having the officers on the beat IN CASE it is determined that there was unnecessary use of force.
I am not all that sure that the officers will or should be, fired or otherwise disciplined for their actions. I say this because we do not have all of the videos yet (and most likely, never will) and the videos we have do not show enough to understand exactly what was going on and what forced was used and what force was called for.
We know that he was asked to deplane and then the police were called for what essentially was, at that point, a trespasser.
I was a police officer for many years and, although I have never had to take law enforcement action on a bus, train or plane, I can tell you that when someone resists being taken out of a car, someone is likely to get hurt. Not with malice but with necessity. There are so many things for a perpetrator to grab on to and such a small confined space in which to work that there is usually injury. And when you are in the fight, you just hope it is not you that is injured.
We hear that the officers were placed on administrative leave. That means nothing at this point other than that the department is taking this seriously and investigating. The department can't have the liability of having the officers on the beat IN CASE it is determined that there was unnecessary use of force.
Apr 13, 2017, 10:03 pm
#66
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Tucson
Programs: UA Gold , Marriott Platinum. Both earned BIS/Nights
Posts: 78
Almost!! read up on it. They are trained, but are considered aviation security. They are not sworn officers/carry weapons. It's not like the port authority police in NYC. There are about 200 actual law enforcement gun carrying fully trained cops and then 300 of these much less trained security guys ( Bear with me on the numbers; not clear if it included both Midway and O'Hare or just o'hare but these 3 guys were no where near being police
Apr 13, 2017, 10:12 pm
#68
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Tucson
Programs: UA Gold , Marriott Platinum. Both earned BIS/Nights
Posts: 78
I flew on United Tuesday. I'm a former employee (not retired so I fly revenue tickets) and I picked up a large snickers bar and bag of m&m's and quietly went up to the gate agents, told them about having been in the industry and just wanted them to know I supported them. Boarding in Houston for my connection I quietly let the gate agent know that I appreciated her given whats going on. The smiles and surprise were worth it.
look guys.. we all know this was bad, but dont take it out on indiscriminate employees. smile , say good morning as you board, please thank you etc.
I know you guys that are true road warriors are tired, overworked, miss your family etc but please try not and take it out on employees unless you do run in to that ....... that your know will be around sooner or later.
Apr 14, 2017, 5:38 am
#69
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: SDF
Programs: -=- UA: GS + 3.9 Million Miler; Hilton: Diamond; Marriott: Gold; Hertz: President's Circle
Posts: 676
I feel unsafe because there are some passengers that cannot follow instructions of crew and law enforcement. If they are too bull headed to follow those instructions, how can I trust they will follow instructions to keep their seat belt on and to quickly exit the plane in case of emergency?
I have much more concern for stupid passengers than UA employees. Ratio of stupid passengers, in my experience, is higher than rogue employees.
I have much more concern for stupid passengers than UA employees. Ratio of stupid passengers, in my experience, is higher than rogue employees.
Apr 14, 2017, 5:56 am
#70
Original Poster
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 334
I have no political agenda. I am intrigued by many responses, and perspectives, and I thank those who offered their thoughts.
When it comes to how I feel about flying, 9-11 changed me and my perception of commercial aviation and aviation safety. In the course of my travels, I've observed many a professional in-flight personnel, and some train-wreck in-flight personnel; no different than any other industry. But there are not many industries that I can think of where a staff person, let’s say a flight attendant, can threaten someone with removal from a flight, Federal charges, criminal charges, for perhaps, a comment made by another passenger, that the flight attendant wrongly attributes to the passenger that he/she threatens with the aforementioned sanctions. I have seen many an in-flight staff person manage what appeared to me to be a non threatening behavior (I realize that measuring and assessing behavior, by non-behaviorists, is largely subjective) by a passenger, with the usual array of, in some cases, necessary controls, and in my opinion, many cases, overused/abused threats (which may be the result of an abusive travelling public or a defective or weakened psyche of the in-flight personnel). But, as it relates to United Airlines, I fear that this may be the least of United Airlines worries, and that the cards of the House of Cards that United Airlines is built on, may be organizationally, systematically, and culturally far more worrisome.
In the case of United #3411, and for that matter any other commercial flight on a US carrier, I wonder how "in charge" the Captain of the aircraft really is, and what, in a situation similar to #3411 the responsibilities of the Captain are? Is the Captain to stay in the cockpit and protect him/herself and his/her First Officer and controls of the aircraft, leave the First Officer in the cockpit to coordinate radio communication, and have some presence in the aircraft cabin? How is authority transferred, if it is transferred from the Captain to law enforcement? I wonder, has United Airlines vetted the police/security thugs/fire/EMS personnel who respond to a request for emergency assistance from United Airlines personnel at an airport where United Airlines operates (or is that vetting responsibility some other agency's responsibility,that United Airlines has approved of ?).
Personally, I think objective data is needed to draw objective conclusions about what did or did not transpire with the operation of UA #3411. There are lots of things that raise my eyebrows, other than the behavior of the Law Enforcement Officials, on United's part, I wonder about the: (1) decision making of the Captain, (2) inventory seat/passenger management by the Gate Agents in the Gate Area (the Gate Area and aircraft strike me as funnel-like, with the gate area the wide part of the funnel, and the aircraft the narrow part of the funnel; why Gate Agents would fill every seat on a plane when they knew they were overcommitted (rather than hold passengers in the Gate Area), is something I just don't understand, (3) preemptive seat assignments of UA crewmembers who had to deadhead to Louisville; if the crewmembers had to be in Louisville, and that was known to UA, why were they not assigned seats before the flight was boarded?, (4) supervisory engagement of what I would suspect looked like a potentially problematic situation to United Airlines 30 minutes before they began general boarding of #3411? I wonder, did UA deploy a Supervisor to that gate to assist the gate agents in managing a potentially unusual occurrence OR has what the travelling public perceives as an unusual occurrence, become a USUAL OCCURRENCE at United Airlines (read about the theory: The Normalization of Deviance).
My list goes on and on. I am genuinely curious how vulnerable the participants on this forum feel about flying on United Airlines.
To those who have shared their perspective, thank you.
When it comes to how I feel about flying, 9-11 changed me and my perception of commercial aviation and aviation safety. In the course of my travels, I've observed many a professional in-flight personnel, and some train-wreck in-flight personnel; no different than any other industry. But there are not many industries that I can think of where a staff person, let’s say a flight attendant, can threaten someone with removal from a flight, Federal charges, criminal charges, for perhaps, a comment made by another passenger, that the flight attendant wrongly attributes to the passenger that he/she threatens with the aforementioned sanctions. I have seen many an in-flight staff person manage what appeared to me to be a non threatening behavior (I realize that measuring and assessing behavior, by non-behaviorists, is largely subjective) by a passenger, with the usual array of, in some cases, necessary controls, and in my opinion, many cases, overused/abused threats (which may be the result of an abusive travelling public or a defective or weakened psyche of the in-flight personnel). But, as it relates to United Airlines, I fear that this may be the least of United Airlines worries, and that the cards of the House of Cards that United Airlines is built on, may be organizationally, systematically, and culturally far more worrisome.
In the case of United #3411, and for that matter any other commercial flight on a US carrier, I wonder how "in charge" the Captain of the aircraft really is, and what, in a situation similar to #3411 the responsibilities of the Captain are? Is the Captain to stay in the cockpit and protect him/herself and his/her First Officer and controls of the aircraft, leave the First Officer in the cockpit to coordinate radio communication, and have some presence in the aircraft cabin? How is authority transferred, if it is transferred from the Captain to law enforcement? I wonder, has United Airlines vetted the police/security thugs/fire/EMS personnel who respond to a request for emergency assistance from United Airlines personnel at an airport where United Airlines operates (or is that vetting responsibility some other agency's responsibility,that United Airlines has approved of ?).
Personally, I think objective data is needed to draw objective conclusions about what did or did not transpire with the operation of UA #3411. There are lots of things that raise my eyebrows, other than the behavior of the Law Enforcement Officials, on United's part, I wonder about the: (1) decision making of the Captain, (2) inventory seat/passenger management by the Gate Agents in the Gate Area (the Gate Area and aircraft strike me as funnel-like, with the gate area the wide part of the funnel, and the aircraft the narrow part of the funnel; why Gate Agents would fill every seat on a plane when they knew they were overcommitted (rather than hold passengers in the Gate Area), is something I just don't understand, (3) preemptive seat assignments of UA crewmembers who had to deadhead to Louisville; if the crewmembers had to be in Louisville, and that was known to UA, why were they not assigned seats before the flight was boarded?, (4) supervisory engagement of what I would suspect looked like a potentially problematic situation to United Airlines 30 minutes before they began general boarding of #3411? I wonder, did UA deploy a Supervisor to that gate to assist the gate agents in managing a potentially unusual occurrence OR has what the travelling public perceives as an unusual occurrence, become a USUAL OCCURRENCE at United Airlines (read about the theory: The Normalization of Deviance).
My list goes on and on. I am genuinely curious how vulnerable the participants on this forum feel about flying on United Airlines.
To those who have shared their perspective, thank you.
Apr 14, 2017, 5:58 am
#71
Original Poster
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 334
That reminds me of the days when airlines selected/hired/fired the "screening personnel" at their security checkpoints, pre-TSA.
Apr 14, 2017, 7:14 am
#72
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: YVR
Programs: OZ Diamond, Jiffypark Manhattan Gold
Posts: 4,485
I'm way more worried about a scorpion type situation (which could happen on any airline) vs the security personnel thing...which I feel like could also happen on any airline.
I think this is a terrible situation, but I think it's a very isolated incident and I think that most people would've not been put in this situation.
I think this is a terrible situation, but I think it's a very isolated incident and I think that most people would've not been put in this situation.
Apr 14, 2017, 7:17 am
#73
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,603
United will get away with a slap in the hand, sure it will cost a few million, but so what? They will probably find a scapegoat to take the blame and things will return to business as usual.
It beats me why this did not trigger a discussion of passenger rights here in the US, where the airlines operate with selfserving rules, with the customers they serve not being part of the equation.
It beats me why this did not trigger a discussion of passenger rights here in the US, where the airlines operate with selfserving rules, with the customers they serve not being part of the equation.
Apr 14, 2017, 7:17 am
#74
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Minneapolis: DL DM charter 2.3MM
Programs: A3*Gold, SPG Plat, HyattDiamond, MarriottPP, LHW exAccess, ICI, Raffles Amb, NW PE MM, TWA Gold MM
Posts: 100,409
Apr 14, 2017, 7:42 am
#75
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Cleveland, OH
Programs: UA-GS 1MM), Hertz Pres Circle, Starriott Titanium)
Posts: 1,966
Agreed 100%
The post 9/11 world of flying is one where we have seen numerous stories of flight attendants abusing their new sense of power to have people removed from flights and threatened with jail-time solely on their say-so.
I wouldn't say I feel afraid per-se, but I'm definitely always on-edge and on the lookout for cranky FAs. I feel like I don't dare complain about poor service till I'm safely at my destination for fear of being ruled "a threat to safety" for some arbitrary reason.
The post 9/11 world of flying is one where we have seen numerous stories of flight attendants abusing their new sense of power to have people removed from flights and threatened with jail-time solely on their say-so.
I wouldn't say I feel afraid per-se, but I'm definitely always on-edge and on the lookout for cranky FAs. I feel like I don't dare complain about poor service till I'm safely at my destination for fear of being ruled "a threat to safety" for some arbitrary reason.
I have no political agenda. I am intrigued by many responses, and perspectives, and I thank those who offered their thoughts.
When it comes to how I feel about flying, 9-11 changed me and my perception of commercial aviation and aviation safety. In the course of my travels, I've observed many a professional in-flight personnel, and some train-wreck in-flight personnel; no different than any other industry. But there are not many industries that I can think of where a staff person, let’s say a flight attendant, can threaten someone with removal from a flight, Federal charges, criminal charges, for perhaps, a comment made by another passenger, that the flight attendant wrongly attributes to the passenger that he/she threatens with the aforementioned sanctions. I have seen many an in-flight staff person manage what appeared to me to be a non threatening behavior (I realize that measuring and assessing behavior, by non-behaviorists, is largely subjective) by a passenger, with the usual array of, in some cases, necessary controls, and in my opinion, many cases, overused/abused threats (which may be the result of an abusive travelling public or a defective or weakened psyche of the in-flight personnel). But, as it relates to United Airlines, I fear that this may be the least of United Airlines worries, and that the cards of the House of Cards that United Airlines is built on, may be organizationally, systematically, and culturally far more worrisome.
In the case of United #3411, and for that matter any other commercial flight on a US carrier, I wonder how "in charge" the Captain of the aircraft really is, and what, in a situation similar to #3411 the responsibilities of the Captain are? Is the Captain to stay in the cockpit and protect him/herself and his/her First Officer and controls of the aircraft, leave the First Officer in the cockpit to coordinate radio communication, and have some presence in the aircraft cabin? How is authority transferred, if it is transferred from the Captain to law enforcement? I wonder, has United Airlines vetted the police/security thugs/fire/EMS personnel who respond to a request for emergency assistance from United Airlines personnel at an airport where United Airlines operates (or is that vetting responsibility some other agency's responsibility,that United Airlines has approved of ?).
Personally, I think objective data is needed to draw objective conclusions about what did or did not transpire with the operation of UA #3411. There are lots of things that raise my eyebrows, other than the behavior of the Law Enforcement Officials, on United's part, I wonder about the: (1) decision making of the Captain, (2) inventory seat/passenger management by the Gate Agents in the Gate Area (the Gate Area and aircraft strike me as funnel-like, with the gate area the wide part of the funnel, and the aircraft the narrow part of the funnel; why Gate Agents would fill every seat on a plane when they knew they were overcommitted (rather than hold passengers in the Gate Area), is something I just don't understand, (3) preemptive seat assignments of UA crewmembers who had to deadhead to Louisville; if the crewmembers had to be in Louisville, and that was known to UA, why were they not assigned seats before the flight was boarded?, (4) supervisory engagement of what I would suspect looked like a potentially problematic situation to United Airlines 30 minutes before they began general boarding of #3411? I wonder, did UA deploy a Supervisor to that gate to assist the gate agents in managing a potentially unusual occurrence OR has what the travelling public perceives as an unusual occurrence, become a USUAL OCCURRENCE at United Airlines (read about the theory: The Normalization of Deviance).
My list goes on and on. I am genuinely curious how vulnerable the participants on this forum feel about flying on United Airlines.
To those who have shared their perspective, thank you.
When it comes to how I feel about flying, 9-11 changed me and my perception of commercial aviation and aviation safety. In the course of my travels, I've observed many a professional in-flight personnel, and some train-wreck in-flight personnel; no different than any other industry. But there are not many industries that I can think of where a staff person, let’s say a flight attendant, can threaten someone with removal from a flight, Federal charges, criminal charges, for perhaps, a comment made by another passenger, that the flight attendant wrongly attributes to the passenger that he/she threatens with the aforementioned sanctions. I have seen many an in-flight staff person manage what appeared to me to be a non threatening behavior (I realize that measuring and assessing behavior, by non-behaviorists, is largely subjective) by a passenger, with the usual array of, in some cases, necessary controls, and in my opinion, many cases, overused/abused threats (which may be the result of an abusive travelling public or a defective or weakened psyche of the in-flight personnel). But, as it relates to United Airlines, I fear that this may be the least of United Airlines worries, and that the cards of the House of Cards that United Airlines is built on, may be organizationally, systematically, and culturally far more worrisome.
In the case of United #3411, and for that matter any other commercial flight on a US carrier, I wonder how "in charge" the Captain of the aircraft really is, and what, in a situation similar to #3411 the responsibilities of the Captain are? Is the Captain to stay in the cockpit and protect him/herself and his/her First Officer and controls of the aircraft, leave the First Officer in the cockpit to coordinate radio communication, and have some presence in the aircraft cabin? How is authority transferred, if it is transferred from the Captain to law enforcement? I wonder, has United Airlines vetted the police/security thugs/fire/EMS personnel who respond to a request for emergency assistance from United Airlines personnel at an airport where United Airlines operates (or is that vetting responsibility some other agency's responsibility,that United Airlines has approved of ?).
Personally, I think objective data is needed to draw objective conclusions about what did or did not transpire with the operation of UA #3411. There are lots of things that raise my eyebrows, other than the behavior of the Law Enforcement Officials, on United's part, I wonder about the: (1) decision making of the Captain, (2) inventory seat/passenger management by the Gate Agents in the Gate Area (the Gate Area and aircraft strike me as funnel-like, with the gate area the wide part of the funnel, and the aircraft the narrow part of the funnel; why Gate Agents would fill every seat on a plane when they knew they were overcommitted (rather than hold passengers in the Gate Area), is something I just don't understand, (3) preemptive seat assignments of UA crewmembers who had to deadhead to Louisville; if the crewmembers had to be in Louisville, and that was known to UA, why were they not assigned seats before the flight was boarded?, (4) supervisory engagement of what I would suspect looked like a potentially problematic situation to United Airlines 30 minutes before they began general boarding of #3411? I wonder, did UA deploy a Supervisor to that gate to assist the gate agents in managing a potentially unusual occurrence OR has what the travelling public perceives as an unusual occurrence, become a USUAL OCCURRENCE at United Airlines (read about the theory: The Normalization of Deviance).
My list goes on and on. I am genuinely curious how vulnerable the participants on this forum feel about flying on United Airlines.
To those who have shared their perspective, thank you.