Community
Wiki Posts
Search

Uncooperative Pax meets a Billy Stick

 
Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Apr 9, 2011, 1:38 am
  #1  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5
Uncooperative Pax meets a Billy Stick

On tonight's UAX 6468 DEN-CPR flight a passenger was repeatedly asked by the FA prior to push-back to turn off his cell phone. The passenger loading bridge had already been pulled back with only the airstairs in use. After being told numerous times by the FA she advised him that he would not be flying with them tonight and needed to deboard the plane. Pax refuses and tells her he's not getting off.

Denver P.D. were called to assist and two uniformed officers arrived to escort the pax off the plane. 30 seconds after boarding the plane, one of the officers was ejected down the stairs by the pax and out come the billy clubs. Pax and the two officers continued to fight in the galley with many swings of the stick in use for a full 20 minutes until 3 more officers arrived and were finally able to cuff him and get him off the plane.

Pax was eventually restrained in a gurney and transported to a local hospital due to his head being split open in a couple of places. FA was too upset to continue and a replacement was brought in.

Flight left late after the cleanup from the blood splatter.
gr8wn67 is offline  
Old Apr 9, 2011, 1:42 am
  #2  
Moderator: United Airlines
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: SFO
Programs: UA Plat 1.995MM, Hyatt Discoverist, Marriott Plat/LT Gold, Hilton Silver, IHG Plat
Posts: 66,857
wow -- I am glad to say in my 800+ flights, 1.5M miles, nearly 50 years of flying I have never seen an event even close to this.

Suspect this guy is going to spend some serious time in jail.
WineCountryUA is offline  
Old Apr 9, 2011, 5:08 am
  #3  
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Central California
Programs: Former UA Premex, now dirt
Posts: 6,531
Originally Posted by WineCountryUA
... Suspect this guy is going to spend some serious time in jail.
Most likely a full psych eval, then jail. If the fight was that intense, the charges will be more serious than simple resisting.

In over 30 years of law enforcement, I only experienced something like that a couple of times and never on a plane/train/bus. Cramped quarters like those in the galley would make it "interesting." All those sharp corners and hard surfaces.
abmj-jr is offline  
Old Apr 9, 2011, 6:44 am
  #4  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Raleigh
Programs: United GS 2MM,, Marriott/Starwood Lifetime Platinum
Posts: 754
Over consumption of alcohol often seems to get people into these belligerent moods, though the length of the incident you are describing sounds seriously bonkers.
Technically, in my experience, it is the closing of the door (not pulling of the jetbridge) that is the deadline for cell phone use. That said, compliance with the FA after numerous requests would seem appropriate.
I presume the passengers were fairly shaken up by witnessing this? Did any passengers opt to deplane prior to departure?
SAN 1K is offline  
Old Apr 9, 2011, 7:46 am
  #5  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: SNA
Programs: UA Million Mile Nobody, Marriott Platinum Elite, SPG Gold
Posts: 25,228
Just a question though. If the air stairs were in use, that means the door was open. Isn't the reg about turning off electronics when the door closes? I know, the whole "obey flight crew" stuff. But rules have to be enforced uniformly, FAs cannot make their own, and the door being open may in fact provide a legal argument. I'm thinking a good lawyer (which he will obviously need) will bring the case back to the FA as abusive first.

So was the door open? Were there other passengers still using cell phones and this one picked on? Was the FA rude or obnoxious? Just a few questions that will come up.
flyinbob is offline  
Old Apr 9, 2011, 7:53 am
  #6  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: On the road in North America....
Programs: UA 1MM, *G, Global Entry
Posts: 579
Originally Posted by flyinbob
Just a question though. If the air stairs were in use, that means the door was open. Isn't the reg about turning off electronics when the door closes? I know, the whole "obey flight crew" stuff. But rules have to be enforced uniformly, FAs cannot make their own, and the door being open may in fact provide a legal argument. I'm thinking a good lawyer (which he will obviously need) will bring the case back to the FA as abusive first.

So was the door open? Were there other passengers still using cell phones and this one picked on? Was the FA rude or obnoxious? Just a few questions that will come up.
None of which will matter when the only charge filed is assaulting a police officer.

joe
FlyingDiver is offline  
Old Apr 9, 2011, 7:59 am
  #7  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: PHL & (gasp) AVP (NEPA)
Programs: UA 1K
Posts: 787
Originally Posted by flyinbob
Just a question though. If the air stairs were in use, that means the door was open. Isn't the reg about turning off electronics when the door closes? I know, the whole "obey flight crew" stuff. But rules have to be enforced uniformly, FAs cannot make their own, and the door being open may in fact provide a legal argument. I'm thinking a good lawyer (which he will obviously need) will bring the case back to the FA as abusive first.

So was the door open? Were there other passengers still using cell phones and this one picked on? Was the FA rude or obnoxious? Just a few questions that will come up.
And what is the legal defense for assaulting an officer and the subsequent resisting arrest?

"The FA was wrong so you can't fault me for attacking the LEO"

TechnoPagan is offline  
Old Apr 9, 2011, 8:18 am
  #8  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: London & Sonoma CA
Programs: UA 1K, MM *G for life, BAEC Gold
Posts: 10,227
Originally Posted by flyinbob
- I know, the whole "obey flight crew" stuff. But rules have to be enforced uniformly, FAs cannot make their own, and the door being open may in fact provide a legal argument. I'm thinking a good lawyer (which he will obviously need) will bring the case back to the FA as abusive first.

So was the door open? Were there other passengers still using cell phones and this one picked on? Was the FA rude or obnoxious? Just a few questions that will come up.
What a terrible indictment of our legal system that this is even relevant. "Oh, everyone else was ......[insert offense here]....., therefore they picked on me so I was pissed and I didn't want to obey, therefore let me off and I'll sue everyone involved."
lhrsfo is offline  
Old Apr 9, 2011, 8:18 am
  #9  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Greater DC
Programs: UA plus
Posts: 12,943
Thanks for a concise recap of a somewhat "interesting" fight and flight ... This may be the first time I've seen an appropriate use of the airport police and the "obey your FA" rules, although with any call today, there is a bit of "yelling wolf" involved due to other FAs overreacting at the most minor event until it is proven (as in this case) that a real issue exists. Don't think the airport police don't realize they are often used as puppets (by FAs, other airport personnel and of course and mostly by TSA)
GoingAway is offline  
Old Apr 9, 2011, 8:19 am
  #10  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: MCI
Programs: AA Gold 1MM, AS MVP, UA Silver, WN A-List, Marriott LT Titanium, HH Diamond
Posts: 52,575
Yeah, I think the whole trial is going to center on whether the flight attendant was in a good mood or not. If she was grouchy, then yeah, I think an all-out brawl with the cops is an excellent idea.
pinniped is offline  
Old Apr 9, 2011, 8:40 am
  #11  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Programs: Marriott Lifetime Titanium (former PP), Hilton Silver, UA Silver, AS Member, Hertz 5*
Posts: 3,906
Originally Posted by flyinbob
Just a question though. If the air stairs were in use, that means the door was open. Isn't the reg about turning off electronics when the door closes? I know, the whole "obey flight crew" stuff. But rules have to be enforced uniformly, FAs cannot make their own, and the door being open may in fact provide a legal argument. I'm thinking a good lawyer (which he will obviously need) will bring the case back to the FA as abusive first.

So was the door open? Were there other passengers still using cell phones and this one picked on? Was the FA rude or obnoxious? Just a few questions that will come up.
I think a good lawyer would tell the guy to take a plea bargain if possible. It would seem in this case that the F/A could get a number of people to testify that the passenger was ignoring repeated crew commands to turn off the cell phone. A lawyer can't just talk out of his rear end and make an accusation without any proof. Besides what about the officer that got thrown down the stairs? Is the passenger going to say, well I just don't do what other people tell me?
VA1379 is offline  
Old Apr 9, 2011, 9:36 am
  #12  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Virginia, USA
Posts: 4,510
A full color re-play of this event should be part of all pre-flight videos.
JetAway is offline  
Old Apr 9, 2011, 9:42 am
  #13  
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
Originally Posted by gr8wn67
FA was too upset to continue and a replacement was brought in.
I'll be clobbered for this, but while the pax was apparently a jerk (I'm leaving open the possibility that what OP and the FA observed as a cell phone was in fact a cell phone and not some other device like a medical halter monitor), hopefully she's learned a lesson: don't enforce inane and useless rules. It isn't good for her emotional health.
mre5765 is offline  
Old Apr 9, 2011, 9:48 am
  #14  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Greater DC
Programs: UA plus
Posts: 12,943
Originally Posted by mre5765
I'll be clobbered for this, but while the pax was apparently a jerk (I'm leaving open the possibility that what OP and the FA observed as a cell phone was in fact a cell phone and not some other device like a medical halter monitor), hopefully she's learned a lesson: don't enforce inane and useless rules. It isn't good for her emotional health.
Seriously?!? Problem passenger identified on ground before stuck 30k in the air in small metal tube, I think the fa made right call
GoingAway is offline  
Old Apr 9, 2011, 9:48 am
  #15  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: On the road in North America....
Programs: UA 1MM, *G, Global Entry
Posts: 579
Originally Posted by mre5765
I'll be clobbered for this, but while the pax was apparently a jerk (I'm leaving open the possibility that what OP and the FA observed as a cell phone was in fact a cell phone and not some other device like a medical halter monitor), hopefully she's learned a lesson: don't enforce inane and useless rules. It isn't good for her emotional health.
If she doesn't enforce the rule, she (and the airline) can get fined by the FAA. You can argue all day about the validity of the rule, but until it gets rescinded, the FAs really don't have any choice.

joe
FlyingDiver is offline  


Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.