mymiles2go

What really sucks here is that for those passengers making connections later in the night elsewhere in Africa, many of the flights don't operate daily, so merely coming in 24hrs later isn't always helpful if a flight only operates M/W/F, or the like.

This coming from someone who's taken IAD-ACC a bit and had to change around entire African itins simply because the connecting flights weren't there on some days and other days they were.

spankytoes

That's completely incorrect.

You can sue for anything, but it doesn't mean that you are going to win. Unless United can prove that their property or persons were damaged in the melee, they have no case. It was their decision to cancel the flight, regardless of circumstances. The crew has no case unless they were physically assaulted or injured. As no charges were pressed, I'm assuming that this was not the case.

This was no different than a bar fight at 20,000 feet.

EsquireFlyer

No, I think your statement is completely incorrect. Damages in this case would not be limited to property damage, but reasonably forseeable losses, and I think that a flight diversion is reasonably forseeable when a passenger decides to start a fight on a plane.

I agree with this part and said the same in my post.

A plane is inherently different from a bar. For example, tampering with a smoke detector in a bar restroom is not a $2,000 federal offense.

unavaca

Happened to me on HKG-SFO... 14 hours in Y sucks already... don't be trying to knee my back while I'm sleeping.

EsquireFlyer

Yeah, I'd be really pissed about that too. I'd probably even complain to an FA if someone was purposely jamming his/her knees into me (rather than accidentally because he/she just has long legs).

Thimee

At 6"6, that would be me. Look at if from my point of view - you are reclining your seat as hard as you can into the front of my knees... Jerk

I actually had a teeny tiny woman on a Frontier flight turn round, glare at me and then decide not to go the fisticuffs route (haha, imagine). Instead she rang the flight attendant button, upon arrival, the flight attendant told her to be considerate of her tall neighbors and then moved her to the back of the plane next to the lavs in a middle seat.

Luckily this almost never occurs in E+, so it's a moot issue on United.

tripledip

The magical four words that shut most people up when they have an issue with someone daring to either fully recline or having the gall to get up and use the lavatory while the aisle passenger is lost in their headphones: GET. YOUR. OWN. PLANE.

spankytoes

Again, that is incorrect. United made the decision to divert the flight and even admitted that the situation was well under control. I can't speak to whether or not it was the correct decision as I wasn't there. But the fact that neither passengers were restrained, and the pilot gave the all clear command, is the lynch pin in the litigation. That is why it is fruitless for them to even file. The cost alone, and prospect of reimbursement from the PAX, is prohibative. Any first year litigator could win that case in his/her sleep.

I wasn't equating a plane with a bar. I said that it was no different than a bar fight. Can an innocent bystandard witnessing a bar fight sue the bar for pain and suffering? Yes, but it's frivolous and would probably be dismissed before it hit the judge's docket. The comment was strictly aimed at the suggestion that passenger's could sue United over the incident when they themselves were not physically injured. That is a seperate issue from whether or not United should refund them for the inconveience.

As an attorney that represents a few airlines, and their unions, I'm fairly certain that I'm correct here.

NYC1K

And what is AMCITs?

EsquireFlyer

Again, I think that you are incorrect to assume that because United made a decision to divert a flight due to a fight on board precludes them from recovering from the passengers whose disruptive behavior induced United to make that decision. I'm not saying the lawsuit wouldn't be expensive or time-consuming (these days, virtually all lawsuits are expensive and time-consuming), but I strongly disagree with your claim that any first-year litigator could successfully defend this case in his/her sleep.

Neither of those issues is related to my post which you were responding to. I was saying that United could potentially recover against the passengers who caused the flight to be grounded. Nowhere did I say that a bystander observing the fight could sue for pain and suffering.

A better "bar" analogy would be to someone whose misconduct (say, for example, a "harmless" fake bomb threat) causes a bar to shut down on a Saturday night. That bar could potentially recover against the person who made the bomb threat (if they can identify him/her) for the bar's lost profits. As I acknowledged above, lawsuits are usually expensive and time-consuming, sometimes to the extent that they are not worth pursuing, but speaking strictly on the merits of the claim (as opposed to the expense of pursuing it), I think the bar would have a pretty good case, even if the bar owner made the "choice" to shut down.

Fine, I don't represent airlines. But as an attorney who represents banks and businesses that routinely sue and get sued for economic losses, I'm fairly certain that you're not correct here.

I think the poster means "American citizens," since if the disruptive passengers were American citizens, the U.S. cannot deport them by canceling their visas.

AFJon

American Citizens.

pcoll52

Different issues than legal ones.
This was no doubt a 767-300ER which has a 24,000 gal fuel cap not 16,000 as reported.
No way they burned enough fuel to land.
They dumped about 10,000 gallons I suspect given the half-passenger load.
a) The 767 (non ER) is not rated for trans Atlantic flight - right?
b) 16K gallons will get you only ~3,000 miles - right?
The Max landing weight (427K#) is about 100,000 lbs less than max takeoff in the 767ER.

I suppose they don’t want to say "we don’t dump Jet fuel over the ocean or houses in Northern Virginia."

EsquireFlyer

Yeah, I was thinking about that too...that short fly-around can't have been enough to burn so much fuel (or else the plane would have run out of fuel and crashed if it had tried to go all the way to ACC).

prestonh

Probably poor journalism that didn't realize the difference between the ER and standard -300 variants. IIRC, UA's international 763's are ER's with the Pratts. This mean variation on the ranges as I believe the engines have slightly less thrust than the GE and RR counterparts, but I may have that mixed up with the 772's. I think the non ER 763 can still do TATL to most east coast cities.

cfield

I was on this exact same flight from IAD to ACC on Saturday and then coming back from ACC to IAD on Wednesday. Crazy that this happened, and it was all the flight attendants were all taking about.

For the record, I fly this trip fairly often (5 times already this year), and my planes are almost always completely full in every class. I was very surprised that article said there were only 144 people, and I wonder if that is accurate.