Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Airlines and Mileage Programs > United Airlines | MileagePlus
Reload this Page >

UA captain diverts flight, removes pax because of IFE complaints

UA captain diverts flight, removes pax because of IFE complaints

Old Apr 2, 2013, 8:22 am
  #1  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Singapore
Programs: SQ KF (ex-UA)
Posts: 588
UA captain diverts flight, removes pax because of IFE complaints

From James Fallows' very good blog on the Atlantic (other comments about UA at the link well worth reading):

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/...engers/274512/

I know the real names of the family, in Baltimore, lodging the complaint below. For now I am not using their names, although on my inquiry they said they would be willing to be identified if necessary. I am also not naming the specific pilot they refer to in their complaint, though I have found his name and particulars in various United rosters. For the time being the point is the general "this is how we live now" observation. Here goes:

>>We trust you will find the following narrative interesting and relevant to your frequent essays on air travel in general, and United in particular.

On February 2, 2013 we travelled with our two young boys (4 and 8 years old) aboard United 638 from Denver to Baltimore's BWI airport. The inflight entertainment was the movie Alex Cross, which United's own inflight magazine rated as 'T', or, "Adult Themes". It includes extreme, graphic violence and sexually explicit content. On our plane, an A320, the movie was projected on drop-down screens above the seats, such that we could not shield our young children from this inappropriate content. Alarmed by the opening scenes, we asked two flight attendants if they could turn off the monitor; both claimed it was not possible.

The first flight attendant also claimed that the screen could not be folded up independently (which it clearly could) and that even if it could, she would still not authorize closing it because of the passengers sitting behind us. At this point, the passengers behind us spoke up and agreed the content was inappropriate for children and announced it would not bother them at all to switch it off. Both flight attendants, and later the purser, claimed that they have no authority or ability to change or turn off the movie. The purser did, however, agree with us, as did many more of the passengers around us, that it is patently inappropriate to expose children to such content.

We asked if the captain has the authority to address this issue, but received no response. A few minutes later we asked for the captain's name (I failed to make note when he welcomed us on the PA system), and was told, by the purser, that we will have to ask him ourselves when we disembark.

Throughout these interactions the atmosphere was collegial, no voices were raised and no threats, implicit or explicit, of any kind were made. The flight continued without incident, while my wife and I engaged our children to divert their attention from the horrific scenes on the movie screens.

More than an hour later the captain, [name withheld for now], announced that due to "security concerns", our flight was being diverted to Chicago's ORD. Although this sounded ominous, all passengers, us included, were calm. After landing a Chicago police officer boarded the plane and, to our disbelief, approached us and asked that we collect our belongings, and follow her to disembark. The captain, apparently, felt that our complaint constituted grave danger to the aircraft, crew and the other passengers, and that this danger justified inconveniencing his crew, a few of whom "timed out" during the diversion, and a full plane of your customers, causing dozens of them to miss their connections, wasting time, precious jet fuel, and adding to United's carbon footprint. Not to mention unnecessarily involving several of Chicago's finest, two Border Protection officers and several United and ORD managers, and an FBI agent, who all met us at the gate. After we were interviewed (for less than 5 minutes), our identities and backgrounds checked, we were booked on the next flight to BWI, and had to linger in the terminal for hours with our exhausted and terrified little boys.

Everyone involved: The FBI agent, the police officers, United employees, the passengers around us and (we were told) some of the crew, were incredulous, and explicit in their condemnation of Captain [XX]'s actions. However, even United's Area Supervisor, although cordial and helpful, was powerless to override the Captain's decision that we be removed from the plane.

To us, this incident raises two grave issues. First, the abuse of power by Captain [XX]. We understand that airline captains can and should have complete authority. However, when this authority is used for senseless, vindictive acts, it must be addressed.

Second, and of even greater concern is United's decision to inflict upon minors grossly inappropriate cinematic content, without parents or guardians having the ability to opt out. Had this been in a cinema or a restaurant, we would have simply left if the content were too violent, or too sexual, for a preschooler and a 2nd grader. Cruising at 30,000 feet, leaving was not an option.

To this date, our appeals to United to address these issues remain unanswered. We wrote to their Customer Service, and directly to their CEO, but received no responses.<<
There are two sides to every story but this fits into a disturbing pattern of such incidents at UA recently. I haven't seen the movie in question so I can't comment as to the adult content. I personally don't get worked up about such things but you'd think UA would put some basic thought into the content they put on the overhead screens given that some people are easily offended. Nobody watches those things anyway, just throw up some Seinfeld or Everybody Loves Raymond and call it a day.

Regardless, the pilot response here seems totally disproportionate and there should be some avenue for review of these actions especially if the pax in question were a protected class under discrimination laws.
gailwynand is offline  
Old Apr 2, 2013, 8:23 am
  #2  
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Programs: UA Platinum
Posts: 252
Fallows on UA CS & Capt diverting plane b/c pax complain about movie

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/...engers/274512/

I think the CS issues mentioned in the first part are old hat for this board, but the complaint about having the flight diverted for requesting the captain to turn off the movie is pretty wild.
waxearwings is offline  
Old Apr 2, 2013, 8:28 am
  #3  
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: WAS
Programs: UA1K .455 MM, Hilton and Marriott Gold
Posts: 397
Unless UA edited the movie for content, it is very graphic. I personally turned it off after about 5-10 minutes on a recent flight in C due to the content and quite poor story.


...I love how there was no apparant warning. Surprised by the lack of reply from SMI/J email contact....maybe they won't reply because of legal concerns.
BigBossman is offline  
Old Apr 2, 2013, 8:32 am
  #4  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: LHR (sometimes CLE, SFO, BOS, LAX, SEA)
Programs: UA 1K
Posts: 5,889
I wonder whether it's the same pilot from this 2009 incident: http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/unite...july-13-a.html

(via http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...endant-329737/ ):
United Airlines is conducting an internal investigation after one of its captains diverted a flight to deplane a senior flight attendant who he argued with.

Flight 842 from Sao Paulo, Brazil to Chicago O'Hare diverted to Miami early in the morning of 14 July midway through the scheduled 6hr 45min non-stop flight.

A source familiar with the incident says the captain ordered the purser of the Boeing 767 to leave the aircraft because he was "not respecting his authority".
mherdeg is offline  
Old Apr 2, 2013, 8:34 am
  #5  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: DEN
Programs: UA 1K (MM), DL, AA, AS, HHonors, SPG, Kimpton, Hyatt, IC PC, Marriott Titanium (LT PLT), Hertz PC
Posts: 7,224
I have to admit that I too (without having any children on board) was AMAZED (!) that they would play Alex Cross on the overhead monitors during a recent flight. There is a lot of violence in that movie and I would agree that it is not appropriate for younger children (it's rated PG-13). I'm generally pretty relaxed about this sort of stuff, but playing this movie in a public setting just seemed like a poor decision by someone at United.
GBadger is offline  
Old Apr 2, 2013, 8:34 am
  #6  
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: London; Bangkok; Las Vegas
Programs: AA Exec Plat; UA MM Gold; Marriott Lifetime Titanium; Hilton Diamond
Posts: 8,740
I haven't seen the film, but it is only rated PG-13.

While I am sure every parent would like to see Cars and Shrek on the in-flight video, I don't believe showing a PG-13 movies is out-of-line.
Always Flyin is offline  
Old Apr 2, 2013, 8:38 am
  #7  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: DEN
Programs: UA 1K (MM), DL, AA, AS, HHonors, SPG, Kimpton, Hyatt, IC PC, Marriott Titanium (LT PLT), Hertz PC
Posts: 7,224
Originally Posted by Always Flyin
I haven't seen the film, but it is only rated PG-13.

While I am sure every parent would like to see Cars and Shrek on the in-flight video, I don't believe showing a PG-13 movies is out-of-line.
Sorry, I disagree -- a PG-13 movie is out of line when there is a chance that a significant fraction of your passengers may be under 13.

I'm 33 and generally pretty lax about what I expose my daughter to, but Alex Cross is not appropriate for children under 10 (or even some children over 10, in my opinion). To show it on personal screens is one thing... To show it on the overhead where the entire aircraft is exposed to it whether they want to be or not is another.

I don't need Cars and Shrek, but there are lots of options that fall in between cartoons and graphic violence. My guess is that after you've seen the movie you might disagree with your own statement.
GBadger is offline  
Old Apr 2, 2013, 8:39 am
  #8  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Programs: Whatever gets me there faster.
Posts: 746
Originally Posted by GBadger
I have to admit that I too (without having any children on board) was AMAZED (!) that they would play Alex Cross on the overhead monitors during a recent flight. There is a lot of violence in that movie and I would agree that it is not appropriate for younger children (it's rated PG-13). I'm generally pretty relaxed about this sort of stuff, but playing this movie in a public setting just seemed like a poor decision by someone at United.
Way back when, I was on a flight that played Last of the Mohicans. Alex Cross has nothing on that movie.
DXjr is offline  
Old Apr 2, 2013, 8:44 am
  #9  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: DEN
Programs: UA 1K (MM), DL, AA, AS, HHonors, SPG, Kimpton, Hyatt, IC PC, Marriott Titanium (LT PLT), Hertz PC
Posts: 7,224
Originally Posted by DXjr
Way back when, I was on a flight that played Last of the Mohicans. Alex Cross has nothing on that movie.
I agree, and also don't believe that Last of the Mohicans is appropriate for showing on the overhead screens to a captive audience...
GBadger is offline  
Old Apr 2, 2013, 8:53 am
  #10  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: SF Bay Area
Programs: None - previously UA
Posts: 4,841
Complete failure of judgement from the pilot. It's ridiculous that bringing up an issue like this would cause the plane to divert.
escapefromphl is online now  
Old Apr 2, 2013, 8:54 am
  #11  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: IAH mostly.
Programs: I still call it Onepass every now and then. Platinum.
Posts: 500
Originally Posted by waxearwings
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/...engers/274512/

I think the CS issues mentioned in the first part are old hat for this board, but the complaint about having the flight diverted for requesting the captain to turn off the movie is pretty wild.
Yeah, quite wild. If that had happened to me flying with my kids I would be done with United forever. All of the UA employees may have been incredulous, but it's quite telling that there were no offers to make it up to the pax in any way.
cottonmather0 is offline  
Old Apr 2, 2013, 8:54 am
  #12  
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: London; Bangkok; Las Vegas
Programs: AA Exec Plat; UA MM Gold; Marriott Lifetime Titanium; Hilton Diamond
Posts: 8,740
I am not saying it is appropriate to show Alex Cross (haven't seen it), but if the choice of films is based upon input from each of the parents on a plane, we are going to be left with nothing but G-rated films in order to dumb it down to the lowest common denominator.

I certainly wouldn't advocate showing R-rated films, but assume that for the general audiences on airplanes, PG-13 is acceptable.

If not, how would you have United censor the films to make them acceptable?

It's a slippery slope once you start down it.
Always Flyin is offline  
Old Apr 2, 2013, 8:56 am
  #13  
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: London; Bangkok; Las Vegas
Programs: AA Exec Plat; UA MM Gold; Marriott Lifetime Titanium; Hilton Diamond
Posts: 8,740
Originally Posted by cottonmather0
Yeah, quite wild. If that had happened to me flying with my kids I would be done with United forever. All of the UA employees may have been incredulous, but it's quite telling that there were no offers to make it up to the pax in any way.
There is an assumption that the story is telling the WHOLE story. Somehow, I suspect there was a little more going on for the pilot to choose to make an unscheduled stop to off-load the passengers.

We're only heard one side of the story.
Always Flyin is offline  
Old Apr 2, 2013, 9:00 am
  #14  
Moderator, Omni, Omni/PR, Omni/Games, FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Between DCA and IAD
Programs: UA 1K MM; Hilton Diamond
Posts: 67,010
UA does show films edited for content.

I do not know why this is the airline's fault. The parents could have brought iPads or portable DVD players for the kids to watch if they were so concerned about what they viewed. Or covered their eyes if they really objected to some part of the content. Or, better yet, explained things to their kids (you know, providing some of that "parental guidance" which "PG" stands for in movie ratings).
exerda is offline  
Old Apr 2, 2013, 9:01 am
  #15  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Newport Beach, California, USA
Posts: 36,062
An example of "two morons don't equal one rational person." Assuming that the account is accurate (a very big assumption), the captain shouldn't have diverted. However, the attempt by the mother to make the airplane child-safe (in her opinion) is ridiculous. I'm sure she's the kind of parent who, when people object to her children's behavior, says, "If you can't tolerate all kinds of people, fly public!" Airlines do edit films, and this one was rated PG-13. If she thinks it's inappropriate for her children, fly another airline or charter a private jet. I couldn't care less what she thinks is or is not appropriate for her children.

I am very curious just how much of a ruckus she caused over this -- perhaps there was only one moron after all.
PTravel is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

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.