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

Man pulled off of overbooked flight UA3411 (ORD-SDF) 9 Apr 2017 {Settlement reached}

Community
Wiki Posts
Search
Old Apr 10, 2017, 8:42 pm
FlyerTalk Forums Expert How-Tos and Guides
Last edit by: WineCountryUA
WELCOME, THREAD GUIDELINES and SUMMARY PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING

If you are new to us, welcome to FlyerTalk! Who we are: FlyerTalk features discussions and chat boards that cover the most up-to-date traveler information; an interactive community dedicated to the topic of travel (not politics or arguments about politics or religion, etc. – those discussion are best in the OMNI forum)

The incident discussed in this thread has touched a nerve for many, and many posters are passionate about their opinions and concerns. However we should still have a civil and respectful discussion of this topic. This is because FlyerTalk is meant to be a friendly, helpful, and collegial community. (Rule 12.)

1. The normal FlyerTalk Rules apply. (Including not discussing moderation actions in thread). Please be particularly attentive to "discussing the idea and not the poster" when you have a disagreement. Civility and mutual respect are still expected and are what we owe each other as a community.

2. You are expected to respect the FlyerTalk community's diversity, and therefore refrain from posting inflammatory comments about race, religion, culture, politics, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc. Do not cite, copy, or report on such.

3. While you can disagree with an opinion, the holder of that opinion has the same right to their opinion as you have to yours. We request all to respect that and disagree or discuss their point of views without getting overly personal and without attacking the other poster(s). This is expected as a requirement in FT Rule 12.

4. Overly exaggerative posts as well as posts with information that has been posted several times previously may be summarily deleted.

5. In addition, those who repeatedly fail to comply with FlyerTalk Rules, may be subjected to FlyerTalk disciplinary actions and, e.g., have membership privileges suspended, or masked from this forum.

If you have questions about the Rules or concerns about what another has posted in this or other threads in this forum, please do not post about that. Rather, notify the moderators by using the alert symbol within each post or email or send a private message to us moderators.

Let’s have this discussion in a way that, when we look back on it, we can be proud of how we handled ourselves as a community.

The United Moderator team:
J.Edward
l'etoile
Ocn Vw 1K
Pat89339
WineCountryUA

N.B. PLEASE do not alter the contents of this moderator note
Statement from United Airlines Regarding Resolution with Dr. David Dao - released 27 April 2017
CHICAGO, April 27, 2017 /PRNewswire/ -- We are pleased to report that United and Dr. Dao have reached an amicable resolution of the unfortunate incident that occurred aboard flight 3411. We look forward to implementing the improvements we have announced, which will put our customers at the center of everything we do.
DOT findings related to the UA3411 9 April 2017 IDB incident 12 May 2017

What facts do we know?
  • UA3411, operated by Republic Airways, ORD-SDF on Sunday, April 9, 2017. UA3411 was the second to last flight to SDF for United. AA3509 and UA4771 were the two remaining departures for the day. Also, AA and DL had connecting options providing for same-day arrival in SDF.
  • After the flight was fully boarded, United determined four seats were needed to accommodate crew to SDF for a flight on Monday.
  • United solicited volunteers for VDB. (BUT stopped at $800 in UA$s, not cash). Chose not to go to the levels such as 1350 that airlines have been known to go even in case of weather impacted disruption)
  • After receiving no volunteers for $800 vouchers, a passenger volunteered for $1,600 and was "laughed at" and refused, United determined four passengers to be removed from the flight.
  • One passenger refused and Chicago Aviation Security Officers were called to forcibly remove the passenger.
  • The passenger hit the armrest in the aisle and received a concussion, a broken nose, a bloodied lip, and the loss of two teeth.
  • After being removed from the plane, the passenger re-boarded saying "I need to go home" repeatedly, before being removed again.
  • United spokesman Jonathan Guerin said the flight was sold out — but not oversold. Instead, United and regional affiliate Republic Airlines – the unit that operated Flight 3411 – decided they had to remove four passengers from the flight to accommodate crewmembers who were needed in Louisville the next day for a “downline connection.”

United Express Flight 3411 Review and Action Report - released 27 April 2017

Videos

Internal Communication by Oscar Munoz
Oscar Munoz sent an internal communication to UA employees (sources: View From The Wing, Chicago Tribune):
Dear Team,

Like you, I was upset to see and hear about what happened last night aboard United Express Flight 3411 headed from Chicago to Louisville. While the facts and circumstances are still evolving, especially with respect to why this customer defied Chicago Aviation Security Officers the way he did, to give you a clearer picture of what transpired, I've included below a recap from the preliminary reports filed by our employees.

As you will read, this situation was unfortunately compounded when one of the passengers we politely asked to deplane refused and it became necessary to contact Chicago Aviation Security Officers to help. Our employees followed established procedures for dealing with situations like this. While I deeply regret this situation arose, I also emphatically stand behind all of you, and I want to commend you for continuing to go above and beyond to ensure we fly right.

I do, however, believe there are lessons we can learn from this experience, and we are taking a close look at the circumstances surrounding this incident. Treating our customers and each other with respect and dignity is at the core of who we are, and we must always remember this no matter how challenging the situation.

Oscar

Summary of Flight 3411
  • On Sunday, April 9, after United Express Flight 3411 was fully boarded, United's gate agents were approached by crewmembers that were told they needed to board the flight.
  • We sought volunteers and then followed our involuntary denial of boarding process (including offering up to $1,000 in compensation) and when we approached one of these passengers to explain apologetically that he was being denied boarding, he raised his voice and refused to comply with crew member instructions.
  • He was approached a few more times after that in order to gain his compliance to come off the aircraft, and each time he refused and became more and more disruptive and belligerent.
  • Our agents were left with no choice but to call Chicago Aviation Security Officers to assist in removing the customer from the flight. He repeatedly declined to leave.
  • Chicago Aviation Security Officers were unable to gain his cooperation and physically removed him from the flight as he continued to resist - running back onto the aircraft in defiance of both our crew and security officials.
Email sent to all employees at 2:08PM on Tuesday, April 11.
Dear Team,

The truly horrific event that occurred on this flight has elicited many responses from all of us: outrage, anger, disappointment. I share all of those sentiments, and one above all: my deepest apologies for what happened. Like you, I continue to be disturbed by what happened on this flight and I deeply apologize to the customer forcibly removed and to all the customers aboard. No one should ever be mistreated this way.

I want you to know that we take full responsibility and we will work to make it right.

It’s never too late to do the right thing. I have committed to our customers and our employees that we are going to fix what’s broken so this never happens again. This will include a thorough review of crew movement, our policies for incentivizing volunteers in these situations, how we handle oversold situations and an examination of how we partner with airport authorities and local law enforcement. We’ll communicate the results of our review by April 30th.

I promise you we will do better.

Sincerely,

Oscar
Statement to customers - 27 April 2017
Each flight you take with us represents an important promise we make to you, our customer. It's not simply that we make sure you reach your destination safely and on time, but also that you will be treated with the highest level of service and the deepest sense of dignity and respect.

Earlier this month, we broke that trust when a passenger was forcibly removed from one of our planes. We can never say we are sorry enough for what occurred, but we also know meaningful actions will speak louder than words.

For the past several weeks, we have been urgently working to answer two questions: How did this happen, and how can we do our best to ensure this never happens again?

It happened because our corporate policies were placed ahead of our shared values. Our procedures got in the way of our employees doing what they know is right.

Fixing that problem starts now with changing how we fly, serve and respect our customers. This is a turning point for all of us here at United – and as CEO, it's my responsibility to make sure that we learn from this experience and redouble our efforts to put our customers at the center of everything we do.

That’s why we announced that we will no longer ask law enforcement to remove customers from a flight and customers will not be required to give up their seat once on board – except in matters of safety or security.

We also know that despite our best efforts, when things don’t go the way they should, we need to be there for you to make things right. There are several new ways we’re going to do just that.

We will increase incentives for voluntary rebooking up to $10,000 and will be eliminating the red tape on permanently lost bags with a new "no-questions-asked" $1,500 reimbursement policy. We will also be rolling out a new app for our employees that will enable them to provide on-the-spot goodwill gestures in the form of miles, travel credit and other amenities when your experience with us misses the mark. You can learn more about these commitments and many other changes at hub.united.com.

While these actions are important, I have found myself reflecting more broadly on the role we play and the responsibilities we have to you and the communities we serve.

I believe we must go further in redefining what United's corporate citizenship looks like in our society. If our chief good as a company is only getting you to and from your destination, that would show a lack of moral imagination on our part. You can and ought to expect more from us, and we intend to live up to those higher expectations in the way we embody social responsibility and civic leadership everywhere we operate. I hope you will see that pledge express itself in our actions going forward, of which these initial, though important, changes are merely a first step.

Our goal should be nothing less than to make you truly proud to say, "I fly United."

Ultimately, the measure of our success is your satisfaction and the past several weeks have moved us to go further than ever before in elevating your experience with us. I know our 87,000 employees have taken this message to heart, and they are as energized as ever to fulfill our promise to serve you better with each flight and earn the trust you’ve given us.

We are working harder than ever for the privilege to serve you and I know we will be stronger, better and the customer-focused airline you expect and deserve.

With Great Gratitude,

Oscar Munoz
CEO
United Airlines
Aftermath
Poll: Your Opinion of United Airlines Reference Material

UA's Customer Commitment says:
Occasionally we may not be able to provide you with a seat on a specific flight, even if you hold a ticket, have checked in, are present to board on time, and comply with other requirements. This is called an oversale, and occurs when restrictions apply to operating a particular flight safely (such as aircraft weight limits); when we have to substitute a smaller aircraft in place of a larger aircraft that was originally scheduled; or if more customers have checked in and are prepared to board than we have available seats.

If your flight is in an oversale situation, you will not be denied a seat until we first ask for volunteers willing to give up their confirmed seats. If there are not enough volunteers, we will deny boarding to passengers in accordance with our written policy on boarding priority. If you are involuntarily denied boarding and have complied with our check-in and other applicable rules, we will give you a written statement that describes your rights and explains how we determine boarding priority for an oversold flight. You will generally be entitled to compensation and transportation on an alternate flight.

We make complete rules for the payment of compensation, as well as our policy about boarding priorities, available at airports we serve. We will follow these rules to ensure you are treated fairly. Please be aware that you may be denied boarding without compensation if you do not check in on time or do not meet certain other requirements, or if we offer you alternative transportation that is planned to arrive at your destination or first stopover no later than one hour after the planned arrival time of your original flight.
CoC is here: https://www.united.com/web/en-US/con...-carriage.aspx
Print Wikipost

Man pulled off of overbooked flight UA3411 (ORD-SDF) 9 Apr 2017 {Settlement reached}

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Apr 12, 2017, 12:55 pm
  #4246  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: USA
Programs: Delta
Posts: 43
There's a rule in contract drafting "contract provisions are strictly construed against the drafter"

Another rule is that unless you give a special definition to a word in the contract (which is why some have 'Definitions' sections), it's ordinary meaning applies.

If the airlines don't like it, they should rewrite their contracts (of adhesion if you ask me).
NotSoOftenFlyer is offline  
Old Apr 12, 2017, 12:57 pm
  #4247  
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Programs: UA
Posts: 324
Holes in UA's IDB rules in their Contract of Carriage

https://www.united.com/web/en-US/con...age.aspx#sec25

1) Doesn't appear to address INTRASTATE travel. UA flies many routes that are wholly within a particular state. What is the policy for a flight from IAH-DFW or SFO-SAN?
2) There's still no written policy on who and and how IDB victims are a selected.
3) No mandate to use other carriers even if that other carrier has the quickest resolution route for the victim
4) It appears that UA calculates IDB compensation based upon the segment, not including connections....so if you have 50 dollar segment onto a 2000 dollar transcontinental leg, and you lose your flights, UA says they're only on the hook for 50 x the compensation multiplier. Even if the connecting flight is on UA. This is complete BS
5) No compensation for yanking you for a deadhead if the flight originates outside the US or Canada unless the origination country mandates it.

---

This is what it should say

1) A minimum of 1000 dollars will be paid in cash if a person is IVDBed and as a result, ends up at their destination more than 4 hours after the originally scheduled flight.
2) UA will transport an IVDBed person on the first flight to the destination, at the IVDBed request, regardless of the cost to UA if there is space available on another carrier
3) UA shall provide hotel and meals for the IVDBed person during the time they are being delayed. Hotel and meal choices shall be at least of a quality provided to UA pilots under their contract.
4) UA shall pay, in addition to other compensation, any prior booked hotel and other pre-paid charges unusable by the IVDBed person as a proximate result of the cancellation.
5) These rules shall apply as a minimum on all UA operated OR managed flights OR flights where over 75% of the paid passengers are using United websites or reservations staff to purchase.
6) The specific metric to determine the IVDB selectee will be as follows:
a) The following people shall be usually be exempt: MP Elite passengers flying on purchased tickets, persons holding a seat who have been provided that flight in return for a prior VDB or IVDB, persons with a qualified disability, unaccompanied minors flying as such, and flight operations, maintenance personnel flying on positive space for direct flight operations reasons for UA flights.
b) The first selections shall be those flying on airline provided tickets under the employee flying benefits. Then those flying for purposes of UA non-flight operations business. Then non-elite passengers flying on miles. Then the passengers will be sorted by fare paid for travel between the origin and destination. If there is a tie, then the tie breakers will be (in order)...total time of travel, recovery time using UA metal, time of checkin, and time of purchase.
c) In the even that sufficient IVDB passengers are not available using the metrics above, the procedure should be as follows: 1) elites flying on non-revenue tickets, 2) then the criteria established in section b above by elite tier.
TominLazybrook is offline  
Old Apr 12, 2017, 12:58 pm
  #4248  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 563
Very interesting analysis by a real lawyer (as opposed to the plethora of us armchair lawyers posting on flyertalk) about this case on lawnewz.com.

I think a lot of aviation journalists have been a bit lazy on this, just deferring to what the airlines have told them instead of having the terms of the CoC reviewed by an actual legal professional.

Last edited by DrPSB; Apr 12, 2017 at 1:06 pm
DrPSB is offline  
Old Apr 12, 2017, 1:00 pm
  #4249  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: SEA
Programs: Million Miles achieved | 2017 Delta Platinum, United NADA, Global Entry, PreCheck, NEXUS
Posts: 1,295
Originally Posted by Kacee
He'll get a nice payday.



Here I agree with you. This is not likely to be an overall positive event in the poor guy's life. Dude just wanted to get home.

In fact, part of the reason he'll get a nice payday is all the unwanted publicity, which undoubtedly will result in great emotional distress.
This makes sense.

Originally Posted by AirbusFan2B
When it takes Oscar several tries to cobble together a statement that makes sense, it doesn't instill confidence. His judgment has been flawed and likely still is. The underlying problem is this airline doesn't have a customer-first strategy. Instead, it operates as an evil monopoly. United's brand has been unhealthy for many years. It will take many years if ever to restore to health. A big fincancial hit is looming due to mismanagement of the brand.
Financial websites show the stock has mostly recovered yesterday's losses.

Originally Posted by NotSoOftenFlyer
For me this falls apart at the point where Munoz says they're not in communication with Dr. Dao yet.

Maybe reporter should have asked follow-up question: if Munoz / United have contacted Dao's representation? Since Dao is presumably still in hospital (though UAL should have whatever address info gave them booking ticket, home? work?) you would think if you're really contrite you would now be reaching out to the representation.

I think Munoz is now a short-timer at UA (shareholders can make that happen)

This is such an unfortunate situation but if it addresses a lot of problems exposed (overbooking issues, employee scheduling issues with regional airlines, employee empowerment issues, protocols for VDB & IDB, not using taxpayer funded LEOs to beat down someone in what is essentially a civil dispute) then I'm hopeful for the outcome.
Shareholders are probably happy with the gains today. So...

I think many commenters are overreacting to this fiasco. No doubt, if the reports are indeed factual, righteous outrage is appropriate. But this story will probably change over the next few days and weeks. I recall the hysteria on Flyertalk in the wake of the the Asiana crash in SFO. There were plenty of self-appointed experts screaming and crying that were later proved to be wrong.

Time will tell here as well. But it would be good if the larger issue of the powers of the major airlines vs. the passenger would be fully exposed and balanced out.

Last edited by WineCountryUA; Apr 12, 2017 at 5:19 pm Reason: repaired post
Bear4Asian is offline  
Old Apr 12, 2017, 1:01 pm
  #4250  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Programs: LH SEN; BA Gold
Posts: 8,405
Originally Posted by NotSoOftenFlyer
If the airlines don't like it, they should rewrite their contracts (of adhesion if you ask me).
It's not like the passenger could renegotiate the CoC. A business partner having a special deal with UA may negotiate particular terms, but that's really more of an exception.
WorldLux is offline  
Old Apr 12, 2017, 1:02 pm
  #4251  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: PHX
Programs: AS 75K; UA 1MM; Hyatt Globalist; Marriott LTP; Hilton Diamond (Aspire)
Posts: 56,467
Originally Posted by NotSoOftenFlyer
There's a rule in contract drafting "contract provisions are strictly construed against the drafter"

Another rule is that unless you give a special definition to a word in the contract (which is why some have 'Definitions' sections), it's ordinary meaning applies.
Actually, industry usage is highly relevant to contract interpretation and will typically trump both of those interpretive canons. For instance, California Civil Code § 1644 says:

The words of a contract are to be understood in their ordinary and popular sense, rather than according to their strict legal meaning; unless used by the parties in a technical sense, or unless a special meaning is given to them by usage, in which case the latter must be followed.
Kacee is offline  
Old Apr 12, 2017, 1:03 pm
  #4252  
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: 100,417
Originally Posted by sw3
Even if we don't get to know from the airline or unofficial info from those involved what happened exactly, we can make inferences from public info. Not sure if somebody else has posted this yet but this is what I found.
  • This happened on Sunday 4/9.
  • On 4/9, Flight UA4600 from DEN to Louisville was delayed 130 minutes, arriving at 12:31 AM Monday instead of 10:21 PM Sunday, having left at 8:04 PM instead of 5:40 PM. This was on an Embraer 145 aircraft with registration N14153 and operated by Trans States Airlines.
  • That would mean that the UA4600 crew would not be allowed to show up for their next flight before 10:31 AM Monday, so probably not allowed to fly before 11:30 AM or so considering the mandatory rest time as well as the flight planning and preparation time in advance of departure.
  • On Monday 4/10 there were UA flights scheduled out of Louisville on Embraer 145 aircraft at 6:05 AM, 7:30 AM, 9:20 AM, 2:45 PM and 3:45 PM Eastern. All operated by Trans States Airlines.
  • Most likely the crew of UA4600 on Sunday was scheduled to operate the 9:20 AM flight on Monday, because even with their delay they would have been allowed to operate the later ones, and if they had been on schedule they would not have been allowed to operate the earlier ones.
  • For a crew to operate the 9:20 AM flight on Monday they would have had to be in Louisville at 10:20 PM or so.
  • The flight of the incident in the news, UA3411, was scheduled to leave ORD at 5:40 PM Central and arrive at 8:02 PM Eastern, though it actually arrived at 10:01 PM.
  • The incoming delayed flight, UA4600, was not coming from cascaded delays from earlier flights, because the aircraft N14153 got to Denver on time as UA4680 having arrived from Grand Junction at 4:53 PM Mountain, and all earlier flights for this aircraft were on time as well. So no way for the airline to predict early enough that UA4600 would get delayed so much.
  • UA3411 was scheduled to depart at 5:40 Central, 4:40 Eastern: 9 minutes after UA4680 landed at Denver (4:49 Mountain so 5:49 Central).
  • However, UA3411 estimated departure was changed at 5:32 Central (4:32 Mountain, so 17 minutes before UA4680 landing). It was changed to 6:00 PM instead of 5:40. Afterwards the estimated departure time was pushed more and more many times.
  • There was another Chicago-Louisville flight on AA a bit later than UA3411 (6:40-8:54 PM).
  • Though there were delays at DEN around the scheduled time for the departure of UA4600, there were also many flights on time and the majority of delays were short, so unlikely that there was bad enough weather to massively delay all flights.

So if I'd had to bet on the sequence of events on the operations side I'd bet on this:
  • UA4680 crew from Grand Junction to Denver found something wrong with the aircraft while en route
  • They notified the airline en route so aircraft checks could be done before the next flight for this aircraft, UA4600 Denver-Louisville, and perhaps let the mechanics begin preparing for these checks before landing
  • UA4600 was consequently delayed
  • It became evident that the UA4600 crew would not be able to operate the Louisville-Denver 9:20 flight the next day
  • An ERJ145 crew from Trans States Airlines that could operate that 9:20 flight from Louisville (UA4766 to DEN) was found to be available in Chicago
  • With so little time to spare UA considered that sending this crew to Louisville on AA was more risky schedulewise than sending them on their own flight, or they might have considered it but the AA flight was full
  • UA found that UA3411 was the only acceptable way to get an ERJ145 crew from Trans States Airlines to Louisville on time
  • UA decided that inconveniencing 4 passengers from UA3411, who in case they had an urgent necessity to get to Louisville that same night could get there by road in 5 hours, would be less worse than inconveniencing up to 70 passengers or so from the 9:20 flight to Denver, making most of them lose their connections and having to rebook them on other flights, compensate, refund, etc. as well as cascading the delay to the rest of the flights this aircraft had to do on the day, with the same consequences for every flight
  • UA3411 was already boarding or boarded when the UA4600 delay was known and a decision was made, and the aircraft was held so the crew they found for the 9:20 flight could get to it
  • Then happened what we all know from the news
  • UA3411 departed with a delay caused both by waiting for the UA4766 replacement crew and the incident, but arrived on time for them to get the mandated rest
  • On Monday, UA4766 left for Denver on time at 9:20 with the crew that came in on UA3411

Apologies if this seems confusing but the story involves different crews, flights and aircraft with simultaneous events in different time zones. Hope it makes sense from an operations point of view that if events went this way the operational decision to take 4 passengers out and put 4 crew in instead was reasonable and correct not only in economic terms of the costs involved in the alternatives but in order to minimize impact on passengers as well; and also that the airline could not have known, in advance of the UA3411 boarding, that they would need to reposition crew there last minute.

Sources - Flightradar24, FlightStats, ExpertFlyer, FlightAware
This is extremely interesting. Nice work.

It seems to dispel the idea raised earlier that the DL meltdown was the root cause of the need for the crew to get onto this Louisville flight.

However, IIRC, this was a case of a Trans State crew riding on a different UX carrier, Republic, right? Yet it seems that part of the problem for the IDBed passengers was that UA wasn't willing to overbook the later UX flight to Louisville for them as it was operated by a different UX operating airline, although oil course there's also the economic issue that the four IDBs from this flight would probably (assuming that the late flight was full too) have meant the additional cost of four VDBs/IDBs from the late flight.

Last edited by MSPeconomist; Apr 12, 2017 at 9:53 pm Reason: Added
MSPeconomist is offline  
Old Apr 12, 2017, 1:04 pm
  #4253  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: SEA
Programs: Million Miles achieved | 2017 Delta Platinum, United NADA, Global Entry, PreCheck, NEXUS
Posts: 1,295
Originally Posted by mre5765
On Qantas premium economy I booked a seat in the exit row on the A380. The cabin was 50% full. Several Qantas flight attendants asked me to move to let a couple sit together. I declined, pointed out there were plenty of seats in the cabin, and I also noted that the business class was 30 percent empty and offered to take any seat in business class. They declined.

On AA I boarded, found my assigned seat in business class was occupied. The occupant wanted to sit with his family. I refused to take another seat and waited in the galley. The FA put me in F. Was upgraded from coach on an SWU.

Hold your ground. Board as fast as you can.
THIS!
Bear4Asian is offline  
Old Apr 12, 2017, 1:05 pm
  #4254  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: USA
Programs: Delta
Posts: 43
Tweet from PhilLebeau @LEBeaucarnews
$UAL moving to make amends for the bumped flight debacle is reimbursing all passengers on flight #3411 the entire price of their ticket.
NotSoOftenFlyer is offline  
Old Apr 12, 2017, 1:06 pm
  #4255  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Programs: WN, AA, UA, DL
Posts: 1,313
Originally Posted by George Purcell
Yeah, I'd like to see a run at this by consumer advocates. If you look in the CoC it talks about Oversold being a situation with more "ticketed passengers" than seats, with "ticketed" undefined. Now, it seems pretty clear to me that a "ticketed" passenger is one who has entered into a contract through and exchange of value and is creates a binding of CoC. I've seen a lot of nonsense talk that deadheading positive state employees are also "ticketed." The mere fact they are accounted for in the ticketing system, however, does not create a "ticketed" relationship in any meaningful sense of the term.

I've become absolutely convinced that employee travel is the root of many of the airline horror issues. It exacerbates very high load factors and it contributes immensely to the culture of entitlement that airline employees display towards passengers. If airlines want to use part of their capacity to shuttle employees to their work sites that capacity should not be part of the inventory they use to move paying customers.
You have displayed little knowledge of airline operations, and your "solutions" exhibit that lack of expertise.

Deadheading employees are ticketed passengers with highest priority--"must-ride". In fact, these tickets are contractually controlled, there's even specific seat requirements. There are stipulations the airlines must follow, and they must be in accordance with federal law on work/rest rules. It's that way for a purpose. You would be violating the rights of the employee to say that have no right to be on that airplane. They have as much right to be there as any customer and even more rights contractually.

You have no idea what you're talking about the second paragraph. Those rights for employee travel are there for your benefit as a customer. Your "solution" would lead to more delayed and cancelled flights to due unavailable crew, inconveniencing far more people, leading to more chances of upset customers. You think these employees LIKE having to bump people? Of course not. But they and the company know it's for the better good of both customer and airline.
minnyfly is offline  
Old Apr 12, 2017, 1:08 pm
  #4256  
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 3,361
Originally Posted by newaliases
Sure, UA might or might not have prevailed (read the post and some analyses, it's far from clear) but you missed his original point. It's a civil matter. Just like I can't call the police to beat up my tenant for not paying his rent or my vendor for failing to provide on his contract. If he was dangerous, then that's a police matter and sure then get them involved. He wasn't by all accounts.

By the way, before you argue contra, note that the aviation securities industry has pretty much confirmed the same: http://triblive.com/local/allegheny/...e-for-airlines
Um, I draw a totally different conclusion from the article. Of course, what is legal and what is right are too different things. I wish people would stop trying to prove United did some illegal and focus on what we (most of us) agree on: United acted stupidly. Although the other two parties were stupid too, United bears the most responsibility.
fly18725 is offline  
Old Apr 12, 2017, 1:09 pm
  #4257  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: USA
Programs: Delta
Posts: 43
Originally Posted by Kacee
Actually, industry usage is highly relevant to contract interpretation and will typically trump both of those interpretive canons. For instance, California Civil Code § 1644 says:
Problem here is you have a beaten up plaintiff and 12 people off the street who have seen a lot of videos of him bleeding could be making this determination instead. Plus judges fly too. They are astute to where the public sentiment is and would risk being overturned on something like this

UAL would be smart to redefine every instance of 'boarding' & have a specific Definition of it to avoid future payouts like this.
NotSoOftenFlyer is offline  
Old Apr 12, 2017, 1:10 pm
  #4258  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 563
Originally Posted by Kacee
Actually, industry usage is highly relevant to contract interpretation and will typically trump both of those interpretive canons. For instance, California Civil Code § 1644 says:
See the article in lawnewz.com. Are you a legal expert?
DrPSB is offline  
Old Apr 12, 2017, 1:10 pm
  #4259  
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: ORF, RIC
Programs: UA LT 1K, 3 MM; Marriott Titanium; IHG Platinum
Posts: 6,958
Originally Posted by mre5765
So what if Replublic discovered this:

- After the door was closed

- After the plane pulls away from the gate

- After the plane taxis toward runway

- After the plane reaches runway

- Just as the plane takes off

- Just after the plane takes off

- Before the plane leaves Illinois

What point is no longer acceptable to interrupt the flight?
My friend told me that he was on a UA regional flight. One pax was unloaded for a FA when the plane almost took off (i.e., pilot used a hard brake to abort the take off). The poor unloaded guy was a Hispanic. My friend got compensation for this abort take-off after wrote to customer care. He did not know what happened to that poor soul.
Kmxu is offline  
Old Apr 12, 2017, 1:12 pm
  #4260  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: USA
Programs: Delta
Posts: 43
Originally Posted by WorldLux
It's not like the passenger could renegotiate the CoC. A business partner having a special deal with UA may negotiate particular terms, but that's really more of an exception.
True that, but Congress has some pretty pissed off members right now (from time to time they fly commercial and so do their staffers) and could have a hand in what happens at DOT and what kinds of CoCs will be acceptable in future.
NotSoOftenFlyer 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.