Apr 10, 2017, 8:42 pm
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 Do not cite, copy, or report on such.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
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.
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
- Passenger one row behind and on the aisle footage BEFORE man was dragged off https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=655_1492004707
- Videos of man being removed https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4b7_1491983214 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nAZEk6nsNE
- Video of man re-entering plane https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNEQDWpYbZA (link dead)
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
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.
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
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
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
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
- Chicago Aviation Department said on the Monday afternoon after the incident that the officer who had dragged the passenger off the plane had been placed on leave pending an investigation. Spokesperson Karen Pride said in an email that "The incident on United flight 3411 was not in accordance with our standard operating procedure and the actions of the aviation security officer are obviously not condoned by the Department."
- 4/12/17: Two more Chicago Aviation officers involved are suspended
- Muñoz does ABC interview, announcing United will no longer use law enforcement to remove passengers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90jSUe_vdhM
- United announces policy change that crews traveling on their aircraft must be booked at least 60 minutes prior to departure.
- United releases multiple changes in overbooking / denied boarding policies "We are making changes to ensure that we always put customers first" (http://newsroom.united.com/2017-04-2...mer-Experience) released 27 April 2017
- Statement from United Airlines Regarding Resolution with Dr. David Dao - released 27 April 2017
- Response to Senate Commerce Committee questions - 1 May 2017
- United Airlines PR Boss to Step Down
- James Long, one of several officers involved in removing David Dao from the April 9, 2017, flight to make room for airline employees, filed suit on Tuesday against United, Chicago’s Department of Aviation and its commissioner, Ginger Evans. The lawsuit, filed in the circuit court of Cook County, Illinois, alleges he was not properly trained on how to use force.
Poll: Your Opinion of United Airlines
Poll link: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/KP68GYG
Results link: https://www.surveymonkey.com/results...Q6B2B/instant/
Reference MaterialResults link: https://www.surveymonkey.com/results...Q6B2B/instant/
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.aspxIf 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.
Man pulled off of overbooked flight UA3411 (ORD-SDF) 9 Apr 2017 {Settlement reached}
Apr 14, 2017, 9:39 am
#5476
Join Date: Dec 2016
Programs: AAdvantage, Skymiles
Posts: 156
Last, but not least what kind of idiotic booting prioritization system does not take the person's profession into account. A pilot rated to fly on that type of plane and medical physicians have uses in emergencies (case in point above) and should be one priority level up since they will render free aid in the event of an emergency. Maybe even higher, your gold status isn't going to help my heart attack or acute appendicitis.
Good point, I was thinking profession shouldn't matter at all in boarding, but airlines have received a ton of in-air good will from the medical community over the years, I guess I wouldn't be too opposed to some benefit to being a medical doctor in flight.
Apr 14, 2017, 9:42 am
#5477
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Vancouver
Programs: Aeroplan, Mileage Plus, WestJet Gold, AMEX Plat
Posts: 2,026
Why "should" they? Because they believe it is in their best interest.
No employer is required to. Many airlines choose to do so as part of their union contract negotiations.
Generally, the pilots select a "base" from among options (sometimes a limited set of company selected airports, sometimes any airport with commercial service, sometimes something in between).
Generally, the employee is required to get themselves to the base by the beginning of their tours. Sometimes they live closeby to those base airports and just drive in. Sometimes they live far away and use their credentials to fly on negative space on commercial flights - the logistics of this are complicated and non-reserved, so they often have to plan to get there hours or even a day ahead of time, just to make sure they are on time for their shift.
You may remember that one of the crew on the United Express Buffalo crash did this - arriving the night before her shift and sleeping in the crew rest area (in violation of policy, but it was commonly violated because she had to show at EWR and wasn't paid anything close enough to be able to afford to live nearby).
If an airline allows crew to select from a lot of bases, including ones that are nowhere near their centers of operation, the company will generally be responsible for moving them from their base to the beginning of their actual flying tour. They are on-duty during this time, and getting paid.
There may be some instances where an employee is based somewhere far away and the employer still pays to move them to their base (on company time, I presume this would mean), but I do not have direct knowledge of that if so.
I agree with a poster above who asked why any of this is relevant to the situation at hand. I don't think it is. But perhaps it will be interesting to other flyertalk folks.
No employer is required to. Many airlines choose to do so as part of their union contract negotiations.
Generally, the pilots select a "base" from among options (sometimes a limited set of company selected airports, sometimes any airport with commercial service, sometimes something in between).
Generally, the employee is required to get themselves to the base by the beginning of their tours. Sometimes they live closeby to those base airports and just drive in. Sometimes they live far away and use their credentials to fly on negative space on commercial flights - the logistics of this are complicated and non-reserved, so they often have to plan to get there hours or even a day ahead of time, just to make sure they are on time for their shift.
You may remember that one of the crew on the United Express Buffalo crash did this - arriving the night before her shift and sleeping in the crew rest area (in violation of policy, but it was commonly violated because she had to show at EWR and wasn't paid anything close enough to be able to afford to live nearby).
If an airline allows crew to select from a lot of bases, including ones that are nowhere near their centers of operation, the company will generally be responsible for moving them from their base to the beginning of their actual flying tour. They are on-duty during this time, and getting paid.
There may be some instances where an employee is based somewhere far away and the employer still pays to move them to their base (on company time, I presume this would mean), but I do not have direct knowledge of that if so.
I agree with a poster above who asked why any of this is relevant to the situation at hand. I don't think it is. But perhaps it will be interesting to other flyertalk folks.
The pilot or cabin staff have a base where they start and end work most of the time. There home airport. Due to operational reasons they are understaffed out of a different base and need to start or stop there. That is the same as any office worker in a big corporation. You are told we have a special project or need and you need to work out of one of the other offices. The employer pays for travel. I believe in this case the airline does the equivalent or buying a ticket from itself and this is where the "must fly thing comes from".
The second case is the pilot or cabin crew chose to live in a different city from their base. In this case it is the responsibility of the employee to get from their home to their base. The airline decides to be nice and lets them fly for free or a deep discount but only after all the regular passengers are accommodated. They are basically traveling standby.
Apr 14, 2017, 9:45 am
#5478
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 11
Agreed completely. Pilots select a base, and are responsible for getting to their base on their own, and then the company is responsible for moving them after that. On rare occasions the company may move the pilot from their actual home (rather than their base, if it is different) to another location that is better suited to the operational plan.
On the other hand, it is generally the pilots responsibility to get to their base by the start of their tour. They can do this however they choose, whether driving, flying on a credential pass, hitchhiking, etc. Unless the pilot buys his own retail ticket, this is not ticketed travel, would not qualify to VDB/IDB a paying passenger, and it is not paid for by the company.
Apologies if my post was unclear in some way.
On the other hand, it is generally the pilots responsibility to get to their base by the start of their tour. They can do this however they choose, whether driving, flying on a credential pass, hitchhiking, etc. Unless the pilot buys his own retail ticket, this is not ticketed travel, would not qualify to VDB/IDB a paying passenger, and it is not paid for by the company.
Apologies if my post was unclear in some way.
Apr 14, 2017, 9:58 am
#5479
Join Date: Dec 2016
Programs: AAdvantage, Skymiles
Posts: 156
In that case, the airline simply needs to increase compensation in the offers it is making for VDB. Current levels of mandated compensation for IDBs set the "price" artificially low. The solution should be to raise the "price" as needed to get the required number of volunteers. No need for violence or forced removals!
The basic economic principal is they're looking for X number of volunteers out of Y number of seats, meaning the ideal price is whatever the X/Y% of the population would think is fair for that given situation.
This case had a lot of escalating variables. Most notably the 22 hour delay, the small size of the plane, and the fact that people were already sitting on the thing. In this case the variable pushed most to its extreme is probably the 22 hour delay.
Airlines won't lose money increasing the VDB, because even in this extreme case, with all the variables being pushed to about their practical limit - the airline only had to find a price that 4/72 or 5.6% of the population thought was fair! They were already told what one price was - the $1600 off offer from the "laughed off" passenger.
But they might not have even had to go that far, because the most extreme amplifying variable in the cost of what UA was asking was the 22 hour delay. There are ways to fix that (rental car) that are cheaper than $1600 and would drop the relevant price point quite quickly to reach the mere 5.6% acceptance that they were looking for.
And that's an extreme case, most of the time if they're looking for 2 volunteers on a 737 you become pretty close to only looking for a price point that ~1% of the population would think was fair. Plus, the vast majority of those cases aren't asking the customers to take on a 22 hour delay.
Apr 14, 2017, 10:01 am
#5480
Join Date: May 2000
Location: IAH
Programs: UA 1K 2.7MM, Marriott Titanium/LT Plat, IHG Spire
Posts: 3,317
Apr 14, 2017, 10:02 am
#5481
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: DAY
Programs: UA 1K 1MM; Marriott LT Titanium; Amex MR; Chase UR; Hertz PC; Global Entry
Posts: 10,159
...
I find a passenger who won't follow the requests/demands of the crew a security issue. In this case, he may resist demands because he feels his job is more important than the rest of us on board (DYKWIA) or some other arcane reason, but I don't want said passenger determining what requests he's going to follow, and which ones he won't.
I don't support much of what happened in this disgusting incident, but this is a case of everyone involved looking bad, not as one-sided as the general public, and to my surprise, the FT membership, is portraying.
I find a passenger who won't follow the requests/demands of the crew a security issue. In this case, he may resist demands because he feels his job is more important than the rest of us on board (DYKWIA) or some other arcane reason, but I don't want said passenger determining what requests he's going to follow, and which ones he won't.
I don't support much of what happened in this disgusting incident, but this is a case of everyone involved looking bad, not as one-sided as the general public, and to my surprise, the FT membership, is portraying.
I made the point that lawful vs unlawful requests should not be evaluated in the same criteria.
If this was not your point, I am a bit confused.
Apr 14, 2017, 10:03 am
#5482
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 143
I keep coming back around on this point, actually. There was absolutely no reason United could not have confirmed him on a seat on the last flight of the evening--overbook or not--and get him home that night even if he was IDBed off 3411. If overbooking is a legitimate tool to move crew around is ought to be a legitimate tool to deal with the consequences to passengers who are removed from flights through no fault of their own.
Apr 14, 2017, 10:08 am
#5483
Join Date: Apr 2017
Programs: AA, DL, Avis, Enterprise, National, IHG, HH, SPG/MR
Posts: 1,852
Not necessarily. When I used to be a medic, my liability insurance did not extend beyond the district in which I worked. I've driven past many serious accidents and not rendered aid in a few emergencies simply because I have no desire to be sued.
By prioritizing them, you are also now implying there is an implicit contract for medical personnel on the aircraft to provide aid even though the reality is they are under no obligation to do so.
When you travel on an airline, you are (or should be IMO) a passenger... nothing more, nothing less.
Apr 14, 2017, 10:14 am
#5484
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: PHX
Programs: AS 75K; UA 1MM; Hyatt Globalist; Marriott LTP; Hilton Diamond (Aspire)
Posts: 56,468
This is a special statute designed to encourage physicians to render in-flight aid. It recognizes that there's a societal benefit to having MDs on board and willing to provide assistance. If it were up to me, licensed physicians would be exempt from IDB.
Apr 14, 2017, 10:19 am
#5485
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 40
I hope we can get past the "disregard crew orders" as a blanket catch all to imply a passenger wouldn't act appropriately in the case of an emergency or while in flight.
Otherwise, the answer in cases where seats are needed -- for whatever reason -- is for a FA to get on the PA and ask all passengers to pick their noses, or hand $10 to a seatmate, or any other random request. Anyone who doesn't immediately comply or who questions the request can then be removed under the auspices of "hey, we can't trust that person would follow directions in an emergency."
It doesn't have to be a lawful request, it could merely be used as a litmus test to raise the question of whether someone would follow orders.
Otherwise, the answer in cases where seats are needed -- for whatever reason -- is for a FA to get on the PA and ask all passengers to pick their noses, or hand $10 to a seatmate, or any other random request. Anyone who doesn't immediately comply or who questions the request can then be removed under the auspices of "hey, we can't trust that person would follow directions in an emergency."
It doesn't have to be a lawful request, it could merely be used as a litmus test to raise the question of whether someone would follow orders.
Apr 14, 2017, 10:23 am
#5486
Join Date: Apr 2017
Programs: AA, DL, Avis, Enterprise, National, IHG, HH, SPG/MR
Posts: 1,852
The Aviation Medical Assistance Act of 1998 exempts a physician who provides assistance on an aircraft from liability except in instances of gross negligence or willful misconduct.
This is a special statute designed to encourage physicians to render in-flight aid. It recognizes that there's a societal benefit to having MDs on board and willing to provide assistance. If it were up to me, licensed physicians would be exempt from IDB.
This is a special statute designed to encourage physicians to render in-flight aid. It recognizes that there's a societal benefit to having MDs on board and willing to provide assistance. If it were up to me, licensed physicians would be exempt from IDB.
Apr 14, 2017, 10:26 am
#5487
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC: UA 1K, DL Platinum, AAirpass, Avis PC
Posts: 4,599
I keep coming back around on this point, actually. There was absolutely no reason United could not have confirmed him on a seat on the last flight of the evening--overbook or not--and get him home that night even if he was IDBed off 3411. If overbooking is a legitimate tool to move crew around is ought to be a legitimate tool to deal with the consequences to passengers who are removed from flights through no fault of their own.
Though if the later flight is full...
He probably won't have a seat assignment.
And if no volunteers, then he would be at the top of the IDB list again by virtue of having no seat assignment, at least according to the logic UA, DL, AA use currently as I understand - which picks people who have no seat assignment first.
It's better than saying 'nothing until tomorrow' - but they'd basically have to remove someone's seat assignment to guarantee him.
But something a well versed supervisor should be able to handle though not something I've seen flying around various airlines.
Or the IDB priority system would have to be changed to prioritize the previously inconvenienced passenger over those with a seat assignment.
Apr 14, 2017, 10:28 am
#5488
Join Date: Feb 2015
Programs: UA 1K
Posts: 957
I hope we can get past the "disregard crew orders" as a blanket catch all to imply a passenger wouldn't act appropriately in the case of an emergency or while in flight.
Otherwise, the answer in cases where seats are needed -- for whatever reason -- is for a FA to get on the PA and ask all passengers to pick their noses, or hand $10 to a seatmate, or any other random request. Anyone who doesn't immediately comply or who questions the request can then be removed under the auspices of "hey, we can't trust that person would follow directions in an emergency."
It doesn't have to be a lawful request, it could merely be used as a litmus test to raise the question of whether someone would follow orders.
Otherwise, the answer in cases where seats are needed -- for whatever reason -- is for a FA to get on the PA and ask all passengers to pick their noses, or hand $10 to a seatmate, or any other random request. Anyone who doesn't immediately comply or who questions the request can then be removed under the auspices of "hey, we can't trust that person would follow directions in an emergency."
It doesn't have to be a lawful request, it could merely be used as a litmus test to raise the question of whether someone would follow orders.
In fact, for all of us who travel frequently, I'd say that there's 1 or 2 passengers per week that I could envision pushing back with this case as their fuel.
There are reasons crews were given unilateral powers. They've obviously grown to abuse such power (not unexpected), and need to be racheted back. But it needs to be done at the level of the airlines and legislation. The feeling of "I don't like this, let's fight back!" works only when the aggrieved is in the right. Never underestimate the stupidity of the average American.
Apr 14, 2017, 10:28 am
#5489
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
Not really wise of QR. Read a comment from someone booked in F who was downgraded to Y as a result of equipment change (A380 to 777). After another equipment change, he's back on the A380, but still only in Y (despite having booked in F). QR's certainly a good airline, but there are quite a few reports of them having horrible IRROPS.
QR might be able to get away it since most people either don't yet know the brand or already think of it as a premium product. But AA and DL can't really snipe too much, knowing they each have their own really sh*tty stories that people could easily circulate on social media.
Apr 14, 2017, 10:35 am
#5490
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Aug 2002
Programs: UALifetimePremierGold, Marriott LifetimeTitanium
Posts: 71,114
I could have sworn I saw in this thread (but not can't find it & the thread is so long, or maybe it was a different thread) a post (or more) that had a chart that showed the IDB rates amongst the various airlines. But now I can't find it. Does anyone have a link?
Cheers.
Cheers.