No LEO Dragging Policy - Consequences?
Apr 12, 2017, 12:05 pm
#1
Original Member
Original Poster
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Orange County, CA, USA
Programs: AA (Life Plat), Marriott (Life Titanium) and every other US program
Posts: 6,411
No LEO Dragging Policy - Consequences?
Through a combination of public outrage, lousy customer service reputation, bad luck and poor decisions, the United CEO has now announced a new policy:"We are not going to put a law enforcement official to take them off," Munoz told ABC's "Good Morning America" on Wednesday. "To remove a booked, paid, seated passenger -- we can't do that."
So what will be the practical results of this new policy? Notwithstanding urban myth, it is not a crime to ignore the requests of flight crew, only to interfere by intimidation, threat, etc. So you must assume, for each of the scenarios below, that the customer is patient and calm and doesn't make any contact with the flight crew members. And assume that the flight crew members aren't going to lie about what happened. (If you assume the flight crew is going to lie then anything is possible, but that doesn't help the discussion.)
First, the Captain has now lost a LOT of authority. Because what they say no longer goes because their employer, UAL, has said that LEO's won't get involved UNLESS . . . (and that is this thread - what is the "unless" where UAL is willing to risk: a) an employee contradicting the words of the CEO; b) risking a video of a paying passenger being dragged, bloody, through the plane.
Okay, so which of these do you think will allow a LEO dragging a paying passenger off:
1. You get to your aisle seat and someone else is sitting there. They advise you that you can have their middle seat in the back of the plane, because they are sitting in your seat with their friends. The FA asks the person to move and they indicate that they are happy with their current seating as a paid, boarded passenger.
2. You get to your first class seat and someone else is sitting there. They have a coach boarding pass. They indicate that they like this seat better and, when requested by the FA to move, they indicate that they are happy with their current seating as a paid, boarded passenger.
3. A passenger appears to be drunk and has already barfed, twice, into the bag, missing a little bit each time. The passenger is asked, by the FA, to leave. They indicate (politely) that they are happy with staying on the plane as a paid, boarded passenger.
4. A passenger is accused, by the teenager next to them, of inappropriate touching on the shoulders and elbow. There is no evidence (no witness, no video). The FA asks the adult to move to a different seat. The passenger indicates that they are happy with their current seating as a paid, boarded passenger.
5. A passenger, after getting the plane, changes into a T-shirt which says "Al Queda was right" and it has a picture of the Twin Towers burning. The FA asks the passenger to cover the T-shirt. The passenger indicates that they are happy with their current seating as a paid, boarded passenger.
6. After boarding, the Captain announces that for weight and balance purposes, everyone needs to sit behind row 10. A group of four large men, who are sitting in row 3, indicate that they are happy with their seating as paid, boarded passengers.
So what will be the practical results of this new policy? Notwithstanding urban myth, it is not a crime to ignore the requests of flight crew, only to interfere by intimidation, threat, etc. So you must assume, for each of the scenarios below, that the customer is patient and calm and doesn't make any contact with the flight crew members. And assume that the flight crew members aren't going to lie about what happened. (If you assume the flight crew is going to lie then anything is possible, but that doesn't help the discussion.)
First, the Captain has now lost a LOT of authority. Because what they say no longer goes because their employer, UAL, has said that LEO's won't get involved UNLESS . . . (and that is this thread - what is the "unless" where UAL is willing to risk: a) an employee contradicting the words of the CEO; b) risking a video of a paying passenger being dragged, bloody, through the plane.
Okay, so which of these do you think will allow a LEO dragging a paying passenger off:
1. You get to your aisle seat and someone else is sitting there. They advise you that you can have their middle seat in the back of the plane, because they are sitting in your seat with their friends. The FA asks the person to move and they indicate that they are happy with their current seating as a paid, boarded passenger.
2. You get to your first class seat and someone else is sitting there. They have a coach boarding pass. They indicate that they like this seat better and, when requested by the FA to move, they indicate that they are happy with their current seating as a paid, boarded passenger.
3. A passenger appears to be drunk and has already barfed, twice, into the bag, missing a little bit each time. The passenger is asked, by the FA, to leave. They indicate (politely) that they are happy with staying on the plane as a paid, boarded passenger.
4. A passenger is accused, by the teenager next to them, of inappropriate touching on the shoulders and elbow. There is no evidence (no witness, no video). The FA asks the adult to move to a different seat. The passenger indicates that they are happy with their current seating as a paid, boarded passenger.
5. A passenger, after getting the plane, changes into a T-shirt which says "Al Queda was right" and it has a picture of the Twin Towers burning. The FA asks the passenger to cover the T-shirt. The passenger indicates that they are happy with their current seating as a paid, boarded passenger.
6. After boarding, the Captain announces that for weight and balance purposes, everyone needs to sit behind row 10. A group of four large men, who are sitting in row 3, indicate that they are happy with their seating as paid, boarded passengers.
Last edited by sbrower; Apr 12, 2017 at 1:51 pm
Apr 12, 2017, 12:28 pm
#3
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Pacific Northwest
Programs: UA Gold 1MM, AS 75k, AA Plat, Bonvoyed Gold, Honors Dia, Hyatt Explorer, IHG Plat, ...
Posts: 16,850
In all cases (but especially in #6 ): cancel flight, deplane everyone, re-accommodate everyone except the offenders ("Sorry, next flight available appears to be in 24 years...").
If these scenarios are frequent enough, people will get upset with idiots thinking they own the plane.
I have personally given up my near-front seat on a CR2 twice in the last six months and moved to the back due to Weight and Balance. In both cases the FA hadn't even finished making the announcement when I stood in the aisle with my stuff. All seats pretty much suck equally on that plane anyway and the longer we sit at the gate waiting for volunteers to move back the longer I am in such a seat.
If these scenarios are frequent enough, people will get upset with idiots thinking they own the plane.
I have personally given up my near-front seat on a CR2 twice in the last six months and moved to the back due to Weight and Balance. In both cases the FA hadn't even finished making the announcement when I stood in the aisle with my stuff. All seats pretty much suck equally on that plane anyway and the longer we sit at the gate waiting for volunteers to move back the longer I am in such a seat.
Apr 12, 2017, 12:46 pm
#4
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: PDX
Programs: AS (MVP), UA (silver), AA, DL, Hilton (Gold)
Posts: 231
He said LEO ban was ONLY for Paying already in seat customers and they need to IDB someone. So lots of options to fix that. Crazy high voucher, ask someone else, etc. Limited scope change IMHO.
Apr 12, 2017, 1:39 pm
#6
Join Date: Aug 2012
Programs: ba silver
Posts: 729
Or offer other incentives that wouldn't them as much like offering leisure travellers a couple of first class tickets anywhere UA flies or offering a gold member a couple of positive system wide upgrades or immediate Global Services status. They aren't really giving up much revenue as not everybody in premium cabins pays the full unrestricted fare anyways.
Apr 12, 2017, 1:48 pm
#7
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: SFO
Programs: COdbaUA Platinum 2MM
Posts: 5,532
Or offer other incentives that wouldn't them as much like offering leisure travellers a couple of first class tickets anywhere UA flies or offering a gold member a couple of positive system wide upgrades or immediate Global Services status. They aren't really giving up much revenue as not everybody in premium cabins pays the full unrestricted fare anyways.
Apr 12, 2017, 2:16 pm
#8
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Minneapolis, MN (MSP)
Programs: DL DM, UA 1K MM, Subway Club Member
Posts: 1,988
Cash is king. Funny UA money is worth $.25 on the dollar as a FTer reported in another thread. AMEX/VISA/Mastercard/popular store gift card is worth far more money than UA funny money, but still less than cash. For an infrequent flyer, funny UA money is worthless, thus no incentive to accept it.
http://renespoints.boardingarea.com/...e-and-amazing/
Apr 12, 2017, 2:23 pm
#9
Original Member
Original Poster
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Orange County, CA, USA
Programs: AA (Life Plat), Marriott (Life Titanium) and every other US program
Posts: 6,411
I know I can't control the thread, but many of you are talking about what IDB compensation should be offered, which is NOT at all the topic. Someone sitting in your seat, or annoying a teenager, isn't a "how much cash can we offer" problem.
My question is, if the rule is "LEO's don't pull out paying, seated passengers," in what circumstances will UA (or any other airline - because I bet the rules are going to change for all of them in the next few weeks) authorize their FAs and GAs to call the LEOs and risk another incident?
My question is, if the rule is "LEO's don't pull out paying, seated passengers," in what circumstances will UA (or any other airline - because I bet the rules are going to change for all of them in the next few weeks) authorize their FAs and GAs to call the LEOs and risk another incident?
Apr 12, 2017, 2:34 pm
#10
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Somewhere I've Driven To
Programs: HiltonHonors, IHG Hotels, DL Skymiles
Posts: 2,070
Through a combination of public outrage, lousy customer service reputation, bad luck and poor decisions, the United CEO has now announced a new policy:"We are not going to put a law enforcement official to take them off," Munoz told ABC's "Good Morning America" on Wednesday. "To remove a booked, paid, seated passenger -- we can't do that."
So what will be the practical results of this new policy? Notwithstanding urban myth, it is not a crime to ignore the requests of flight crew, only to interfere by intimidation, threat, etc. So you must assume, for each of the scenarios below, that the customer is patient and calm and doesn't make any contact with the flight crew members. And assume that the flight crew members aren't going to lie about what happened. (If you assume the flight crew is going to lie then anything is possible, but that doesn't help the discussion.)
First, the Captain has now lost a LOT of authority. Because what they say no longer goes because their employer, UAL, has said that LEO's won't get involved UNLESS . . . (and that is this thread - what is the "unless" where UAL is willing to risk: a) an employee contradicting the words of the CEO; b) risking a video of a paying passenger being dragged, bloody, through the plane.
Okay, so which of these do you think will allow a LEO dragging a paying passenger off:
1. You get to your aisle seat and someone else is sitting there. They advise you that you can have their middle seat in the back of the plane, because they are sitting in your seat with their friends. The FA asks the person to move and they indicate that they are happy with their current seating as a paid, boarded passenger.
2. You get to your first class seat and someone else is sitting there. They have a coach boarding pass. They indicate that they like this seat better and, when requested by the FA to move, they indicate that they are happy with their current seating as a paid, boarded passenger.
3. A passenger appears to be drunk and has already barfed, twice, into the bag, missing a little bit each time. The passenger is asked, by the FA, to leave. They indicate (politely) that they are happy with staying on the plane as a paid, boarded passenger.
4. A passenger is accused, by the teenager next to them, of inappropriate touching on the shoulders and elbow. There is no evidence (no witness, no video). The FA asks the adult to move to a different seat. The passenger indicates that they are happy with their current seating as a paid, boarded passenger.
5. A passenger, after getting the plane, changes into a T-shirt which says "Al Queda was right" and it has a picture of the Twin Towers burning. The FA asks the passenger to cover the T-shirt. The passenger indicates that they are happy with their current seating as a paid, boarded passenger.
6. After boarding, the Captain announces that for weight and balance purposes, everyone needs to sit behind row 10. A group of four large men, who are sitting in row 3, indicate that they are happy with their seating as paid, boarded passengers.
So what will be the practical results of this new policy? Notwithstanding urban myth, it is not a crime to ignore the requests of flight crew, only to interfere by intimidation, threat, etc. So you must assume, for each of the scenarios below, that the customer is patient and calm and doesn't make any contact with the flight crew members. And assume that the flight crew members aren't going to lie about what happened. (If you assume the flight crew is going to lie then anything is possible, but that doesn't help the discussion.)
First, the Captain has now lost a LOT of authority. Because what they say no longer goes because their employer, UAL, has said that LEO's won't get involved UNLESS . . . (and that is this thread - what is the "unless" where UAL is willing to risk: a) an employee contradicting the words of the CEO; b) risking a video of a paying passenger being dragged, bloody, through the plane.
Okay, so which of these do you think will allow a LEO dragging a paying passenger off:
1. You get to your aisle seat and someone else is sitting there. They advise you that you can have their middle seat in the back of the plane, because they are sitting in your seat with their friends. The FA asks the person to move and they indicate that they are happy with their current seating as a paid, boarded passenger.
2. You get to your first class seat and someone else is sitting there. They have a coach boarding pass. They indicate that they like this seat better and, when requested by the FA to move, they indicate that they are happy with their current seating as a paid, boarded passenger.
3. A passenger appears to be drunk and has already barfed, twice, into the bag, missing a little bit each time. The passenger is asked, by the FA, to leave. They indicate (politely) that they are happy with staying on the plane as a paid, boarded passenger.
4. A passenger is accused, by the teenager next to them, of inappropriate touching on the shoulders and elbow. There is no evidence (no witness, no video). The FA asks the adult to move to a different seat. The passenger indicates that they are happy with their current seating as a paid, boarded passenger.
5. A passenger, after getting the plane, changes into a T-shirt which says "Al Queda was right" and it has a picture of the Twin Towers burning. The FA asks the passenger to cover the T-shirt. The passenger indicates that they are happy with their current seating as a paid, boarded passenger.
6. After boarding, the Captain announces that for weight and balance purposes, everyone needs to sit behind row 10. A group of four large men, who are sitting in row 3, indicate that they are happy with their seating as paid, boarded passengers.
None. We have just entered a new level of political correctness. The passenger (customer) will always be right and under NO circumstances should anyone be removed. It will now become a case like those with "service" animals on board and the person sitting next to them is allergic to animals. Currently the allergic person is now the one given the option to stay on board or leave, not the offending passenger. Everyone but the person who feels "unsafe" will be allowed to now stay in their self-defined "safe (or my rights) zone". This is what the collective masses have now created and I'm pretty sure it will continue to get worse. I foresee a lot of diversions happening when anger and fights start up at 35,000 feet but then who will be meeting that plane and NOT removing anybody ???
Last edited by FlyingNone; Apr 12, 2017 at 2:41 pm
Apr 12, 2017, 2:36 pm
#11
Moderator: United Airlines
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: SFO
Programs: UA Plat 1.995MM, Hyatt Discoverist, Marriott Plat/LT Gold, Hilton Silver, IHG Plat
Posts: 66,854
... My question is, if the rule is "LEO's don't pull out paying, seated passengers," in what circumstances will UA (or any other airline - because I bet the rules are going to change for all of them in the next few weeks) authorize their FAs and GAs to call the LEOs and risk another incident?
Apr 12, 2017, 2:37 pm
#12
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Pacific Northwest
Programs: UA Gold 1MM, AS 75k, AA Plat, Bonvoyed Gold, Honors Dia, Hyatt Explorer, IHG Plat, ...
Posts: 16,850
My question is, if the rule is "LEO's don't pull out paying, seated passengers," in what circumstances will UA (or any other airline - because I bet the rules are going to change for all of them in the next few weeks) authorize their FAs and GAs to call the LEOs and risk another incident?
Let's just rebrand as Southwest
Apr 12, 2017, 2:43 pm
#13
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: BWI<MCI< PHL<DEN<SCL<EZE<CHO<PHL<ABE
Programs: UA Silver / FA
Posts: 939
I know I can't control the thread, but many of you are talking about what IDB compensation should be offered, which is NOT at all the topic. Someone sitting in your seat, or annoying a teenager, isn't a "how much cash can we offer" problem.
My question is, if the rule is "LEO's don't pull out paying, seated passengers," in what circumstances will UA (or any other airline - because I bet the rules are going to change for all of them in the next few weeks) authorize their FAs and GAs to call the LEOs and risk another incident?
My question is, if the rule is "LEO's don't pull out paying, seated passengers," in what circumstances will UA (or any other airline - because I bet the rules are going to change for all of them in the next few weeks) authorize their FAs and GAs to call the LEOs and risk another incident?
Someone just sits in a seat that's not their assigned seat, let alone a E+ or FC seat they didn't pay for, and we can't force them from their seats? If someone does that, do they still film them and have sympathy for the seat poacher/a-hole?
I'm moving to Japan or Germany where people actually have common decency to follow rules if this actually starts happening.
Apr 12, 2017, 2:51 pm
#14
Join Date: Dec 2016
Programs: AAdvantage, Skymiles
Posts: 156
I think it'll end up being "Seated passenger who has otherwise not broken any rules" with added clarification that once you're on the plane, you've boarded the thing and IDB is no longer an option.
The major difference between IDB and the other annoyances you mention is that your other passengers would support the LEO in the these cases.
The major difference between IDB and the other annoyances you mention is that your other passengers would support the LEO in the these cases.
Apr 12, 2017, 2:52 pm
#15
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Washington, DC
Programs: UA 1K 1MM, AA, DL
Posts: 7,418
If there's a seat poacher (or anyone for that matter who needs to be removed from the seat) I would expect security to be instructed to ask the person politely for some period of time, perhaps with stock lines like "sir/m'am, if you don't move the captain has told me he will have to remove all passengers from this flight, and I will have to arrest any passengers who remain on board" and let the peer pressure of others force compliance."
Put differently, perform for the inevitable smartphone video to demonstrate clearly that the passenger has refused repeated, reasonable offers to move from a sit to which s/he is not entitled before using any time of physical force.