notquiteaff

You are assuming there was still space in the overhead bins (do violin cases fit under the seat of a regional jet?). With BG5 that may not have been the case.

Hopefully there will be more information forthcoming.


For further reference, this seems to be the DOT policy you mentioned?

https://cms.dot.gov/airconsumer/fina...al-instruments

symphonicman

I would certainly not risk BG5 with an instrument (I have enough trouble sometimes with BG1, if I linger too long over my coffee and BG3 is halfway done!), but in this case it sounds like the encounter may have been at check in.

Yep, that's the DOT policy.

Xyzzy

It's very easy t accidentally buy BE. Ms. Xyzzy purchased a ticket for work the other day via her corporate TA. The TA site said nothing about BE and sure 'nuff she ended up there. That was fixed via a phone call, but it proves the point.

WineCountryUA

Topic Check

This thread is about this violin incident. Other incidents have their own thread and have been extensive discussion -- there is no reason to re-discuss differences on opinions on those past incidents here. Those OT post have been removed.

WineCountryUA
UA coModerator

notquiteaff

You are right, this article talks about the encounter being at the ticket counter:

http://www.click2houston.com/news/mu...uring-check-in

So it seems she was checking her (larger) bag and wanted to carry on the violin case as a personal item, on a BE fare. That should have been allowed, but would still have come with the risk of no overhead space. We also don't know if she has elite status or a UA credit card that would have given her earlier boarding even on a BE fare.

kb9522

It sounded like she might have booked basic economy... in which case she doesn't get overhead space.

If the instrument was so precious to her that she "screamed for help".... then, well...

PTravel

The common law definition of battery is an "unpermitted touching." "Touching" in this context is not limited to the person, but also to objects in the immediate vicinity of the person, e.g. the violin. The common law definition of assault is "putting one in fear of an unpermitted touching." As I recall, robbery is gaining control of another's possessions by force or fear of force.

Lunging for the violin case could be assault.
Grabbing the violin case could be battery.
Taking away the violin case could be robbery.

I sincerely doubt, however, that the US supe would be charged criminally. If, however, there really was a tug-of-war over the violin case and the violinist injured her hand, I would expect one hell of a lawsuit.

It wasn't a letter. It was a press release. The lawyer is looking for witnesses. I don't do personal injury law so I don't know how common this is, but I've certainly heard of it being done before.

symphonicman

This is not true. As noted upthread, musical instruments should be allowed in the overhead on a BE fare per published UA and DOT policy, assuming there is no other item carried on board and there is room in the overhead during boarding. See FAQ here.

Here is a Washington Post article with further information from pax. Article also (unlike upthread) says it was at the gate, so we clearly do not have correct information yet. Pax reports here that she immediately asked "what are my options?":

Once again, at the check-in counter this violates written UA policy (presumably her suitcase was checked, either at the counter or at the gate, with pax paying appropriate fees). At the gate, there may have been no room in the overhead and thus "no options." At that point, I would like to think the gate agent would then have a discussion with cabin crew about the possibility of stowing the instrument safely, to avoid alienating a customer who will abandon a nonrefundable ticket. Of course, this is not required of UA.

Washington Post reports pax booked onto AA instead to arrive to her destination on time with violin in cabin, no doubt eating the BE fare and the last-minute ticket.

FTers tend to have pretty strong priors that folks who get into trouble on airlines just don't know the rules, and that's fine, I suppose, as far as that goes. But this musician (or any musician) carrying an instrument is not just trying to get away with something and clearly does not lack willingness to pay to avoid a situation where she is parted from her instrument in flight.

MSPeconomist

People here seem to be assuming that she had a BE fare, but do we know that this is true?

symphonicman

Per AP report, yes. Report also says UA refunded her fare, contra my comment above.

spin88

So we have our first BE driven "United sucks" story. I have no doubt that the musician had no idea there was an issue, and probably has no idea she was even on a BE fare. She went to check her luggage (not surprising) and Agent went on a power trip. Typical day of trying to cheat people resulting in bad press....

And perhaps DOT will fine UA for violating the rule on musical instruments.

MSPeconomist

I suspect that a DOT fine may be the least of UA's worries over this incident.

osxanalyst

Correct. United is clearly in violation of 14 CFR 251 and subject to a fine. BUt that is small peanuts.

The company continues to have a MAJOR cultural problem and any boilerplate pablum out of Oscar or his minions does nothing to change that. Until cultural change is pushed throughout the organization, customers will continue to be abused by the bad apples on the front lines.

While most customer-facing employees at United seem like great folks, there are enough bad apples that its dragging the whole airline down.

LarryJ

14 CFR 251 does not require the carrier to EXPAND the carry on allowance. It only requires the airline to accept the instrument as one of the allowed carry on(s) without charging an additional fee.

On a BE fare you are allowed one personal item. That one personal item can be a small musical instrument, which meets the requirements of 14 CFR 251.3, even though the instrument may exceed the dimensions restrictions for personal items. This BE passenger would have had the choice of carrying on either her violin or her other personal item but not both. To carry on both she would have needed to have a non-BE ticket.

minnyfly

There had better not even be a fine. From the news reports, UA followed its carry-on and musical instrument policys which are consistent with the federal policy.

The passenger made the mistake of being ignorant of the rules and attempted to fly as cheaply as possible with a valuable item. Very ironic, really. She can only blame herself.