aluminumdriver

Still can't believe this thread is still going. You folks gotta get a life away from FT.

Of course, I could say the same above about you the passenger right? I have to deal with a passenger acting up about once a trip. Does that mean all passengers are a pain in the butt, or ridiculous, or outlived their usefulness? Please....the emotional hype on this board is hilarious. One bad passenger a trip does not mean all passengers act up and are a pain. One pilot over reacting to a catering issue doesn't impune the entire pilot force or the union. Time to move on, live your lives. Have a good weekend.

AD

BadgerBoi

...yet you're still posting on it, Comrade.

Michael D

I am a little doubtful about the about once a flight but maybe you have some challenging circumstances or a low threshold for your definition of acting up. If we ask how many times has a passenger caused a flight to be delayed, I don't think the answer would be about once a flight.

One bad pilot does not equate to one bad passenger.

If the union supports such behavior then yes the union is impugned. They may have the right to act in such a manner but that does excuse them for making everyone on the flight weight 45 min.

If passengers have outlived their usefulness then what about the pilots flying them around.

jamesteroh

Exactly, if there are no passengers, then the pilots wouldn't have jobs.

If I was flying an airline that was delayed all the time because the pilots were being crybabies about not having their own way over little things like a meal, I would be switching airlines , as would most frequent flyers.

I fly a lot and have never seen a flight delayed due to a difficult customer. If a customer is being difficult, the airline simply removes if they are still on the ground. Too bad united couldn't have replaced the pilot in this case.

Michael D

I think cry baby may be a little extreme. I can see the man getting pissed off because he's ordered the same meal a dozen times at the same airport for the same flight ... and they have never got it right and losing 'perspective'. But to make everyone on the flight to wait nearly an hour because he could is not right.

When the union says its not their fault because it was managements fault and/or vice versa, the reason they have jobs and are in business is not being kept frontmost. It becomes as the co-pilot was reported saying "a pissing match".

transportbiz

The thread is still going because this behaviour was pretty egregious. Two year olds have tantrums, and we just deal with it, and move on. Commercial airline pilot has a tantrum, and it makes people pause.

Emotional? Maybe a little, but not to the level of hype.

As to your claims of lumping all pilots into one group, I'm not so sure anyone here has tried to do that. The discussion has been pretty much limited to one pilot.

As to the union, they have they own problems, but if they condone this behaviour, yeah, it's going to be very hard to get most of the public behind them.

This pilot, had dozens of grievance options to exercise, he showed poor decision making in choosing one of the worst. That is what I take away from this.

EsquireFlyer

NO! Why do people keep mis-stating contract law, as a justification for the pilot's actions?

One party's breach of a clause in a contract does not excuse the counterparty from performing. It only authorizes the counterparty to sue for damages or other relief as provided in the contract.

One party's breach of a condition precedent to the contract would excuse the counterparty from performing. But conditions precedent generally must be clearly stated in the contract.

In other words, unless the pilot can point to a sentence in his contract which says that if his meal is not delivered exactly as requested, he doesn't have to fly the plane, the contract does not justify his actions. Period. And people should stop saying that it does.

I find it odd that people seem to apply this standard to the passengers, but not to the employee. Why are people saying that if the pax were dissatisfied with the pilot's behavior or UA's performance, their only recourse is to change carriers, but no one is saying that if the pilot is dissatisfied with his employer's provision of meals, his only recourse is to change employers? I'm not saying that this should be the appropriate standard, but I'm saying that it's unfair to apply this standard only to the passenger (and not to the pilot) as a way to defend the pilot's behavior.

No, the point of the Hertz example was to illustrate the point, which I've stated a few times now, that one party's breach of a minor contractual clause does not absolve the other party of all responsibility to perform. The pilot's actions imposed the risk of financial losses on both UA and the passengers, for reasons I have already stated.

Because only the pilot's actions were intentional, and because, for reasons I have already stated, his behavior was indefensible, either legally (based on the contract claims other people asserted) or morally (in my opinion).

Anyone else who may have contributed to the delay did so only accidentally, but the pilot deliberately delayed the flight over two little side dishes, and rejected reasonable solutions offered by the copilot and passengers who really wanted to get home.

I have already given an example of action by UA that would justify the pilot's refusal to fly.

Okay, but other other people have been explicitly making legal arguments (I even quoted them), which were wrong, and it was to those arguments which I was responding.

That's nothing like what I said.

pinniped

But in practice, it sort of does. When you wear that group identity on your sleeve, blending it with your own individual identity, then people blend your behavior with their perceptions of the group at large.

Unions, fraternities, clubs, alumni groups, even non-union employee groups, etc. If you act like a jerk in public and people know you're a member of the group, it does indeed reflect upon other members of the group.

Saw a short, sweet announcement on a group bicycle ride a few months ago: "Don't ride like an a**hole. When you do, it affects all of us."

jamesteroh

Yes crybaby was a little extreme. I had a management professor I loved in college that had these funny sayings about workers and management and how to run a company (the same one that said the customer was the purpose of your business not an interruption of it) and he would talk about people (both employees and management) not getting their own way and would say ""the little baby didn't get his own way so he took his ball and went home> This incident reminded me of him saying that

Hachiko

I don't know why I keep coming back to this (boredom on overnights I suppose) but lets all take a moment to consider a few things..

You weren't there. Your comments are as if the pilot was screaming and stamping his feet in the aisle about a simple meal.

He exited the plane (he didn't walk off! he wasn't replaced, the flight wasn't cancelled, he didn't refuse to fly -- he stepped into the jetway) to resolve a catering issue. Yes, it was with regards to his food and not yours, but nevertheless it was a catering issue that resulted in a delay. I'm willing to bet you'd be more understanding if it was your ice, or your meal, but because it was the pilots you don't care.

It wasn't the pilots fault it took catering 45 minutes to correct the issue. It wasn't the pilots fault that the initial caterer decided to throw a fit and turn it into a battle rather than just correct their mistake. I think you fail to realize that the pilot was simply defending his contractual right -- it was the catering department that caused your delay. The pilot didn't call catering intending to create a delay, much less a 45 minute one. The pilot called catering to correct the mistake.

And let's be honest -- you really wouldn't have done the same? If the ONLY thing catered on your next flight (lets say DEN to TPA, it's what, four hours?) was a little chicken salad, would you contact United? Would you expect compensation? Or would you suck it up and say eh, that little salad was enough for me.

Answer me that. Because if you would complain, then it's no different.

swajames

There seem to have been some fairly common sense remedies open to the crew and pilot that need not have resulted in the same level of passenger inconvenience here, though. The pilot could have bought something himself, grabbed some of the BOB or perhaps the crew could have checked if some of the FC meals could have been stretched to accommodate, not every passenger will want the appetizer or desert.

Either way, it's not casting UA in a particularly positive light when we hear of a pilot that let this escalate to a (preventable) 45 minute delay or hear from frontline United employees who can't see the connection between paying customers and their continued employment.

Hachiko

It was preventable by the caterers. If someone had done their job properly, it would be a nonissue. But this is what happens when an airline outsources to the lowest bidder. When they continually slack and fulfill their end of the deal, it effects others. If a pilot has a contract that says he is to be fed, then there is absolutely no reason for him to spend his own money. Sure, he could have sucked it up, but it would be just another to add to the egregious pile of contract violations happening across the board.

At this point in the game, it's about respect and flying the contract. Why should any of us do favors for a company that does us no favors? It's unfortunate that passengers are sometimes in the middle of all this, but I'm sorry -- I'm not (and we as flight attendants and pilots are not) doing the company a favor so you can get home. United caused the issue, United can fix it.



This thread needs to be closed.

fastair

I never said (if re:me) there is no connection, I stated with a factual statement that a passenger (or passengers) don't pay my salary. I listed the link between passenger (and other) revenues, with ua's income, and that with that money, and other monies, ua pays their overhead, which includes my salary, which is allocated in "hours worked" incriments, which is far different that any direct payment by or from any passenger.

Don't confuse denial of a direct correlation with lack of knowledge of ua's revenue as well as cost management. Now if I was a sales rep, where there was a commission for each sale, or one for sales above a target number, there would be a weak, but more realistic point that a customer pays my paycheck.

jamesteroh

I would have complained if my meal was catered without sides, but if I sure wouldn't expect the plane to be held for 45 minutes while catering brought the correct meal, especially if the FA would be willing to get me something for free off the Y cart (On Delta before they have run out of choices by the time the FA has gotten to me and one time the choice was something I didn't want and she offered me a wrap and/or cheese and fruit plate from the Y cart and I was satisfied).

Seeing the FO and a couple passengers offered to buy him food from the concourse or give up their meal, its obvioius he was trying to be difficult.

Hachiko

He's not trying to be difficult. I would never let my crewmembers or passengers purchase a meal for me either, because they shouldn't have to.

I can't help but wonder, how much time did the pilot make up in the air? How much of a delay was there really, because on a flight like that, with overblocking and tailwinds could easily make up 45 minutes. A pilot trying to be difficult and prove a point probably wouldn't bother asking for shortcuts and flying a bit faster than norm to make up time.