Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Discontinued Programs/Partners > United Mileage Plus (Pre-Merger)
Reload this Page >

Alcatraz A320: CSR Imprisons PAX on Broken Airplane, UA 589 PHL-ORD (1/31)

Alcatraz A320: CSR Imprisons PAX on Broken Airplane, UA 589 PHL-ORD (1/31)

 
Old Feb 2, 2012, 7:37 pm
  #31  
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: The Americas
Programs: *G, CO Plat, UA 1P, Etihad Gold, Marriott Prem Plat, Avis Pres
Posts: 118
Isn't the Captain #1 in charge?? Seems crazy that a CSR can dictate who gets off the plane.
Bill Brasky is offline  
Old Feb 2, 2012, 8:21 pm
  #32  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: KAUS
Programs: UA MM
Posts: 1,118
Originally Posted by Bill Brasky
Isn't the Captain #1 in charge?? Seems crazy that a CSR can dictate who gets off the plane.
Somebody here probably knows better than I do, but what I understand is that, yes, the Captain is in charge, but when the plane is at the gate with the door open, the flight crew typically defer to the ground staff.

The Pilot was apologetic but a little guarded when we spoke in the pizza line. What I understood from the conversation is that he was within his rights (and duties!) to ignore the CSR and get the passengers off the plane, but that this was "the nuclear option" as far as the ground staff was concerned, and that he expected that reports would be filed and some discussion would occur up the chain of command.

In fact, defending the Pilot's decision, which was absolutely the correct one, was one of the reasons I decided to post here.
perezoso is offline  
Old Feb 2, 2012, 8:35 pm
  #33  
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: 100,332
Did you think about calling a local TV station? Maybe the local newspaper?
MSPeconomist is offline  
Old Feb 2, 2012, 8:37 pm
  #34  
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Programs: UA 1K, HH Gold, Hyatt Diamond
Posts: 223
Thanks for sharing this, and good job standing up for yourself and walking off. I once spent about four hours at a gate (before the new rules, and in Canada) and wish I had stood up to the CSRs and walked. I wound up missing Thanksgiving dinner because of that delay.

I hope you also file a DOT report on this one. Even if the delay is technically within the letter of the rules, the DOT needs to see screwups like this.

To the UA reps who are surely reading this: please get rid of that gate agent.
rmbl is offline  
Old Feb 2, 2012, 8:57 pm
  #35  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: KAUS
Programs: UA MM
Posts: 1,118
Originally Posted by MSPeconomist
Did you think about calling a local TV station? Maybe the local newspaper?
It was on the verge of somebody doing that. The thought did occur to me.
After I got off and was getting my new boarding pass at my new gate, I said to the agent that "somebody's going to call the local TV if they don't do something fast". She was a little taken aback. (The rebooking was a CO flight.)
perezoso is offline  
Old Feb 3, 2012, 2:12 am
  #36  
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Central SC
Programs: Former Co Plat, current Premier Platinum, former US CP
Posts: 196
Gotta Ask

I've gotta ask, "Doesn"t UA/PHL have a station manager?" Was this person totally "AWOL" while this was going on?
scosprey is offline  
Old Feb 3, 2012, 12:04 pm
  #37  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: MBS/FNT/LAN
Programs: UA 1K, HH Gold, Mariott Gold
Posts: 9,621
Originally Posted by LAX
I don't think there is anything illegal about no compensation as long as it's voluntary. The pax might have thought that an early flight was enough for him to forgo monetary compensation (however, he likely didn't realize he had leverage to ask for more than just an earlier flight!). In VDB, as long as both parties agree to the terms, it's legal.

LAX
And to add: IIRC if you are IDB'ed to O/A and they get you there within 1 hour, there is no IDB compensation due.
jhayes_1780 is offline  
Old Feb 3, 2012, 12:25 pm
  #38  
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: What I write is my opinion alone..don't read into it anything not written.
Posts: 9,684
Originally Posted by mduell
Write the DOT a note with the timeline. UA may face fines of up to $27,500 per passenger if anyone was forced to stay on the plane for more than 3 hours. Even if they're not fined having that conversation with the DOT may prompt UA to work on their staff selection, improving service in the future.
Might want to read the legislation. Cabin door open, at the gate, is NOT the same as locked up and on the tarmac. Regulations have very specific language that can either hang someone, or let them off the hook. No laws/rules that the DoT has issued would apply here.

Sounds like it was not handeled well, and should be an issue for the carrier, but it in no way falls under the govt's regulation. It is best to inform yourself first prior to filing nusance complaints with a regulator when the regulator does not regulate the scenerio. Let them use their time to regulate things that they have jurisdiction over.

The OP got off the plane. This is different than being locked on a plane with no useable exit. The OP stated others got off the plane. Again, different than being locked on without an exit. An issue for UA, yes, an issue that is regulated by the DoT, again, no. They have specific language in there to prevent complaints like this from bearing their scrutiny.
fastair is offline  
Old Feb 3, 2012, 1:08 pm
  #39  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: MBS/FNT/LAN
Programs: UA 1K, HH Gold, Mariott Gold
Posts: 9,621
Originally Posted by fastair
Might want to read the legislation. Cabin door open, at the gate, is NOT the same as locked up and on the tarmac. Regulations have very specific language that can either hang someone, or let them off the hook. No laws/rules that the DoT has issued would apply here.

Sounds like it was not handeled well, and should be an issue for the carrier, but it in no way falls under the govt's regulation. It is best to inform yourself first prior to filing nusance complaints with a regulator when the regulator does not regulate the scenerio. Let them use their time to regulate things that they have jurisdiction over.

The OP got off the plane. This is different than being locked on a plane with no useable exit. The OP stated others got off the plane. Again, different than being locked on without an exit. An issue for UA, yes, an issue that is regulated by the DoT, again, no. They have specific language in there to prevent complaints like this from bearing their scrutiny.
Hmmmm..... (and I am taking the OP's post at face value) It sure seems to fly in the face of the spirit of the DoT regs. (it should be noted that I HATE the DoT rule. IMhO it has caused far many more unecessary (pre-emptive) cancellations, then has "saved" people from getting held on a aircraft.)

Casual/noob travellers see very little difference between a door lock and a GA portraying things like:

caused her to double down on her demand that nobody could leave the plane without her permission
the jail warden CSR shouted at me, claiming that I was not allowed to leave the aircraft ("You can't just walk off an aircraft!")
She continued to insist that I was violating the rules
jhayes_1780 is offline  
Old Feb 3, 2012, 2:42 pm
  #40  
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Programs: UA 1K, HH Gold, Hyatt Diamond
Posts: 223
Originally Posted by fastair
...Regulations have very specific language that can either hang someone, or let them off the hook. No laws/rules that the DoT has issued would apply here.

... it in no way falls under the govt's regulation. It is best to inform yourself first prior to filing nusance complaints with a regulator when the regulator does not regulate the scenerio. Let them use their time to regulate things that they have jurisdiction over.
While you might be right about the first point, I completely disagree re: the second. Filing complaints like this is the best way the DoT has to find out where their existing regs are lacking and motivate them to issue better regs in the future. I suspect DoT already has the authority they need to issue those regs. If not, they can ask Congress for it. But, either way, it's better to file the complaint and let DoT see what's happening in the field.
rmbl is offline  
Old Feb 3, 2012, 3:09 pm
  #41  
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: What I write is my opinion alone..don't read into it anything not written.
Posts: 9,684
Originally Posted by rmbl
While you might be right about the first point, I completely disagree re: the second. Filing complaints like this is the best way the DoT has to find out where their existing regs are lacking and motivate them to issue better regs in the future. I suspect DoT already has the authority they need to issue those regs. If not, they can ask Congress for it. But, either way, it's better to file the complaint and let DoT see what's happening in the field.
True, but then they would have egg on their face a) they would have to address the fact that cncls go up as a direct result of their legslation causing far more inconvienence than was there before, and b) that they didn't go far enough, and need to include delayed flights that are still opened up. To address (b) more, then (a) would increase, and they would look very foolish for not having thought this out origianly and catered to lobbying pressure without realizing that there is a cause and effect relationship. Tighten the noose more, and get even more negative effects.

I'm all for regulations when it comes to safety/security, but artifical regulations for comfort (beyond the consumer's real regulations of who/where to spend their flying dollar at/on) have costs that often outweight the benefits, unless you count the benefits as "catering to political lobbies", in which case, the benefits to the legislaters is immence.

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Nothing comes for free and increased costs/risk of artificial penalties influences behaviors in unpredictable and often negative ways.

Last edited by fastair; Feb 3, 2012 at 4:05 pm
fastair is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

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.