anat0l
Enthusiast
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
- Posts
- 11,598
Re: Pax forcibly removed from United overbooked flight
They haven't indeed. The only thing I can think of was that it was raised by Leff: had these crew not gone on the flight, they may have been out of position and thus potentially (or really) a whole flight the next day would be cancelled. The compensation arising from that compared to paying off four people must have been enough to persist with transporting the four crew.
I know it is not a remote view on this forum that people agree that staff who need to get into position (cabin crew, pilots) should be given a matter of priority over passengers in order to prevent cascading delays. This kind of shuffle usually happens before a single passenger sets foot on the aircraft, however, so there is no opportunity for any passenger to be dragged out kicking, screaming and bloodied.
In this case, the correct course of action might have been for United to attempt an IDB on another passenger, rush the four crew to the same destination via another mode of transport (perhaps in contravention of union rules or policies), or otherwise eat the rolling delays that would result from the four crew being out of position (and write it off to bad luck, just as it befell the three or four pax in this case).
Maybe it shouldn't. Dare I suggest it, but what if the person was a Muslim, or a Mexican?
I dare say there would not be as much outrage at the highest level if it was a Middle Eastern or Mexican person being dragged bloody off the plane. That is not right in my opinion.
And you think they will just pull this out of their proverbial in two minutes? Let alone to the acceptability of the competent authorities concerned?
If any of this gets legs, it will take a while and refinement. I don't know how long it took for the last DOT directives which (a) enforced the tarmac rule - which has some dubious legs, (b) encouraged airlines to take heed when mistake fares happen - and this later was reviewed, or (c) increased the total amount of compensation for being bumped off a flight.
Depends on whether you think that free rebooking plus up to EUR 600 is considered a hell of an incentive, and that is if the passenger actually follows through with process, because we all know the reputation of most EU carriers to actually cough up against EU261. (In some cases, it needs to go to court and bailiffs called before stuff happens).
The main advantage of EU261 is that it provides a solid basis for compensation claims, i.e. you are, by law, guaranteed these rights. How fast it will happen and whether you think in a given case the compensation is equitable is a different matter. The battered passenger in this case might have been working on the premise that no amount of money would be equitable for him to be denied his seat, much less the maximum amount by regulation.
What do you think?
If a passenger who is in Y decides to sit in J when they are not justified to be there, what should happen if they refuse to move? That would not be a safety or security incident. At a stretch, one might claim that the passenger is stealing. That may be a felony but it is not related to safety nor security. It would be, in my opinion, a reasonable request for crew to ask the passenger to either move back to their seat or be offloaded (unless they were already in the air), but I can't work out how to link it back to safety or security, so according to many people here, the request is not reasonable, or at least there are no reasonable grounds for security to be called in such an incident. On the other hand, it might give people here an idea of how to get a free upgrade...
I'm sure his position is being reviewed as we speak.
What does one do in a position like this? You screwed up and the damage is done. People will remind you of that. If the "damage is done", does that mean it was fruitless to attempt apologising again?
I suppose most want him to resign. Some may want him beaten up, just like this passenger. He may deserve either. Wasn't he the CEO that had a heart attack quite early in his reign?
If you dare blame the passenger, you'll be hung out to dry. At least, that's what's going on right now.
I don't see the police getting any kind of "damage" out of this. If the TSA can get away with it, police are likely to as well. There'll be a bit of blame tennis between UA (who ordered the passenger removed) and the police (who will say they were just doing their job). The passenger's lawyer is going to either go after the biggest turkey or at least has the job of finding out who will assume primary responsibility for damages.
They haven't indeed. The only thing I can think of was that it was raised by Leff: had these crew not gone on the flight, they may have been out of position and thus potentially (or really) a whole flight the next day would be cancelled. The compensation arising from that compared to paying off four people must have been enough to persist with transporting the four crew.
I know it is not a remote view on this forum that people agree that staff who need to get into position (cabin crew, pilots) should be given a matter of priority over passengers in order to prevent cascading delays. This kind of shuffle usually happens before a single passenger sets foot on the aircraft, however, so there is no opportunity for any passenger to be dragged out kicking, screaming and bloodied.
In this case, the correct course of action might have been for United to attempt an IDB on another passenger, rush the four crew to the same destination via another mode of transport (perhaps in contravention of union rules or policies), or otherwise eat the rolling delays that would result from the four crew being out of position (and write it off to bad luck, just as it befell the three or four pax in this case).
Maybe it shouldn't. Dare I suggest it, but what if the person was a Muslim, or a Mexican?
I dare say there would not be as much outrage at the highest level if it was a Middle Eastern or Mexican person being dragged bloody off the plane. That is not right in my opinion.
And you think they will just pull this out of their proverbial in two minutes? Let alone to the acceptability of the competent authorities concerned?
If any of this gets legs, it will take a while and refinement. I don't know how long it took for the last DOT directives which (a) enforced the tarmac rule - which has some dubious legs, (b) encouraged airlines to take heed when mistake fares happen - and this later was reviewed, or (c) increased the total amount of compensation for being bumped off a flight.
Depends on whether you think that free rebooking plus up to EUR 600 is considered a hell of an incentive, and that is if the passenger actually follows through with process, because we all know the reputation of most EU carriers to actually cough up against EU261. (In some cases, it needs to go to court and bailiffs called before stuff happens).
The main advantage of EU261 is that it provides a solid basis for compensation claims, i.e. you are, by law, guaranteed these rights. How fast it will happen and whether you think in a given case the compensation is equitable is a different matter. The battered passenger in this case might have been working on the premise that no amount of money would be equitable for him to be denied his seat, much less the maximum amount by regulation.
What do you think?
If a passenger who is in Y decides to sit in J when they are not justified to be there, what should happen if they refuse to move? That would not be a safety or security incident. At a stretch, one might claim that the passenger is stealing. That may be a felony but it is not related to safety nor security. It would be, in my opinion, a reasonable request for crew to ask the passenger to either move back to their seat or be offloaded (unless they were already in the air), but I can't work out how to link it back to safety or security, so according to many people here, the request is not reasonable, or at least there are no reasonable grounds for security to be called in such an incident. On the other hand, it might give people here an idea of how to get a free upgrade...
I'm sure his position is being reviewed as we speak.
What does one do in a position like this? You screwed up and the damage is done. People will remind you of that. If the "damage is done", does that mean it was fruitless to attempt apologising again?
I suppose most want him to resign. Some may want him beaten up, just like this passenger. He may deserve either. Wasn't he the CEO that had a heart attack quite early in his reign?
If you dare blame the passenger, you'll be hung out to dry. At least, that's what's going on right now.
I don't see the police getting any kind of "damage" out of this. If the TSA can get away with it, police are likely to as well. There'll be a bit of blame tennis between UA (who ordered the passenger removed) and the police (who will say they were just doing their job). The passenger's lawyer is going to either go after the biggest turkey or at least has the job of finding out who will assume primary responsibility for damages.
