Did United Airlines have any other choice than to eject that passenger?

[coloradoatheist]

Weight restrictions are dependant on what is checked in but more importantly weather conditions in parts, taking off, landing, and flying. So the airlines can determine the weather at an airport a month ahead?

Unusual and rare events like tornadoes can't be predicted. But the ones that affect daily flights at each airport are familiar and generally predictable, at least with enough accuracy that airlines know what to expect. Airlines operating out of New Orleans know to expect afternoon thunderstorms in summer. Airlines operating out of JFK know to expect turtles on the runways during the mating season. Airlines in Chicago know to expect the worst weather on average than any other airport in the US. They don't flirt with disaster by booking cargo and passengers anywhere near their limits, especially when weather events that would affect their flights are most likely to occur.

the contract does specificy the order pasengers will be chosen to be denied, so it's know. But the contract isn't law, so there would be no way legally for cops to remove the passenger.

Which is fine.

The aircraft isn't going anywhere while its overloaded. Sooner or later someone will conclude that sitting there is pointless and take the deal to be reimbursed and rescheduled, especially if the compensation is generous and the apologies sincere. It's a self solving problem.

Next time the operators will know better than to book that many people with that much luggage and cargo on a single flight.

As I said one of the options was for them to cancel the flight and bus everyone to Louisville.

Sure. They could've done that. It would have been stupid, but it's not like airline employees never make stupid decisions.

My sister was scheduled to fly out of Seattle-Tacoma one Christmas but the airport was jammed up so badly due to weather and equipment failure that everyone on her flight was bussed nearly 300 miles to Spokane. Of course, if she'd been offered $800 + hotel stay + 1500 frequent flier miles and a flight out the next day she'd have taken the deal rather than ride a bus for hours and not get to her destination any faster. Unfortunately it wasn't an option. But if it had been, someone would have taken it.

It took Delta five days to recover from one storm in Atlanta the previous Wed. Airlines can't just say, it's April 28th and Colorado might get a snowstorm so let's cancel all flights in March because it might snow then. The weather people don't even know if it will snow an inch or 18 inches for this storm and you expect the airlines to know that way ahead of time? Also the reason for this problem was because of a mechanical issue. Can airlines accurately know which specific airplanes are going to have an issue?

And you said busing everyone was a stupid idea, but in this case it would have been a better idea, but they aren't going to do a stupid idea like this without a previous reason.

 

[zorq]

It's probably better to figure this kind of thing out before you have sold your tickets and baggage allowance. Of course I suppose we should be grateful that incompetent business management like this is often driven out of business by more responsible and efficient competition.

They only find out after everything is on board and weather is checked. I'm curious how people would like it if to prevent that problem they never allowed carry ons so it could be known. Would people like being weighed prior to checking in?

I didn't say before check-in, I said before the tickets are sold. Maybe you aren't cut out for planning ahead.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

BTW, I found a report that the crew was destined for a early morning flight to Newark.

The flight I find that matches this is UA3658/YX3658, scheduled to depart at 6:55am.

If this is correct then any of the other options suggested by people on here would delay that flight.

Link?

A URL wouldn't work for you.

 

[Arctish]

It took Delta five days to recover from one storm in Atlanta the previous Wed. Airlines can't just say, it's April 28th and Colorado might get a snowstorm so let's cancel all flights in March because it might snow then. The weather people don't even know if it will snow an inch or 18 inches for this storm and you expect the airlines to know that way ahead of time?

I said "Unusual and rare events like tornadoes can't be predicted".

Also the reason for this problem was because of a mechanical issue. Can airlines accurately know which specific airplanes are going to have an issue?

And you said busing everyone was a stupid idea, but in this case it would have been a better idea, but they aren't going to do a stupid idea like this without a previous reason.

I said bussing everyone was a stupid idea because there was a better, cheaper, customer friendly and reputation enhancing option available. In my sister's case it wasn't, but in the scenario you presented and the actual United Airline incident it was. They could have been very nice, very generous, and very apologetic to the inconvenienced passengers instead of acting like the passengers are just livestock.

The Delta guy gets it:

Delta Chief Operating Officer Gil West called the storms that pounded Atlanta "unprecedented" and acknowledged the recovery effort could have been better.

"The specific track and intensity of weather like this is often difficult to forecast," West said in remarks on Thursday. "We are grateful for your patience and want you to know that we, as always, learn from these experiences. While we can't control the weather, we understand the resulting recovery has not been ideal and we apologize for that." <link>

Hopefully, United gets it too.

 

[Arctish]

Link?

A URL wouldn't work for you.

I live in Alaska, not Antarctica. A URL works just fine for me.

So do you have a link to the information, or not?

 

[ksen]

Guys, remember when libertarians used to think contracts were sacrosanct and fully binding on both sides?

Me too.

Those were fun times.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

 

[bilby]

Guys, remember when libertarians used to think contracts were sacrosanct and fully binding on both sides?

Me too.

Those were fun times.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

Yeah, but that was in the dim and distant days of yore when they also thought the initiation of violence, other than in self defence, was unacceptable.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

A URL wouldn't work for you.

I live in Alaska, not Antarctica. A URL works just fine for me.

So do you have a link to the information, or not?

Obviously you're on the web. I was thinking it was on a forum where it wouldn't be visible to the unregistered or even new members. While much of the discussion was there the particular bit was not. It's a moot point, however, as coloradoatheist posted a better link anyway.

 

[LordKiran]

I live in Alaska, not Antarctica. A URL works just fine for me.

So do you have a link to the information, or not?

Obviously you're on the web. I was thinking it was on a forum where it wouldn't be visible to the unregistered or even new members. While much of the discussion was there the particular bit was not. It's a moot point, however, as coloradoatheist posted a better link anyway.

So take screenshots and post them here.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Obviously you're on the web. I was thinking it was on a forum where it wouldn't be visible to the unregistered or even new members. While much of the discussion was there the particular bit was not. It's a moot point, however, as coloradoatheist posted a better link anyway.

So take screenshots and post them here.

The link is in the previous page and it had United's after action report.

- - - Updated - - -

Guys, remember when libertarians used to think contracts were sacrosanct and fully binding on both sides?

Me too.

Those were fun times.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

Yes, but the complexities of the product of air travel make it different than conventional products so it's hard to make analogies. The contract itself has provisiions for the airline not being able to get a passenger to its destination on time. One side makes it sound like this guy was the first to ever be late because of a flight.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Obviously you're on the web. I was thinking it was on a forum where it wouldn't be visible to the unregistered or even new members. While much of the discussion was there the particular bit was not. It's a moot point, however, as coloradoatheist posted a better link anyway.

So take screenshots and post them here.

You seem to have missed the "moot point" bit--by the time I realized the URL actually was linkable coloradoatheist had posted a better link anyway. Use his.

 

[zorq]

One side makes it sound like this guy was the first to ever be late because of a flight.

No, I'm trying to make it sound like the guy is the first ever to have his seat stolen out from under him by brutish force because an airline couldn't handle the fact that the seat was worth more than the price they had ALREADY sold it for and the price they were willing to pay for it. So they stole it.

Do you understand that there is a cognative, legal, and physical difference between failing to make it to your destination on time because safety conditions aren't optimal, and failing to make it to your destination on time because you have been robbed and beaten by the thugs of a corporation?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

One side makes it sound like this guy was the first to ever be late because of a flight.

No, I'm trying to make it sound like the guy is the first ever to have his seat stolen out from under him by brutish force because an airline couldn't handle the fact that the seat was worth more than the price they had ALREADY sold it for and the price they were willing to pay for it. So they stole it.

Do you understand that there is a cognative, legal, and physical difference between failing to make it to your destination on time because safety conditions aren't optimal, and failing to make it to your destination on time because you have been robbed and beaten by the thugs of a corporation?

Except it wasn't. He's just the first that chose to fight when IDBed off the airplane.

 

[bilby]

No, I'm trying to make it sound like the guy is the first ever to have his seat stolen out from under him by brutish force because an airline couldn't handle the fact that the seat was worth more than the price they had ALREADY sold it for and the price they were willing to pay for it. So they stole it.

Do you understand that there is a cognative, legal, and physical difference between failing to make it to your destination on time because safety conditions aren't optimal, and failing to make it to your destination on time because you have been robbed and beaten by the thugs of a corporation?

Except it wasn't. He's just the first that chose to fight when IDBed off the airplane.

The last two letters of the acronym 'IDB' don't apply in this case. No matter how much you keep pretending that they do.

He wasn't denied boarding; He boarded, and was then removed from the aircraft by force, due entirely to circumstances beyond his control, and which had nothing to do with the safety of the aircraft or of other passengers. That's not acceptable, and no amount of idiotic clinging to acronyms that don't apply will render it acceptable to any reasonable person.

 

[Arctish]

***UPDATE***

Two of the airport security team involved in the incident with Dr. Dao have been fired, and two others have been suspended:

The Chicago Department of Aviation has fired two of its officers involved in April’s widely publicized dragging of a passenger at O’Hare International Airport, according to the city’s top watchdog.

The dragging, captured on video by another passenger and spread on social media worldwide, involved Dr. David Dao, who declined to leave a United flight to make way for traveling crew members. Dao was forcibly dragged from the flight by aviation security officers, resulting in a concussion, a broken nose and the loss of two teeth. The incident prompted a lawsuit and settlement by United, as well as changes in company procedures.


An investigation by the city’s Office of Inspector General found that three aviation security officers and one aviation security sergeant “mishandled” the situation, according to the office’s third-quarter report, released Tuesday. The investigation also found that employees had made misleading statements and “deliberately removed material facts from their reports.”

Acting on the inspector general’s findings and recommendations, the Aviation Department fired the officer who “improperly escalated the incident” and the sergeant who was involved in removing facts from an employee report, the inspector general’s office said. The other officers were suspended.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-met-aviation-cops-fired-20171017-story.html

 

[Loren Pechtel]

BTW, for those who think this produced beneficial change:

The result now is generally if there's a passenger that needs to be removed but doesn't want to go they (airlines in general, not just United) deboard the whole plane. Everyone ends up later.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

BTW, for those who think this produced beneficial change:

The result now is generally if there's a passenger that needs to be removed but doesn't want to go they (airlines in general, not just United) deboard the whole plane. Everyone ends up later.

It is hard to tell if you are smirking with joy about that or if that upsets you.

 

[bilby]

BTW, for those who think this produced beneficial change:

The result now is generally if there's a passenger that needs to be removed but doesn't want to go they (airlines in general, not just United) deboard the whole plane. Everyone ends up later.

As this is disruptive not only for passengers, but also for airlines, it likely is a beneficial change; By making it difficult for airlines to dump a passenger involuntarily, one would assume that it makes them more likely to consider other options (such as offering increased compensation in order to get volunteers), before going directly to arbitrary dumping random people.

Unless you have evidence that the number of passengers involuntarily dumped has remained the same or has increased, your assumption that things have not improved is not supported by your observation of a change in the process. It's the frequency that counts, not the methodology.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

BTW, for those who think this produced beneficial change:

The result now is generally if there's a passenger that needs to be removed but doesn't want to go they (airlines in general, not just United) deboard the whole plane. Everyone ends up later.

This is good. It makes it significantly more costly to the airline to try and deboard someone who doesn't want to be removed and therefore more financially viable for the airline to up the incentives to get someone to accept leaving. Once the compensation hits the $15-20,000 mark, which would be much less than this disruption to their service would cost them, they're bound to find at least one person on the plane who'll find a reason he can hang out in a hotel for one more evening.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

BTW, for those who think this produced beneficial change:

The result now is generally if there's a passenger that needs to be removed but doesn't want to go they (airlines in general, not just United) deboard the whole plane. Everyone ends up later.

As this is disruptive not only for passengers, but also for airlines, it likely is a beneficial change; By making it difficult for airlines to dump a passenger involuntarily, one would assume that it makes them more likely to consider other options (such as offering increased compensation in order to get volunteers), before going directly to arbitrary dumping random people.

Unless you have evidence that the number of passengers involuntarily dumped has remained the same or has increased, your assumption that things have not improved is not supported by your observation of a change in the process. It's the frequency that counts, not the methodology.

You realize most of the time it's because the passenger is wildly in the wrong? (Drunk or unwilling to take their proper seat.)

And should they not be able to start boarding standbys until the boarding cutoff (usually 15 minutes) even when they know there's almost no chance the proper passenger will make it? (It happens. I've been that proper passenger who was assumed to be misconnecting. After ATC scheduled us with a -1hr connection time multiple things went just right and we made it.)

- - - Updated - - -

BTW, for those who think this produced beneficial change:

The result now is generally if there's a passenger that needs to be removed but doesn't want to go they (airlines in general, not just United) deboard the whole plane. Everyone ends up later.

This is good. It makes it significantly more costly to the airline to try and deboard someone who doesn't want to be removed and therefore more financially viable for the airline to up the incentives to get someone to accept leaving. Once the compensation hits the $15-20,000 mark, which would be much less than this disruption to their service would cost them, they're bound to find at least one person on the plane who'll find a reason he can hang out in a hotel for one more evening.

You assume that the problem was the airline's fault. It usually isn't.

Or should the airline have to cough up a bunch more when someone got kicked by a FAM?