Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
OK...you work for United, don't you?
Whether it was Republic staff or not is inconsequential as they were working as an agent for United.There is fault on all sides of this affair.
United Airlines Flight
- Thread starter Phil Elliott
- Start date
OK...you work for United, don't you?
Whether it was Republic staff or not is inconsequential as they were working as an agent for United.There is fault on all sides of this affair.
I dont' know, ii ... but given they were in ORD ... hub ... going to SDF ... spoke ... probably not in time to dispatch the Monday morning flight. This flight was probably the best option to get the crew in place for the next day.
I get it ... appreciate, again, the effort to think outside the container, but the schedulers do this for a living. Sometimes they do goofy things. I've seen it ... experienced it. Sometimes stuff happens. It happened Sunday night and this Dao fella didn't help.
Inconsequential to you. Big deal to me and my mates. Perhaps the lesson here is "stop subcontracting so much work" and therefore have operational control and brand control.
Accuracy in reporting evidently isn't a high priority for ya, eh, SH?
But what do I know?
Did he really? That just makes it even worse. If he left the plane and then ran back into the plane just to throw a fit, then he got off light.
To be fair (I notice that I begin a lot of posts with that phrase or something similar), to my knowledge this isn't a new rule or anything the Trump Administration had something to do with. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if it goes back to the late '70s when the Civil Aeronautics Board was closed and the industry was deregulated. As you're aware, I don't mind blaming Trump for things when it's appropriate, but I don't see much basis to blame him for this rule.
Yessir ... that's my understanding as well.
I imagine the Captain of this flight was involved at this point ... and "passenger 4" crossed the line from protest to violation of law and was removed by order of the Captain out of concern for the safety of the flight for which the Captain is responsible.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
Oh, I'm not blaming Trump for the current rule but rather commenting on whether it has any hope of being changed.
The one employee would arrive at 10pm while the other three would arrive at 645pm. Hope that crew of four didn't have to work a 6am flight the next day. Wonder what the minimum rest regulation is.
I don't know much about FAA regs and union rules, but I bet these options are not on the table due to rest requirements and such. You cannot just drive or even ride down to Louisville and then pilot a planeload of passengers. Even if one or more of these options are available, United would have to use that option EVERY TIME this sort of situation arose because they cannot see that this situation is coming and know when and when not to use that option. That makes the price of your ticket go up and you go to another airline and they (United) are out of business. In case you haven't noticed, it's bloody hard to make a profit in the airline bidness. For every SWA, there's 5-10 Braniffs and Continentals out there on the scrap heap.
Last edited:
I can think of one way they could have handled this - inform the passengers that if Dr. Dao cannot be persuaded to get off voluntarily, then we have no choice but to cancel the flight and you all are on your own. He would be thinking he got off light with the treatment he did get compared to that.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
You're right, inconsequential to the customer. It's a business operations consideration but to everyone outside of United they are part of United Airlines, subcontractor or not. I'd wager this individual booked the flight through United too.
I work for a joint venture of associated with a Big 3 consulting firm. We have very special rules around business intermediaries (subcontractors). In nearly every case, any customer facing subcontractor represents us, legally. With that bias, Republic may be a separate company but they are representing United from my perspective.
Lowest fares, best customer service by far AND makes a profit without government assistance. In fact, did it despite government interference. SWA would have never let that happen.
You might be right on those rules, but they could have a contingency plan in place that did not make them so desperate to forcibly remove him. I don't buy that this was the only option given they had at least 12 hours to solve it. No pilots on later flights the same day that could move up?
After reviewing a few videos of this incident, it seems fairly obvious that the good doctor has psychological problems. The fact that his license was, supposedly, reinstated should be closely investigated, and his legally authorized ability to treat patients or write scripts is "disconcerting".
Ah ... I like SWA ... but they haven't been the lowest fare in a LONG time.
They got their start ... and initial growth (first 20 years) with government protection ... so ... try again sir.
Will this thread die? The chance this will happen to any on this board is one in 10 million. I have had more good experiences with the cabin crew than bad. I'm a million-miler. Bad things happen in life. Doesn't mean it will happen to you. When traveling, you always remember the bad things but never the good things that people do.
After watching some videos of the incident, I am more sympathetic with the passenger though also understanding United's predicament. He was desperate to stay on the plane and see his patients. It's kinda hard to arrive at justice while maintaining a departure schedule.
If he really wanted to see his patients, he would have booked an earlier flight or tried to gain status at United. He did neither, which means he prioritized his wallet and his personal time over his patients.
Btw, I recognize I'm violating my own admonition.
No
It is the HIGHLANDER of threads!
Just had an uneventful trip to DCA ...
All is well. Gnite HornFans!
Til Gabriel blows his horn!
Protection? The government spent the first 30 years screwing with them for flying out of Love Field.
Yessir ... SWA was the only outfit which could operate >50 seat aircraft out of DAL. The CAB capitulated to their lobby after the decision was already made: "no commercial airline traffic out of DAL ... all will move to DFW"
That's why Herb is on record as saying ~"SWA is passionately neutral on the Wright Amendment." Government protection.
Since we're here and there's a contingent of rabid anti-labor union on this board ... would you believe SWA (still) is the major airline with the greatest percentage of "organized" labor?
There's no doubt he made his reservation on United's website. That only underscores the problem with the rampant sub-contracting, it doesn't legitimize it.
I won't bore the board with it, but this is a classic example of what happens when you relinquish control of your brand to someone else.
I'd only offer that if the passenger is on a "can't miss" condition which isn't a "distressed passenger" (funeral, etc) ... then the ticket purchased should have been in a category reflecting that and removing him from the pool of potential removal selectees. Perhaps circumstances changed from the point of purchase to the time of boarding the flight ... make that known to the gate agent and be willing to pay more at that point.
Right, but the restriction should never have been made in the first place.
Rabidly anti-labor? You do know I'm anti-right to work, right? I'd hardly call that anti-labor.
I wasn't referring to you, sir. No problem.
You're right, the restriction shouldn't have been there and nor should the airline have been operating out of DAL. The agreement between Dallas and Ft. Worth to BUILD DFW included that commitment. Dallas reneged and so did the CAB. Doesn't matter why, but they did and the rest is history. Now we have a carrier who has been able to parleigh that protection into a fantastic marketing scheme with the airfield name.
It's not completely undeserved, they have generally been a "fun" place, but the regulation helped in a major way and in a critical time in the company's early life when they had 3 aircraft making that triangle run; DAL, HOU, SAT. What's interesting is that over the last 18-20 years, the carrier has begun to realize more of the "stiff collar" corporate issues.
In fact, the later pilot hires were about to mutiny when 9/11 happened. They wanted a retirement plan, too. But, instead, the rest of the airlines filed BK and dumped theirs. Now, there's very little difference in the various companies from a "driver's" point of view.
(and I'm not preaching to you, Deez, just to be clear)
To return to the OP ... SWA has removed passengers in the same scenario as Republic Airlines did ... as has every carrier, frankly. There's even a revived example of a Delta sub-contractor having law enforcement literally drag a woman off of one of their flights ... just a few months ago.
If the United CEO will shut his trap, this will blow over pretty rapidly, too.
The appropriate remedy was for the City of Fort Worth and DFW to sue the City of Dallas to recoup they're losses, not for the government to come in and force airlines to leave Love Field.
With that I have no objection, but it doesn't change the fact SWA benefitted from government protection. The other carriers who were "booted" from DAL should have filed suit, too, I suppose. I'm not THAT familiar, but when someone hails SWA as the darling, I am usually motivated to disclose more of the story.
Nonsense. I was discussing the "can't miss" passenger because that's that Eye brought up, but all passengers should be able to rely on actually getting a seat on the flight they paid to get a seat on. If the airline decides to play "overbooking roulette" and loses, then they should pay the damages that arise. If they don't like those apples, then they shouldn't gamble.
It's not protection if the government was screwing you and decided to screw you less.
II is trying to produce an argument which removes culpability from this passenger who was selected for removal due to operational necessity.
I was trying to make allowance for that, but also recognize if the passenger hadn't purchased the ticket which was subject to that removal ... he'd not have been removed.
Again, this wasn't an overbooking issue, this was a late-notice need to position flight crew for a subsequent flight. In the event of overbooking, the "auction" DOES happen before boarding.
I was trying to make allowance for that, but also recognize if the passenger hadn't purchased the ticket which was subject to that removal ... he'd not have been removed.
Again, this wasn't an overbooking issue, this was a late-notice need to position flight crew for a subsequent flight. In the event of overbooking, the "auction" DOES happen before boarding.
SWA wasn't screwed by the government ... they were protected. That's the only legitimate analysis for their beginning at DAL. Wright got involved and THAT resulted in the "adjacent State" requirement ... but that was years after SWA began operations at DAL which shouldn't have.
Wright got involved when the other carriers started squawking about having lost revenue in Dallas ... due to this little carrier's expanding operations ... that they should have been required to field at DFW from the beginning.
Weekly Prediction Contest
* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC
Recent Threads
-
Black Lives Matter; The Cerebral Warlords of Our Time
- Started by iatrogenic
- Replies: 1K
- West Mall
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
-
President Biden Accountability Thread
- Started by 2003TexasGrad
- Replies: 4K
- West Mall
Prediction Results Threads
