United Airlines Flight

you're dismissive.

Your Dismissive is my redirected.

Our exchange became point/counter point when you apparently took issue with my caution to "all" about being careful for asking greater regulation.

I've explained why the "tarmac" rule has been bad. You've dismissed the reality of the rule. Your choice/opinion but I suspect if it were your outfit facing a 4 million dollar fine for one flight ... you'd avoid pushing the 180 minute rule too.
 
Deezer,

In my opinion, the arrogant US consumer created this mess (demanding cut-rate fares) and the airlines followed. In my world, seat size and inflight service would be regulated for customer comfort (take the issue out of the hands of the consumer). Airlines would be responsible for everything else. So, in my perfect world, all seats would be first class size (two seats on each side of aisle instead of three and ample leg room), two drink tickets, etc.

Am I a travel snob? Of course, I've made around 55 transoceanic flights in business or first class. However, I would pay more with my personal money for additional comfort in coach class for domestic flights.
 
... and delay increased by the very authority which instituted the fine in the first place.

Sounds like a 'to sack to me. YMMV
 
Last edited:
I would pay more with my personal money for additional comfort

You sir, are a rare duck. :)

As Shapiro is making good use of highlighting the left's primary argument about abortion (what about rape) ... a focus on the extreme minority of cases to justify the error of the most/vast majority ...

I'll echo @iatrogenic's post about similar exercises of associated application.
 
So, he DID accept the voucher initially, then just upped and changed his mind?

Yes ... He did this twice as I'm told.

The occasion when he was recorded clasping the curtain was when he ran-over a flight attendant reboarding a flight to which he no longer had authorization.
 
You sir, are a rare duck. :)

As Shapiro is making good use of highlighting the left's primary argument about abortion (what about rape) ... a focus on the extreme minority of cases to justify the error of the most/vast majority ...

I'll echo @iatrogenic's post about similar exercises of associated application.
Going from 6 seats per aisle to 4 plus more legroom (so less rows) plus good meals "only" doubles the cost of the ticket by my math (at most). This is cheaper than first class which is often multiple times more expensive (4-6 times). Make Airlines Great Again!
 
Actually, the economy plus seats that airlines are moving to satisfies some of my requests. So, there is a partial market solution but here's the limiter:

My inlaws won't pay an extra $50 (each way) to upgrade their seat for extra legroom and space on an 8 hr flight to Hawaii. I would pay it in a heartbeat. I'm a little hypocritical cause I get the premium coach seat upgrades for free due to my status.
 
Last edited:
well ... you earned your status and it sounds to me like you'd rather be less sardined for $50 anyhow on an 8 hour flight. You are wise.

I just spent $1100 on 4 First Class seats; 2 of us DFW-DCA/back ... includes trip insurance. We won't be subject to the overbooking or removal due to last-minute deadheading crew ... and we'll have plenty of room ... and no kiddies kicking the seat back.

I was shocked FC went so cheaply. I was hoping to get two round trip tickets in coach for less than a thousand. No status, no discount ... just straight-up bought 'em on the outfit's website ... FULL FARE. It'd take me 1/2 of that much just in fuel to drive it. Amazing. Never mind the time machine.
 
Two reasons: cheaper fuel and a different business approach (from what I read in WSJ). Apparently with less competition and more full flights, the majors can afford to reduce FC fares on select routes.
 
Two reasons:

I suppose. I took a business stats class at The University where I learned about shortcuts to derivatives ( :eek: ) Already said more than I remember about that function ... but what DID stick was that in most industries ... an 80-85% capacity/production was the optimum level for profit.

Less than that (load factor in this case) and the product is probably overpriced, load factors higher than that, and it was probably underpriced.
 
Your Dismissive is my redirected.

Our exchange became point/counter point when you apparently took issue with my caution to "all" about being careful for asking greater regulation.

I've explained why the "tarmac" rule has been bad. You've dismissed the reality of the rule. Your choice/opinion but I suspect if it were your outfit facing a 4 million dollar fine for one flight ... you'd avoid pushing the 180 minute rule too.

Rather than redirect, why not actually discuss the matter on the merits. I didn't dismiss the reality of the rule. I don't know what the reality of it is, because I don't work in the industry. However, I do know how to read, so I did read the tarmac rule.

Frankly, we mostly get along here, so I suspect that we've gotten to this point by talking past each other. Instead of going back and forth, I'll simply give you my points and questions in one post. If you'd like to answer them, that would be fine. If you don't want to, then I'll let it go, crack open a beer (though I'll probably do that either way), and move on with my life.

First, like I said before, the federal government does have the right to regulate the airlines because they operate in interstate commerce and on federally-funded property. That does NOT mean every regulation they enact is smart policy, and it does not mean the industry has no right to complain about specific regulations on the merits. It only means that the regulatory power exists, and very little that an airline does would be outside the scope of that regulatory power.

Second, the airline industry is politically well-connected enough to have tremendous influence over the regulations that govern it. However, as with most regulatory agencies, sometimes that influence can be overcome by public outrage over anecdotes in which the industry was particularly abusive. That's why we have the tarmac rule. I'm well aware that the industry didn't write it and presumably opposed it. Furthermore, I understand why they don't like it. Nobody likes rules governing what they do, and nobody likes getting fined.

Finally, you've criticized the tarmac rule because you state that airlines are forced to cancel a flight rather than sit on the tarmac for three hours. Of course, I don't personally know what the truth is, so I rely on your characterization. However, I do have some questions about your characterization, and some of them, at least on the surface, contradict your characterization. I'm not saying you're full of crap, and I'm not saying there's no explanation for any of it. There probably is, and I'm sure you can explain why I'm wrong. Fair enough?

First, I have read the regulation. What part of it is unreasonable? Is it the 3-hour limitation on tarmac waits? Is it the 2-hour limitation on tarmac waits in which food and water are available? Is it the requirement that toilets be available to passengers while on the tarmac?

Second, you've suggested that the tarmac rule leads to flights being cancelled (or "don't go at all"). If you examine the rule (which I assume you have), it says that planes can't sit on the tarmac for longer than three hours before allowing passengers to deplane and of course has exceptions for safety reasons, security reasons, or when there would significantly disrupt airport operations. (See 14 C.F.R. 259.4(b)(1).) It's not a hard and fast rule with no flexibility. In the situation in which the rule is inflexible (no safety justification, no security justification, no significant airport disruption justification), is there a reason why the passengers couldn't deplane and later reboard rather than cancel the flight altogether? My guess is that it would vary from situation to situation, but I'll listen to your input.

Third, is it known whether there will be an extensive tarmac delay before passengers board? I assume it is. If it is known, why not wait to board? What goal is served by sitting on the tarmac rather than at the terminal?
 
Thanks Deez ... a quick buzz through here because I want you to know I read and appreciate the opportunity. But my time right now is brief (VW TDI return day) ... and I shant attempt a phone keyboard reply. I think you warrant more than that.

the federal government does have the right to regulate the airlines because they operate in interstate commerce and on federally-funded property

not only that, but in public airspace.

Second, the airline industry is politically well-connected enough to have tremendous influence over the regulations that govern it.

and this isn't unique to airlines. As you mentioned, most legislation is written by the lobbyists. The airlines aren't exclusive to K Street Lobbyists.

Finally, you've criticized the tarmac rule because you state that airlines are forced to cancel a flight rather than sit on the tarmac for three hours.

Forced out of necessity for the business, not by rule.

What part of it is unreasonable?

The part where 4 million is risked in fines for the dastardly act of having to overcome/otherwise contend-with the delay unwinding of the Federal Government's traffic management ... that is ... the Federal Government decides whether 250 flights will be rerouted where and when those reroutes will be issued during taxi-out. When pilots determine the "revised routing" is unacceptable (because TM is often 45 minutes to 1 hour behind what's meterologically current "we're not flying through that line of thunderstorms which our new clearance directs") When the log jam begins, you're STUCK. We cannot simply "jump the median" in a hurry to return to the gate ... which is the only legitimate means of "offering to deplane." Can't dump 160 people on a taxiway without an aircraft emergency.

I've addressed this "take the delay in the terminal." When it's a single flight/single destination, that's what is typically done to a large extent of the delay ... but what folks simply do not understand (out of ability or decision therein) ... when the delay is systemic and because of duty day limitations on pilots ... cancellations happen.

NOW ... without the DOT rule ... the carrier can "hang-on" to the notion of completing the flight because there's no 4+ million dollar fine hanging over it. No one LIKES the 3 hour delays, but they happen. Again, due in large part to the operation of the Federal Government and the so called market demand for frequency of flights.

So, the 3 hour max delay is actually less than 3 hours because no carrier is going to risk getting hit with that fine ... so the delay is actually 1.5 hours - 2 hours MAX. Not a welcome turn of event, but when faced with spending a night at DFW or EWR or JFK ... or (hub) ... what would you REALLY choose? Be 2.5 hours late even if that time was spent on the airplane ... or not go at all?

So ... in light of this knee-jerk rule to an agreed obscene act ... my caution to inviting more regulation on the business aspect of the company is based in the law of unintended consequences ... more delays and more cancelled flights if the Fed starts dictating the process of how to determine who is going to be boarded.

For ... it cannot be overstated ... we wouldn't have had this thread if Dao had complied and didn't renege ... twice.


It's not a hard and fast rule with no flexibility. In the situation in which the rule is inflexible

But ... not the FAA's traffic management inefficiency. That counts ... and is the single greatest determinant of the systemic delay following weather system passage.

Third, is it known whether there will be an extensive tarmac delay before passengers board?

Not one which would risk application of the $4+ million fine. We'll have "controlled departure times" assigned in advance of boarding. This is where traffic management is metering the "wheels-up" times based upon their forecast of available routes and the number of flights filed for departure in the area, not just the departure airport. This was referenced earlier ... almost all of us will coordinate with local operations to "absorb" as much of that delay as possible with the aircraft at the gate, passengers in the terminal. We'll "slip" boarding time. This will meet with resistance. I've had to intervene with the attempts of a station manager trying to board the aircraft before my declared boarding time ... to give sufficient time to close-up and push back before the gate has to receive its next inbound flight.

This is a bad posture and one worthy of critique ... but the folks "buttoned-up" in that tube with you have no more desire to "sit" on the airplane than do you.

The extensive delays which result from "unwinding" are of slipping EDCT (est departure control time; "wheel's up"). The problem is ... the congo line is already formed and there are insufficient opportunities to simply "turn around."

Fuel onboard becomes a factor, too. This will require a return to the gate because of the excessive delay which becomes manifest after pushback.

So ... again ... government interference in the BUSINESS of the companies is never good for anyone but the government (justify the job). Regulation a necessary function as a part of being in public airspace for regulating OPERATIONS. Let the market decide on the business part ... whether upgrade rules and frequent flier programs will be fielded/how/etc. When/how carry ons are allowed, checked bags, etc. whether to reserve a seat assignment What's for supper ... available entertainment. The market shouldn't decide on the number of crew required to operate because that's a safety function.

Again ... thanks for the opportunity. Yes, we DO often agree on a great many things. I think we'd agree on most of this, too. I'll do better in the future in communicating.
 
I have even told the local ops folks me and the crew would take the aircraft off the gate and go "sit" somewhere for 1-2 hours, to make the next flight's operation at that gate possible/on time, then bring our jet back, load the pax and go. Those are direction dependent ... like ... we're going east ... east bounds are delayed significantly .. west is not. Work the west bound flight while our passengers are in the terminal ... dispatch the westbound flight then we'll hustle right back with the aircraft.

The problem comes when the central planning apparatus of the airline determines/predicts there'll be this log jam and the risk to the fine simply becomes too high ... even before boarding ... CANCEL. We're not even going to try.

That's the law of unintended consequences.
 
A solution to a problem which doesn't materially exist ...

What was unique about this "United Express" flight was the available TIME.

Moreover ... $800 was evidently sufficient. Dao and the other 3 TOOK IT ... but Dao changed his mind ... TWICE!

So this "fix" is misapplied and doesn't address (subsequent) passenger behavior (not that it can or necessarily should be beyond the status quo: call police) Perhaps it will make it easier/faster to find volunteers during that notorious "we're looking for a few volunteers with flexible travel plans" PA prior to starting the boarding PROCESS.

But it doesn't address the OP situation.
 
A solution to a problem which doesn't materially exist ...

What was unique about this "United Express" flight was the available TIME.

Moreover ... $800 was evidently sufficient. Dao and the other 3 TOOK IT ... but Dao changed his mind ... TWICE!

So this "fix" is misapplied and doesn't address (subsequent) passenger behavior (not that it can or necessarily should be beyond the status quo: call police) Perhaps it will make it easier/faster to find volunteers during that notorious "we're looking for a few volunteers with flexible travel plans" PA prior to starting the boarding PROCESS.

But it doesn't address the OP situation.

That assumes that more money doesn't overcome the time component. $800 wasn't enough to entice Dao (or another) to take a flight the next day. Should that voucher have been increased I'm sure United could have found a price point for someone to voluntarily take the voucher. I'm many of the ticket holders on the plane would gladly have taken 2, 3, or 4k to arrive the next day or simply to go rent a car and drive to Louisville. We know that $800 wasn't enough.
 
SH ... yes it was. In fact, it was enough to allow Dao time to deplane to receive his voucher ... recant ... run back aboard the jet. Be fetched and escorted by Republic airline staff again ...

Then his bolter back aboard a 3rd time, the last boarding overrunning a flight attendant and his video'd mumbling at the back of the cabin ... at which point Chicago aviation security got involved. FOUR of 'em (so we know they fully expected a forced removal) ...

THEN enough time to depart from there.

Is the suggestion "offer 10K" to avoid passenger misconduct?
 
SH ... yes it was. In fact, it was enough to allow Dao time to deplane to receive his voucher ... recant ... run back aboard the jet. Be fetched and escorted by Republic airline staff again ...

Then his bolter back aboard a 3rd time, the last boarding overrunning a flight attendant and his video'd mumbling at the back of the cabin ... at which point Chicago aviation security got involved. FOUR of 'em (so we know they fully expected a forced removal) ...

THEN enough time to depart from there.

Is the suggestion "offer 10K" to avoid passenger misconduct?

By all reports, the 4 passengers in question only learned that they'd be stuck there the night after deplaning which is why Dao went back onto the plane. Yes, the airline should be able to tell the whole story and should easily find a price point for ticketed passengers to voluntarily accept the voucher. Not sure why that concept is so hard to accept. A gate agent could very easily explain the situation, make an offer then raise it until enough passengers accept. Assuming they'll start at the max is absurd. Of course, for International flights higher valued vouchers, with the inconvenience, may be needed.
 
learning about the overnight after deplaning may indeed be true and is a debrief-able item. The passengers should have known the full story before making their decision whether in the terminal or sitting on the aircraft.

I'm not aware of that ... but ... if he knew when he reboarded (unauthorized act) ... why'd he deplane a SECOND time with Republic staff escort ... only to rush the jet a second time (3rd time stepping onto the aircraft).

The concept isn't hard to understand ... but understanding the reality of the situation seems to elude many here ... and many who are commercial airline customer veterans.

Like Jack Bauer, the staff was pressed for elapsed time AND reference PUSH time, it was VERY close to that time of day when they learned of the need for the "must ride" crew.

... and NONE of that dismisses Dao's choice to engage in a sit-in ... nor his physical response to the airport security personnel.
 
Last edited:
56odrfgbxbsy.jpg
 
which is why Dao went back onto the plane.
This part of the story is confusing to me. How does someone just go on to a plane without authorization? Was there no one controlling entry to the gate? If he entered a plane that he was no longer authorized to be on then that would have been a completely different story.
 
This part of the story is confusing to me. How does someone just go on to a plane without authorization? Was there no one controlling entry to the gate? If he entered a plane that he was no longer authorized to be on then that would have been a completely different story.
Unless boarding has changed in the last couple of weeks, all he had to do was run past the small lady checking tickets, which he looks to have done twice.
 
Unless boarding has changed in the last couple of weeks, all he had to do was run past the small lady checking tickets, which he looks to have done twice.
Understand but that is a much different story then what I initially heard. Before we were talking about a passenger who was removed from a plane that he was authorized to be on. Now I am hearing that he boarded a plane that he was no longer authorized to be on and apparently did it twice. Much different story. Not sure what to believe anymore.
 
Good for them. Delta has been getting some really good press as a result of this PR disaster for United.
I just got an email from Delta letting me know they credited my account 20k miles due to my 4 hour delay in Atlanta a few weeks ago due to The Weather, an uncontrollable. A few mos ago flying American I was stranded in Dallas due to a mechanical issue (a controllable) and American did nothing but put me up in an fking Motel 6, that was a dump even for a Motel 6.

Then I had an issue with American a few years ago where I paid a change fee to the desk agent and then after I had boarded the gate agent decided I didn't pay enough and I had to pay an additional $400 and demanded I pay right there or she would call security. Right in front of everyone. The only difference is I'm not a psychotic DR like Dao so I got off the plane.

Anyone that thinks United is so horrible hasn't done a lot of flying. American is far far worse. Horraay for Delta though.
 
Another point to be considered is that many of us fly for our jobs, so we have an employer who is paying the fare. I would like to fly Delta on my work trips to MN, but the fare is 3x what the American fare is, so I fly American.
 
Another point to be considered is that many of us fly for our jobs, so we have an employer who is paying the fare. I would like to fly Delta on my work trips to MN, but the fare is 3x what the American fare is, so I fly American.
That's my issue and American is usually the cheapest. I guess you get what you pay for.
 
I just got an email from Delta letting me know they credited my account 20k miles due to my 4 hour delay in Atlanta a few weeks ago due to The Weather, an uncontrollable. A few mos ago flying American I was stranded in Dallas due to a mechanical issue (a controllable) and American did nothing but put me up in an fking Motel 6, that was a dump even for a Motel 6.

Then I had an issue with American a few years ago where I paid a change fee to the desk agent and then after I had boarded the gate agent decided I didn't pay enough and I had to pay an additional $400 and demanded I pay right there or she would call security. Right in front of everyone. The only difference is I'm not a psychotic DR like Dao so I got off the plane.

Anyone that thinks United is so horrible hasn't done a lot of flying. American is far far worse. Horraay for Delta though.

And that is how the system should work; good service and pricing by one airline will beat out poor service and high prices of another. Twenty-years ago I walked up to a gate in Chicago trying to make a connection for a flight to Europe after a weather delay in Dallas. As I walked up the plane was pushing back and the doors were closed on the ramp. AA couldn't delay five minutes so I could make a 10 hour flight. I haven't flown them since.
 

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Back
Top