United Airlines Flight

[Joe Fan]

 

[Statalyzer]

Moreover ... $800 was evidently sufficient. Dao and the other 3 TOOK IT

Zero people took it voluntarily. Then they were told they had randomly been chosen to be forced to take it (in both senses of the phrase).

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.

Not surprising that they deliberately withheld this information, since United for years had a systematic policy of lying to customers about flight delays and cancellations, waiting until it was too late to rebook with other carriers and the "next available" flight was with UA and not someone else, to inform their customers.

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.

But nobody involved cared enough to try that. After all, if the law allows them to make a lowball offer and then force people to either accept it or be dragged off, why should they bother using common sense and decency instead?

Delta airlines has increased the voucher size it's gate agents can offer. They can now offer up to $9,550 per voucher. Agents can offer $2k and with a supervisor's permission can go up to the full amount.

But how much actual cash can they offer?

 

[Mr. Deez]

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.



not only that, but in public airspace.



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.



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



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.




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



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.

Excellent comments, Shark, and I appreciate that you took the time to explain this to me. Setting aside the tarmac rule, if you had been the pilot on the flight with the 9 hour tarmac delay, what would you have done differently? If you would have cut bait and deplaned, at what point would you have made that call?

 

[Mr. Deez]

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.

Isn't that a crime? Yes, I should know that, but I don't, and I'd be very surprised if it's not.

To me, this is where the guy really stepped over the line and why I say he got off light. Honestly, with all the security concerns present at airports in the terrorism era, he's lucky he didn't get shot by an air marshal. If he was running onto the plane against the orders of airline personnel, that's a major security risk. They don't know what he's going to do or if he's armed. That absolutely cannot be tolerated at all.

 

[UTChE96]

Isn't that a crime? Yes, I should know that, but I don't, and I'd be very surprised if it's not.

To me, this is where the guy really stepped over the line and why I say he got off light. Honestly, with all the security concerns present at airports in the terrorism era, he's lucky he didn't get shot by an air marshal. If he was running onto the plane against the orders of airline personnel, that's a major security risk. They don't know what he's going to do or if he's armed. That absolutely cannot be tolerated at all.

That's my confusion as well. If this actually happened then the reporting on this story has been pretty abysmal. So far I have not been able to find a mass media source confirming that this actually occurred.

To be clear, I have heard that he came back on to the plane after being dragged off. But I have not seen confirmation that he volunteered for the $800 voucher and then forced his way back on to the plane.

 

[Mr. Deez]

That's my confusion as well. If this actually happened then the reporting on this story has been pretty abysmal. So far I have not been able to find a mass media source confirming that this actually occurred.

To be clear, I have heard that he came back on to the plane after being dragged off. But I have not seen confirmation that he volunteered for the $800 voucher and then forced his way back on to the plane.

Any time obviously important facts are sketchy even though there were tons of witnesses who clearly know what happened, I get suspicious that a phony narrative is being pushed. I don't know what that might be or who would be doing it, but I do suspect it.

 

[Statalyzer]

But I have not seen confirmation that he volunteered for the $800 voucher and then forced his way back on to the plane.

He didn't volunteer. Even if he initially accepted that he had been randomly chosen to get off or else, that's not volunteering.

 

[UTChE96]

He didn't volunteer. Even if he initially accepted that he had been randomly chosen to get off or else, that's not volunteering.

That is consistent with what I have read. But others on this thread have claimed that he voluntarily accepted the compensation, changed his mind, and then boarded a plane that he was no longer authorized to be on.

 

[Statalyzer]

But others on this thread have claimed that he voluntarily accepted the compensation

I think they are agreeing on the facts and using "voluntarily accepted" in a misleading way.

 

[Seattle Husker]

I think they are agreeing on the facts and using "voluntarily accepted" in a misleading way.

Clearly, Mr. Dao didn't voluntarily accept anything, including being drug out of the plane with resulted in knocking out 2 front teeth, a concussion and a broken nose.

 

[iatrogenic]

He did voluntarily accept the rules of flying. He also volunteered to ignore a lawful order from a peace officer. After that, volunteerism comes to an end.

 

[Phil Elliott]

But others on this thread have claimed that he voluntarily accepted the compensation

I cannot find any instance in this thread where any of us said that he voluntarily took the voucher. He was picked by a computer and he voluntarily left the aircraft at that time (meaning he was not forcibly removed the first time) and took his voucher. Anything more "voluntary" beyond that I cannot find anyone stating. If I am missing it, please direct me.

Maybe it's just the difference between "volunteer", which he did not do, and "voluntarily" (ie, not physically forced), which he did do?

 

[ShAArk92]

if you had been the pilot on the flight with the 9 hour tarmac delay

This was my reference earlier when I said I'd have nosed between two aircraft on gates. This happened in Austin ... oddly enough. There wasn't any gate space and I've no doubt the local staff was overwhelmed with all the diverts from DFW that evening, but toilets overflowing at the 3-4 hour point and having expired the compliment of water should certainly have been the proverbial straw.

The aircraft was a S80 ... stairs in the tail. I'd have parked as close as I was comfortable to other aircraft, and told airport operations and airline ops, "we're deplaning on the ramp. Escort to the jet bridge would be welcome but we are waiting no longer. I'd have briefed the passengers of the plan and advise if there was any deviation to the crew directed route to the terminal, they'd be charged with unauthorized access; federal offense.

But sitting a few hundred feet from the terminal for over 8 hours simply wouldn't happen. If a type with no stairs and no "air stair support" we'd use one slide in a calm/non emergency pace.

This event precipitated a LOT of lost dollars for crews (otherwise unnecessarily cancelled flights) and angst for passengers.

Let's avoid begging for more simply because of a sensational video.

Thanks.

 

[ShAArk92]

Any time obviously important facts are sketchy even though there were tons of witnesses

I don't know if there were "tons of witnesses" who really knew that Dao had accepted the $800 voucher. My contact is sure of this. ED: when I say "accepted," I understand he was 1 of 4 'drafted.' However, when he decided to reboard, that's when "things got real"

Likely ... no one is terribly interested or paying close enough attention until he ran back on the jet the second time ... getting a bloody nose in the process.

 

[ShAArk92]

That assumes that more money doesn't overcome the time component

But ... when the rule becomes (out of misunderstanding this scenario) not only "no limits" on vouchers but direction to keep the auction going, time is ticking.

All pax will at least be delayed while this directed process is underway ... likely have a crew duty day limitation and the greed to "make em pay" results in loss of pilots ... cancel or significantly delayed awaiting another crew.

Law of unintended consequences.

 

[ShAArk92]

Was there no one controlling entry to the gate?

Idk your experience, but folks try to reboard to retrieve an item quite frequently. Someone "motivated" can do that very readily. We don't have armed guards on the jetbridge.

In this scenario, the only person to stop him is the gate agent and maybe a flight attendant if posted at the entry door at the right moment.

reboarding isn't hard ... could be foolish depending upon the crew or agents take (Fed Violation).

 

[UTChE96]

I think they are agreeing on the facts and using "voluntarily accepted" in a misleading way.

I think that is exactly right. Thanks.

 

[UTChE96]

Idk your experience, but folks try to reboard to retrieve an item quite frequently. Someone "motivated" can do that very readily. We don't have armed guards on the jetbridge.

Yes, I know. I have seen it happen but it has always involved an authorized passenger with a boarding pass. Usually they forgot something in the waiting area or on the plane. In any case, I misunderstood some of the earlier discussion that Dao "voluntarily" took the voucher. That is a misleading way to describe it. United selected 4 passengers to be bumped. Dao did not volunteer at any point for the voucher.

I agree that Dao should have complied with the police request to leave the plane. But I hold United responsible for this entire mess because it likely would have been avoided by simply offering more compensation.

 

[iatrogenic]

Yes, I know. I have seen it happen but it has always involved an authorized passenger with a boarding pass. Usually they forgot something in the waiting area or on the plane. In any case, I misunderstood some of the earlier discussion that Dao "voluntarily" took the voucher. That is a misleading way to describe it. United selected 4 passengers to be bumped. Dao did not volunteer at any point for the voucher.

I agree that Dao should have complied with the police request to leave the plane. But I hold United responsible for this entire mess because it likely would have been avoided by simply offering more compensation.

Not holding Dao responsible for his actions in this scenario is ludicrous, and that attitude exemplifies much of what is wrong with society today.

 

[UTChE96]

Not holding Dao responsible for his actions in this scenario is ludicrous, and that attitude exemplifies much of what is wrong with society today.

I am holding both Dao and United responsible. Dao should be charged with violating whatever laws he broke such as resisting the instructions of a police officer. However, people like you refuse to acknowledge that United handled this situation in a way that resulted in unnecessary escalation and ultimately damage to their corporate brand. Their CEO has finally come around, time for some of you to acknowledge the obvious.

 

[iatrogenic]

I am holding both Dao and United responsible. Dao should be charged with violating whatever laws he broke such as resisting the instructions of a police officer. However, people like you refuse to acknowledge that United handled this situation in a way that resulted in unnecessary escalation and ultimately damage to their corporate brand. Their CEO has finally come around, time for some of you to acknowledge the obvious.

Oh, I thought you said:

I hold United responsible for this entire mess

 

[UTChE96]

I should have been more clear. Dao should have left the plane as directed. So I do hold him responsible for not complying with the police. But United could have avoided this mess with just a modicum of common sense and a little respect for their customers. Unfortunately sometimes it takes a crazy person to effect a positive change.

 

[bystander]

Am I the only person in the world who thinks this doctor is the one at fault here? Yeah, yeah, yeah, perhaps UA could have handled an overbooked flight better, but in the end, they randomly chose people to bump because nobody volunteered even after being offered $800 to do so. They gotta do what they gotta do, and I bet somewhere there is some legal language on your ticket that you did not read that says this may happen to you. In any case, it is the flight crew's prerogative to kick off anyone they think will be a problem. This guy was belligerent and refused orders to de-plane, even returning to the plane after he initially left. That sounds like a guy who could very well be a problem when you are in the air and the security is back on the ground. Backtalking the cops is NEVER going to go well for you and this guy got what he deserved IMO. What kind of authority do the cops have if they can only ask you the same thing as the flight crew did and you refuse? Just shrug their shoulders? They are only there because he would not obey the flight crew.

And yeah I know they were airport security not "real" cops but what difference does that make? Would people be all OK with it if it was the Chicago PD? Wouldn't those same people be saying it should be the FAA not the local police?

You're not the only one. I'm convinced I would have given up my seat. I'm not the type to put myself into that situation. I'm not saying I would have been happy. I'm not saying I wouldn't have said something. But there is no way I would have had to be dragged off the plane.

There seems to be an epidemic of resisting authority figures to the point that they are forced to either let you get away with whatever it is they are charged to enforce or use whatever means necessary to enforce the law or policy. Then we blame them. Think about it; if you refuse to get up; refuse to lay on the ground to be searched; refuse to follow instructions, then what are they supposed to do? It will require some sort of physical force (or just tase them?). I don't care what kind of training they have; if a person is unwilling to follow instructions and becomes resistant then this sort of thing will happen.

Had they let the Doctor keep his seat then they open the door for the next person who has become aware that they can keep theirs too by having an excuse/reason.

They could have POSSIBLY announced that the random selection process resulted in the selection of a doctor and that might have kept the situation under control by alerting the passengers that they let him stay due to his status but everybody has an important meeting don't they?

 

[ShAArk92]

However, people like you refuse to acknowledge that United handled

UTCHE ... with all due respect ... and for the umpteenth time, the outfit was Republic with its own operating certificate. Somehow, I think you'd be interested in that distinction if another entity were doing your work using a variation of your name and doing it not so well.

Also states numerous times is the scenario is NOTA BEING sufficiently understood from the agents perspective. The need to vacate 4 seats came to be known AFTER boarding began. If it weren't deadheading crews it could be weather forecasts being updated ... requiring different alternate airfields, requiring more fuel ... = less payload, possibly less passengers ...

AFTER BOARDING BEGAN

THe only substantive critique I can find in the operator's action was the possible failure to advise the boarded passengers they'd be spending the night in ORD.

The money issue isn't the answer ... for even in this thread, the suggestion to "make em pay" is alive/well.

3x the fare purchased plus food/lodging is reasonable ... otherwise, if that "auction" is held, it's quite possible NO ONE goes as the pilots expire their legal duty limit.

So ... all y'all experts just keep chunking rocks. You demonstrate your lack of knowledge. EVERY time. Of course you're entitled to your opinion, but your declared opinion is making you less credible.

I'm sorry we can't stomp our feet and get what we want whenever we want it.

Cheers.

 

[UTChE96]

UTCHE ... with all due respect ... and for the umpteenth time, the outfit was Republic with its own operating certificate. Somehow, I think you'd be interested in that distinction if another entity were doing your work using a variation of your name and doing it not so well.

Respectfully, you are clearly biased and have made some misleading statements on this thread. The United CEO apologized and took full responsibility for this incident. Sounds like you need to speak with him to explain that United really did nothing wrong.

"The first thing that I think is important to say is to apologize to Dr. Dao, his family, the passengers on that flight, our customers, our employees — that is not who our family at United is," Munoz said. "You saw us at a bad moment, and this can never, will never happen again on a United Airlines flight. That's my premise, and that's my promise."

 

[Seattle Husker]

3x the fare purchased plus food/lodging is reasonable ... otherwise, if that "auction" is held, it's quite possible NO ONE goes as the pilots expire their legal duty limit.

Reasonable to you? Not to the 100+ passengers on that plane thus didn't initially bite on the $800 voucher. How long do you think a mini-auction would take? 5 minutes? 10 minutes including making the necessary flight roster changes before departing? If the risk of their crew reaching legal duty limits are that tight for UA then they have much worse problems than poor customer service.

 

[ShAArk92]

you are clearly biased and have made some misleading statements

Biased?

If pursuit of the truth is biased, you're correct.

You've padlocked on a term I used and even explained. Looks to me like you're seeking an excuse ... confirmation bias.

I won't apologize for ol oscars statement. I know the truth and that is .... NOT a UAL flight, not operated by UAL, no UAL employee would be disciplined in the event of policy/law violation regarding the referenced occurrence ... because no UAL employee was involved.

I have a guess as to why the UAL CEO would speak like this ... maintain the facade of 2500 Daily flights to 500 destinations

Even if that means accepting blame which is wrongly applied to UAL.

 

[ShAArk92]

If the risk of their crew reaching legal duty limits

SH,

you reveal how little you understand.

This wasn't a planned/scheduled deadhead. It was necessary BECAUSE of response to the weather event which made this flight necessary. That deadheading crew was to have min rest (probably less in REAL time)

When these "off schedule operations" start time is absolutely of the essence. The "reserves" are already being used to a full extent. That's a result of the pilot shortage ... arguably from the "fake" bankruptcies/fallout.

So ... I'm just telling you what's happening and the probable results of efforts to further regulate the BUSINESS of the industry.

Go fly someone else ... oh ... not available? Most flights are full ... wonder why???

 

[UTChE96]

I won't apologize for ol oscars statement. I know the truth and that is .... NOT a UAL flight, not operated by UAL, no UAL employee would be disciplined in the event of policy/law violation regarding the referenced occurrence ... because no UAL employee was involved.

I have a guess as to why the UAL CEO would speak like this ... maintain the facade of 2500 Daily flights to 500 destinations

I suspect he knew how lame it would sound to blame a contractor who was following guidelines and policies provided by United. It was a United airlines flight (United Express flight 3411). That makes UA responsible for it regardless of who UA paid to operate it.

I work for a major corporation that also hires several contract companies. If our contractors do something wrong or unsafe then it's on us for not providing the correct oversight and guidance.

 

[ShAArk92]

If our contractors do something wrong or unsafe then it's on us for not providing the correct oversight and guidance.

Noted ... but not disciplined.

None of that absolved Dao for his behavior anyway. As I've said before and will state again for clarity ... if he doesn't run back on the airplane the SECOND time (violation of Fed Law the first time!), we don't have this thread.

He's not a hero either. It was a bad situation with which the staff had to contend.

I'm sure there are lessons learned. None of em suggested here about an auction about vouchers prior to boarding, about having Fed law legislate something perceived as "fair" are effective for anyone but the govt and wailing wallers