| The source that that columnist quotes is United Airlines Contract of Carriage. It doesn't mention anything about 'offloading' or forcibly removing passengers. |
And you thought Ryan Air were bad? (United are worse)
•
Page 10
-
twelveways 7,131 posts
Seen 2 years ago
Registered 15 years ago -
Tonka 31,979 posts
Seen 3 hours ago
Registered 18 years agoTrowel wrote:
The flight wasn't overbooked
The legal aspects have been well covered:
...United, like most airlines, has a clause in its contract with every passenger which says, effectively, “You may have a ‘confirmed’ reservation for a flight, and be sitting on board, but we still reserve the right to offload you to make room for someone else.” (The actual wording is: “All of UA’s flights are subject to overbooking which could result in UA’s inability to provide previously confirmed reserved space for a given flight.”)
http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/united-airlines-flight-3411-david-dao-denied-boarding-overbooking-compensation-regulations-faa-caa-a7682276.html
I also pointed out that the captain’s word goes. The Federal Aviation Administration says: “The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.” Our own CAA has a similar regulation: “Every person in an aircraft must obey all lawful commands which the pilot in command of that aircraft may give for the purpose of securing the safety of the aircraft and of persons or property carried in the aircraft, or the safety, efficiency or regularity of air navigation.” -
Syrette 51,181 posts
Seen 24 minutes ago
Registered 19 years agoYou know more than a travel expert? -
Tonka 31,979 posts
Seen 3 hours ago
Registered 18 years agoBy reading what other travel experts say.
An overbooked flight has people turned away at the check in counter. I know that from personal experience btw. If all paying customers are checked in and sitting in their seats the flight is not overbooked. -
mal 29,326 posts
Seen 3 years ago
Registered 20 years agoWell, that's what United should have done in this case. They should have known they had some staff that needed to travel, and stopped people at the gates. If staff came in after people were already on the plane, they should have been given their bus fare and told to sod off.
Edit: I guess you could say that the plane wasn't overbooked before the extra staff turned up. That's a different defintion of the term I'm aware of, and the way I understand it is that almost all planes, especially intercontinental ones are overbooked, in that they sell more seats than the plane has, because they know a percentage will defer. Doesn't matter if everyone's seated or if there are free seats or whatever, it's how the customer list looks before the plane has even started to be prepared.
Edited by mal at 02:03:06 16-04-2017 -
Derblington 35,161 posts
Seen 23 hours ago
Registered 17 years agorichardiox wrote:
Err, no I'm not. I replied to Tonka about them being legally allowed to remove him from the plane and he wanted an explanation, so I typed one. That doesn't mean I support their actions.
Putting legality aside for a second, just ethically speaking, you're basically on the side of the company that firstly asked a paying customer to leave the plane for a reason that was nothing to do with him and then when he didn't comply they called in airport security to remove him by force.
That makes you sound like an arsehole. You're wording and phrases like "I'm sure the Dr will get a good payout" don't help.
United fucked up. They shouldn't have ever let the passengers on board the flight before they had the 4 seats they needed. The gov DOT regulations state that the correct procedure to bump passengers is at the gate (though whether being on a stationary plane at the gate is actually any different I'm not sure), and in failing to conduct the process there everything that happened after, as far as I'm concerned, is essentially their fault. It should and could have all been avoided. If nothing else, when they got no volunteers at $400 at the gate, raise it to $800 there too - don't wait until the plane had boarded for that. When that doesn't work, raise it again. Either way, whatever happens you're still at the gate and no-one's getting injured in tight spaces.
Also, I didn't use the term "payout". If you want to quote me, go ahead, but actually quote me - I've been saying the same thing about this from the early pages of the thread. -
Derblington 35,161 posts
Seen 23 hours ago
Registered 17 years agotwelveways wrote:
My "unnamed source" is actually multiple, from the hundreds of articles that have been published since the incident occurred. I apologise I haven't been noting names from every article I've read on the subject. There are disagreements on almost every aspect of the whole event, by lawyers. I've read plenty for and against each, I'm just not picking one as gospel because it matches my personal view and outright ignoring the rest. The fact that it's debated suggests that it's not as clear cut as 'he had a ticket and therefor had the right to fly'.
There are tons of lawyers out there who state that UA shouldn't have removed him. But yeah, your unnamed source is obviously much better than the hundreds of articles that come up when you Google it.
And yeah, it obviously had nothing to do with them saving money...
I wasn't saying that they weren't saving some money by putting their crew on their flight rather than getting other transport - this isn't something that is unique to United, every airline would do it as a first option. We don't know the circumstances around the reserve crew or alternate transport so there's no way we can state the absolute priority getting them on this flight was.
I was simply saying they didn't "have his face smashed in", as you put it. It wasn't a malicious attack from the flight crew. -
Derblington 35,161 posts
Seen 23 hours ago
Registered 17 years agoTonka wrote:
They did this at the gate, which is the correct procedure. They offered $400 and no-one took it.
By reading what other travel experts say.
An overbooked flight has people turned away at the check in counter. I know that from personal experience btw. If all paying customers are checked in and sitting in their seats the flight is not overbooked.
Then they let the plane board. Then they offered $800 and no-one took it. Why this wasn't done at the gate, or the reason for the second offer overall isn't stated anywhere. We need that info to properly understand the situation - there's still a lot of bits of info that haven't been reported.
Then they picked people "at random", which ended up being two couples. Dr Dao and his wife were the second.
The "overbooked" term is contested a lot, and I guess this could be one of the technicalities that is used in court. The impression I have from all of the reading of the situation is that the plane wasn't overbooked in the sense that they didn't have more tickets than seats, but as soon as the reserve crew were assigned the flight it becomes the same issue which is why it's being called that. -
Nazo 1,951 posts
Seen 6 hours ago
Registered 12 years agoI wonder what this will do to his reputation as a doctor, I've a lot of sympathy for the guy but I don't think I'd want him treating me after seeing those vids. -
Godofporn 6,915 posts
Seen 24 hours ago
Registered 7 years ago@Derblington ok -
Tonka 31,979 posts
Seen 3 hours ago
Registered 18 years agoI think united (or rather the outsourced crew they are using to save costs from what it seems) called the flight overbooked because they (mistakenly from what I've read) thought that would make it okay to boot people without any further reasons.
And again, overbooking is handled at the check in counter, not the gate. And absolutely not inside the plane by reasons that should be blatantly obvious.
As for the captain having the rights to have anyone removed I strongly doubt they can do that without giving a reason. It has to be wrt the safety of the flight doesn't it? -
Derblington 35,161 posts
Seen 23 hours ago
Registered 17 years agoTonka wrote:
Nope.
And again, overbooking is handled at the check in counter, not the gate. And absolutely not inside the plane by reasons that should be blatantly obvious.
"DOT rules require airlines to seek out people who are willing to give up their seats for compensation before bumping anyone involuntarily. Here's how this works. At the check-in or boarding area, airline employees will look for volunteers when it appears that the flight has been oversold."
That's from the transport government website.
Note, richardiox, that I still don't agree with the course of action taken, nor the result of injury to Dr Dao.
Edited by Derblington at 12:15:44 16-04-2017 -
Tonka 31,979 posts
Seen 3 hours ago
Registered 18 years agoOverbooked by the gate? That sounds really weird. Makes their decision to let people board even stranger since that really weakened their case.
It also makes flying even more shit than it already is. I was told that as long as I have checked in before arriving at the airport I was sure not to get left behind. -
funkstar 3,280 posts
Seen 1 hour ago
Registered 16 years agoThink about it, if everyone checked in online then where would they handle overbooking? -
mrpon 37,366 posts
Seen 45 minutes ago
Registered 15 years ago -
mal 29,326 posts
Seen 3 years ago
Registered 20 years agoTo avoid anyone else having to look it up, a 'stroller' is apparently american for a 'pushchair'. -
mal wrote:
Heh, I was confuzzled by that as well
To avoid anyone else having to look it up, a 'stroller' is apparently american for a 'pushchair'..gif)
According to Google it also means street child in South African, so depending on her nationality this story could have an even more shocking twist to it. -
Mola_Ram 26,187 posts
Seen 4 hours ago
Registered 9 years agoEh, it seems fairly bad, but that's one of those things where I wouldn't really want to judge unless I'd seen the whole incident (and maybe not even then). From experience, arguments like these have a way of escalating with no one person really responsible for said escalation. -
Sounds like she was given permission to see if she could get the stroller on (that permission apparently shouldn't have been given). Mr stroppy came along and told her she couldn't and wanted it from her. She refused. He pulled it from her, hitting her and just missing her baby with it. She was later taken off the flight against her will. AA then upgraded her to first class on a later flight.
You could argue she should have ignored the first person and obeyed him. But then in the clip, he comes across as an aggressive jerk who could and should have dealt with both incidents more professionally and i don't know... Nicely. -
@Mola_Ram You have a point, I agree the woman could very well have been in the wrong too. We don't know how she behaved before the start of the video.
Nonetheless, that flight attendant hit her, nearly potentially injuring an infant in the process and then proceeded to encourage violence from another passenger. His overall aggressive stance is unacceptable from service personnel as far as I'm concerned.
Bar really extreme circumstances what he's done is pretty much an open request to getting fired on the spot and being dragged to court IMO. -
Mola_Ram 26,187 posts
Seen 4 hours ago
Registered 9 years agoJoeBlade wrote:
Not hit her. *Allegedly* hit her. Unless there's more information been released since that article came out. Maybe it was an accident. Maybe he pushed the stroller more forcefully than intended and it bumped her.
@Mola_Ram You have a point, I agree the woman could very well have been in the wrong too. We don't know how she behaved before the start of the video.
Nonetheless, that flight attendant hit her, nearly potentially injuring an infant in the process and then proceeded to encourage violence from another passenger. His overall aggressive stance is unacceptable from service personnel as far as I'm concerned.
Bar really extreme circumstances what he's done is pretty much an open request to getting fired on the spot and being dragged to court IMO.
It's not to say that the employee did nothing wrong. At the very least anyone involved in customer service should be trained to avoid escalating situations like that. But the full story isn't there, and aside from the video (which only shows the aftermath) there isn't much to go on. -
@Mola_Ram It's not just the video, there are two (or three? can't be arsed to reread) witness reports in the article as well that state him hitting her. -
funkstar 3,280 posts
Seen 1 hour ago
Registered 16 years agoIm pretty sure the witness reports said he hit her with the stroller as he was pulling it out of her hands, and also was very close to hitting the baby -
Yeah, the reports make it sound like she was hit when the stroller was wrenched free from her grasp. I do think there's a slight difference between accidentally hitting somebody and purposely hitting somebody. Not that it excuses the attendant for being aggressive, and he should be reprimanded. -
Mola_Ram 26,187 posts
Seen 4 hours ago
Registered 9 years agoI heard from an eyewitness that he lifted the stroller over his head, said "I got your stroller RIGHT HERE, bint", and smashed her face in with it. And then went after the baby. Thank God he was stopped!
EDIT: I've no idea why an American would describe an irritating woman as a "bint", but hey, that's what I heard
Edited by Mola_Ram at 08:37:14 24-04-2017 -
Onlooker Jim Ross was heard to exclaim "dear god, not the steel stroller!"
Edited by drhickman1983 at 08:41:53 24-04-2017 -
nickthegun 87,711 posts
Seen 5 hours ago
Registered 16 years agoOH MAH GAWD! OH. MAH. GAWD! -
Jono62 27,356 posts
Seen 14 hours ago
Registered 13 years ago -
Ten grand? Fuck that, I'd sit tight and hope a few million would come in exchange for a few teeth -
Id be happy to be dragged off by the cock for that tbh.
.gif)
Sometimes posts may contain links to online retail stores. If you click on one and make a purchase we may receive a small commission. For more information, go here.
