69-year old passenger doctor David Dao dragged off overbooked United Express flight UA3411

[quixoticguide]

If they move straight away sure, I wouldnt want to ask twice and definatly not three times ... and believe me some people's eyesight seems to be so bad that 53J looks like 17A

You probably know that when people travel by plane, some pack their brains in their luggage? In other words... some really are so stressed they really can t think logically anymore. On the other hand... maybe it s due to all the little security and airline rules. If you don t fly often... it has become rather difficult to fly...

Stij

I love this blog http://www.theairlineboutique.com/confe ... tions.html

[sean1982]

If they move straight away sure, I wouldnt want to ask twice and definatly not three times ... and believe me some people's eyesight seems to be so bad that 53J looks like 17A

You probably know that when people travel by plane, some pack their brains in their luggage? In other words... some really are so stressed they really can t think logically anymore. On the other hand... maybe it s due to all the little security and airline rules. If you don t fly often... it has become rather difficult to fly...

Stij

on the contrary stij, its usually the people who know "the game" the best, who pull those tricks ...

[Passenger]

The passenger told the tv reporter that a cabin crew asked just once to go to their assigned seats. The airline says that it happened several times. Let's say that it was asked two times: that is no reason to get them offloaded.

To know if it was a valid "get off", one should ask what a judge would decide when this case would end up in court. The judge then would look at the facts: it was only asked once (passengers' statement, no witnesses) or two or three times (crew statement, no witnesses), there was no physical fight, there wasn't even a verbal fight, there was no intervention/warning from the pilot, they were quietly sitting down in their own seats when law enforcement came onboard, and the airline offered them a hotel ànd seats on a flight the next day. Good look for United lawyer's to defend such case.

When airlines would offload all passengers who don't obey crew instructions at the very first call, or even not the second call, there will be offloads about every flight. How many times do you have to shout "sit down" when a passenger grabs something from the overhead storage during taxiing? How many times passengers quickly go to the toilet when the "be seated" lights just turned on during descend?

[sean1982]

When airlines would offload all passengers who don't obey crew instructions at the very first call, or even not the second call, there will be offloads about every flight. How many times do you have to shout "sit down" when a passenger grabs something from the overhead storage during taxiing? How many times passengers quickly go to the toilet when the "be seated" lights just turned on during descend?

And because it happens frequently it makes it Alright? Cause of one of those customers gets injured by turbulence or during taxi falls over and break something, I as the senior crew member on the flight would have to go and explain to the aviation authorities why it happened and what I did to prevent it.

As to sitting in a seat and claiming a product/service you havrn't paid for to me is equal to stealing. Try and get a bottle of champagne free from Delhaize and see if you get two chances (or even one) to give it up and nothing happens

[Passenger]

When airlines would offload all passengers who don't obey crew instructions at the very first call, or even not the second call, there will be offloads about every flight.

And because it happens frequently it maks it Alright?

Nobody says that it is all right because it happens frequently. But reaction should match action, specially when you are dealing with people who pay your salary. The United crew here overreacted.

How many times do you have to shout "sit down" when a passenger grabs something from the overhead storage during taxiing?

And because it happens frequently it makes it Alright? Cause of one of those customers gets injured by turbulence or during taxi falls over and break something, I as the senior crew member on the flight would have to go and explain to the aviation authorities why it happened and what I did to prevent it.

By the time you have a microphone in your hand to shout "sit down", the passenger is already back seated. One Mississippi two Mississippi three Mississippi: that's all it takes to grab a cellphone from the overhead bin.


And regarding this latest United incident. According to your strange definition of "boarding", this couple was not offloaded ("Refusal of Carriage"), but "Denied boarding" because the aircraft was still parked. Thus certainly an illegal act from United:

boarding isn't concluded until the doors of the aircraft are closed. Whether the customer was already on board or not doesn't matter .... it is still denied boarding. Onlt once the aircraft starts moving under it's own power, then refusal of transport kicks in

[sean1982]

Illegal? They claimed a service they didn't pay for and refused to move (whether it was asked once or repeatedly doesn't really matter, there should be no discussion about it) and thus broke the law ... I have most respect for people who pay my wage as long as they follow the rules ... they are there for a reason, commercial or safety and it's part of crew member's duties to enforce them.

A shopper in a supermarket who doesn't pay for all of his purchases also pays the cashier's wages so according to your "logic" they can get away with it? Strange interpretation of consumer rights you have

and lastly, refusal of carriage can be used at any time, even when you haven't even set foot on the aircraft ... like a drunk passenger presenting him/herself at the gate for example, so I don't know what boarding has to do with this. In the event of mister Dao, this had indeed nothing to do with refusal of carriage as he did not do anything wrong, he was just unlucky to have been denied boarding.

[convair]

... the airline offered them a hotel ànd seats on a flight the next day.

I've read United rebooked them the next day, but I didn't read United offered them a hotel. And even if they did, it doesn't prove anything: United can argue it was a commercial gesture since it was under pressure due to the "Chicago" incident.

The United crew here overreacted.

You don't know that unless you were there or you saw a video of the incident. Did you? I haven't.
If the passengers sue the airline, we'll see what the judge decides; if not, they admit they were wrong.

[Passenger]

I've read United rebooked them the next day, but I didn't read United offered them a hotel. And even if they did, it doesn't prove anything: United can argue it was a commercial gesture since it was under pressure due to the "Chicago" incident.

It's somewhere in between: United offered them a discounted hotel rate and a free rebooking. Quote from The New York Post: "...The embattled airline said it offered the couple a discounted hotel rate for the night, and rebooked them on a Sunday morning flight..."Source:
http://nypost.com/2017/04/17/couple-on- ... ed-flight/

The United crew here overreacted.

You don't know that unless you were there or you saw a video of the incident. Did you? I haven't. If the passengers sue the airline, we'll see what the judge decides; if not, they admit they were wrong.

I wasn't there indeed, but neither were you. Fact is that the airline offered the passengers a discounted hotel and a free rebooking, and the airline didn't sue them. Clear enough for me as indication that United ground staff understood that someone else of their company had overreacted. If the offloading was justified, the ground staff certainly wouldn't have rebooked them for free, and wouldn't have helped them with their accommodation.

The couple won't sue United because they have other things in mind. Actually, they're getting married tomorrow. The guy told the tv reporter on Saturday that United handled it "really absurd", and that's all he wanted: telling the world United sucks.

[sean1982]

I've read United rebooked them the next day, but I didn't read United offered them a hotel. And even if they did, it doesn't prove anything: United can argue it was a commercial gesture since it was under pressure due to the "Chicago" incident.

It's somewhere in between: United offered them a discounted hotel rate and a free rebooking. Quote from The New York Post: "...The embattled airline said it offered the couple a discounted hotel rate for the night, and rebooked them on a Sunday morning flight..."Source:
http://nypost.com/2017/04/17/couple-on- ... ed-flight/

You mean the fake news?

I wasn't there indeed, but neither were you. Fact is that the airline offered the passengers a discounted hotel and a free rebooking, and the airline didn't sue them. Clear enough for me as indication that United ground staff understood that someone else of their company had overreacted. If the offloading was justified, the ground staff certainly wouldn't have rebooked them for free, and wouldn't have helped them with their accommodation.

The couple won't sue United because they have other things in mind. Actually, they're getting married tomorrow. The guy told the tv reporter on Saturday that United handled it "really absurd", and that's all he wanted: telling the world United sucks.

Yeah, cause that's what you do when you don't get something you're not entitled to in the first place

[luchtzak]

Topic closed: A vs B war

[luchtzak]

Topic reopened.

United makes 10 policy changes to prevent another UA3411 incident:

https://www.aviation24.be/airlines/united- ... -incident/

[Passenger]

The dispute has been settled out of court.

[sn26567]

The dispute has been settled out of court...

... and the amount remains confidential! Dr Dao's lawyers even praised United's CEO Oscar Munoz for his actions after the incident.

See the press release of the lawyers of David Dao: http://www.corboydemetrio.com/media/new ... ase%20.pdf

[sn26567]

And now yet another incident on a United flight:

Nicole Harper says that she was denied the use of the lavatory on recent Kansas City-bound flight and so had to urinate in a cup in front of other passengers.

A passenger on a recent Kansas City-bound flight says that she was forced to urinate in two cups after crew denied her the use of the lavatory due to the plane’s seatbelt sign being illuminated. The incident occurred on April 10th onboard a United Airlines flight from Houston operated by Mesa Airlines.

The passenger in question, Nicole Harper, told CBS Kansas City affiliate KCTV that she was left humiliated by the incident, in which she had to relieve herself in front of other passengers. Harper, who has an overactive bladder, explained to crew 30 minutes into the flight that she needed to use the bathroom.

Speaking of the incident to the outlet, she said that she thought she would be able to quickly use the bathroom without any issue. This, however, proved not to be the case, and Harper says that she was told to sit down because the plane’s overhead seatbelt signs were lit.

Other passengers, Harper says, were moving about the cabin at this point and when Harper repeated her request, she was again told to remain in her seat.

“After explaining that I have an overactive bladder and would either need to use the restroom or pee in a cup, I was handed a cup by flight attendants,” she said in a Facebook post, as reported by the IBTimes.

Harper then relieved herself into two cups provided by a member of the crew, who then, she says “shamed” her into walking through the cabin and emptying them into the lavatory.

Harper has criticized the carrier for its lack of compassion, but United has issued a statement in response to the incident, saying, “Customer safety is always our first priority. Initial reports from the Mesa Airlines flight attendants indicate that Ms. Harper attempted to visit the lavatory on descent and was instructed to remain seated with the seat belt fastened per FAA regulations.”

“At no point during the flight did flight attendants suggest that Ms. Harper use cups instead of the lavatory. We have reached out to Ms. Harper to better understand what occurred,” it added.

Source: Flyertalk