Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'West Mall' started by Phil Elliott, Apr 11, 2017.
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).
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.
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?
But how much actual cash can they offer?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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).
I think that is exactly right. Thanks.
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.
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 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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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???
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.
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