What was the reason why 4 UAL employees needed seats on a full flight? It makes a difference.

OK, I heard that the four United Airlines employees needed seats on the full plane in order to get to the destination city for a flight assignment there, however, their specific circumstances do make a difference, you know.

The first case is whereby the four employees were living in a city other than their base city (their airline domicile), and they were attempting to use their flight benefits to commute to their work assignments.

It is my understanding that when flight crews are commuters, it is their total responsibility to see to it that they can accomplish their commutation successfully and report for duty in their domicile on time and ready to go, otherwise, they get penalized up to and including termination.

So, if this was the case, the employees FAILED to make appropriate plans and accommodations for themselves, and it should have been their problem and UAL’s problem if they were unable to report for work at the destination city. (I will admit that this case is the least likely one because four employees all attempting to commute in the same way at the same time would be unusual but not impossible.)

The second case is whereby it is a regular matter of the flight schedule and crew assignment schedule for those four workers’ needing to “deadhead” to the destination city to report for their flight assignment. If this were true, then ironclad reservations for all employees so scheduled should have been made in the computer system well in advance for each and every occurrence of this need to deadhead (which may be as frequently as every day depending on the United’s operational setup.)

In the second case, the overbooking situation never would have come to the point of criticality that it did.

The third case would involve an unusual operation shuffle, and the need for the four crew employees’ needing to deadhead was a one-time thing necessitated by a storm (or whatever). Even so, some accommodation in the computer system should have been made for them prior to boarding.

In the second and third cases, EVEN IF NO COMPUTERIZED ACCOMMODATION was made for the four employees, then, if they are so important, they should have reported to the boarding gate early, VERY EARLY, well in advance of actual boarding so that they could have secured their seating, and as someone very validly pointed out, the overbooked situation should have been resolved in the gate area BEFORE the regular passengers boarded.

Anyway, it has been decades since I was involved in an overbooked situation. On Eastern, the flight attendants asked for volunteers after everyone was seated. On TWA, the matter was resolved, I learned, in the gate area well before I even reached the gate.

I thought the airline had the right to ask anyone to leave the plane. At least whatever is outlined in the regulations. That is likely in the fine print on the airline ticket paperwork.

a reply to: theworldisnotenough

They are lying stating the flight was 'overbooked'. It wasn't, every passenger booked their flight ahead of time, the plane was full, there were no 'spare seats'.

They covered up the 'add ons' with the overbooking explanation. My guess is they also lied about who the 'add ons' were. They claim they were employees but we already know they lied about overbooking too...

I'd like to know who the add ons were too. Any camera video who was sitting in those 'vacated' seats?

No?

Theres your sign.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: theworldisnotenough

They are lying stating the flight was 'overbooked'. It wasn't, every passenger booked their flight ahead of time, the plane was full, there were no 'spare seats'.

They covered up the 'add ons' with the overbooking explanation. My guess is they also lied about who the 'add ons' were. They claim they were employees but we already know they lied about overbooking too...

I'd like to know who the add ons were too. Any camera video who was sitting in those 'vacated' seats?

No?

Theres your sign.

OK, there is a saying that the truth always comes out in the wash.

Maybe these points will come up in a lawsuit.

Out of all of this the truly sad thing is that there are a number of people commenting on forums that agree with the airline and policy stating "why did the passenger not comply etc etc", why should he comply when he has paid for his seat and on the run way..

I can only think people are so indoctrinated into the system they somehow think this was OK.

Get to the Airport 3 years before the flight then TSA cop a feel to then get treated like a criminal because "policy" says it's ok.. Total BS if you ask me..


RA

originally posted by: Bluntone22
I thought the airline had the right to ask anyone to leave the plane. At least whatever is outlined in the regulations. That is likely in the fine print on the airline ticket paperwork.

So, I heard.

However, if this right continues to be enforced that way it recently was, then UAL will be digging itself into a very deep hole.

You know, the way the passenger in question was yanked out of his seat, some other passenger could have easily been injured in the fracas.

a reply to: theworldisnotenough

I suppose.
But in the end that guy will probably never board a flight again.

Sure he will... After the lawsuit, he will just board the NEW plane that he will buy with the money he wins from said lawsuit! Try kicking him off of that plane, UAL!


a reply to: Bluntone22

a reply to: theworldisnotenough

Im not trying to use United if they treat customers like this even if it's in their guidelines or whatever excuse.

Still don't get dragging anyone out like an animal. But this is new US of A. Just went through gates and we are all complicit and guilty of making this a police state. I ask simple questions: how does a multi billion dollar airline company not have the logistics in place to move 4 people from point a to b without having to drag a private citizen of a plane. No access to charter jets? No access to other accommodating airlines? No excuses for any of this and anyone looking for outs deserves the police stare we are in.

a reply to: slider1982

I agree I don't think anyone should have to comply, but in saying that it is sad that there weren't four people on that plane willing to help another person.

originally posted by: BendingTheTruth
Sure he will... After the lawsuit, he will just board the NEW plane that he will buy with the money he wins from said lawsuit! Try kicking him off of that plane, UAL!


a reply to: Bluntone22

That will be an interesting lawsuit.

a reply to: theworldisnotenough

No matter which scenario is the correct one all of this could have been avoided if the airline had dedicated seats on each flight that are for employees commuting to their job assignments only. This was not the case however as the airline is too greedy and wants to suck up every fare paying passenger dollar they can, and in this case it resulted in the physical harm of a passenger who had secured and paid for his seat in advance. There was no need for this to happen- it was all due to greed!

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: theworldisnotenough

I suppose.
But in the end that guy will probably never board a flight again.

Anyway, per the last report on the incident that I heard, United CEO Oscar Munoz defended UAL and security personnel in their [highly criticized] actions.

I don’t know how he can take such a position.

What I do know is that managerial hierarchies in all sectors are infested with what I call “blind loyalists” who will always be at the ready to lend backup and support to others (usually the guilty), sometimes in defense of subordinates, sometimes in defense of superiors, but generally with absolutely no regard for any facts. Blind loyalist do, in fact, go far in life, while offering no value and no work output other than being “blind loyalists.”

a reply to: theworldisnotenough

Anything I say is hear-say from comments I read in another site discussing this topic, but I read some people claiming that the four employees were tech. people who needed to reach their destination to work on a plane. If they couldn't get to their jobs, then that plane wouldn't be able to take off and all of those passengers there would be delayed. There were no links to show proof of their claims, but here's the article I read the comments on.

gizmodo.com...

Now I pride myself on my ability to understand both sides of every situation. Even if I'm in the argument and even if I really don't want to, I can understand the other sides point of view. Every so often, though, I just can't see it, and that seems to be the case with this topic. I just feel UA was completely in the wrong and didn't do everything in their power correctly.

In the article I linked there's quite a few people actually defending UA. One of them constantly blames the passenger and continually spouts "compliance" in every single one of his posts. I can only assume he must work for law enforcement with how often they say the passenger should've "complied", and it's all his fault. Others speak as if they work for airlines and are trying to get people to understand how things work on that industry. No matter what any of them say, I just can't agree that UA was in the right. Even if it's in their ToS when you buy a ticket, I feel they screwed up big time here.

I keep reading people saying the employees should've just drove a car, then others saying they can't because they're guaranteed a certain amount of resting time, many claim 10-15 hours. If they drove then they wouldn't have enough resting time, and if forced to work their unions would have had a field-day. If there's truth to this, I can at least understand why they couldn't drive.

I've read plenty of suggestions that UA could've, and probably should've done regarding this situation. Many people say that UA should've just kept upping the buyout until they had actual volunteers, rather than just stopping at $800. Sure, it could've ended up costing them a bit more, but it would be far cheaper than the money they stand to lose after this. If no volunteers, then maybe they should've bought tickets on another airline for their employees. Or they could've put their employees on a charter plane. Many people in the comment section said that charter planes actually tend to be cheaper, and quicker.

I'm sure there's other solutions as well that don't end up with UA looking like the assholes they are now, especially with their CEO pretty much coming out and claiming no remorse. I just find it very hard to actually see their side in this situation, and I really hope they hurt in the pocket-book for a long while.......but then again, it doesn't matter in the end, people seem to not care about this stuff and continue to fly, so maybe UA doesn't need to learn??

a reply to: theworldisnotenough

I will never fly on united airlines again or any airline that pulls this kind of crap. I hope that passenger sues the hell out of them and it comes out of management's salaries, because the buck stops where?

Cheers - Dave

a reply to: theworldisnotenough


This incident is very likely the result of a collision between FAA Part 121 regulations and the penny-pinching culture of most airlines. Remember, this was a United Express flight, which means it was flight operated by a smaller regional carrier operating under the United Airlines 121 Air Carrier Certificate. In this case, the flight was a Republic Airlines flight operating as United Flight 3411. Republic filed bankruptcy last hear. Thee FAA limits duty hours, setting a limit on the length of the duty day. Flight Duty Period limits under the121 rules range from nine to 14 hours, depending on how many segments are and the start time of the pilot's duty day. Regionals try to cram as much flying as they can into a pilot's day while paying as little as they can get away with. Starting pay for a pilot at Mesa Airlines, for example, is right at 20,000 per year for someone who has paid up to $100,000 for his training through an Airline Transport Certificate. Anything that disrupts a schedule, whether it is a weather delay or a mechanical issue, can result in a crew "timing out", making them unavailable for further duty until they have had a 10 hour rest period with 8 hours uninterrupted sleep. That can result in having to cancel a flight unless a new aircraft and route qualified crew can be found and moved to whereever the aircraft is.
Another problem that could have arisen here is that pilots are not usually cross-trained on different aircraft in the same class. A 737 crew flies 737s. They can't fly (legally) the Embraer or CRJ. So if an Embraer breaks down in Louisville and its passengers have to be taken on a CRJ, a new CRJ qualified and current crew has to be brought in.
The bottom line is that this passenger was beaten and drug off the airplane to improve United's bottom line.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
I thought the airline had the right to ask anyone to leave the plane. At least whatever is outlined in the regulations. That is likely in the fine print on the airline ticket paperwork.

Paper tickets are pretty much obsolete. One carrier charges for a printed ticket and even for a printed boarding pass that you print out yourself. If you want a free company-printed boarding pass, you have to go in advance to the airport to secure one.

So you are left to read the terms and conditions of passage on each carriers' website, but, but, but...

This is 2017 and there is a proliferation of websites and webpages of "terms and conditions." Who can read an encyclopedia of terms and conditions like those of eBay.com? Why, just setting up passwords for every Tom, Dick and Harry website is extremely onerous.

Be this as it may, a judge in a court will probably rule that it is incumbent upon the customer to make himself aware of applicable terms and conditions.

originally posted by: F4guy
a reply to: theworldisnotenough


This incident is very likely the result of a collision between FAA Part 121 regulations and the penny-pinching culture of most airlines...

The bottom line is that this passenger was beaten and drug off the airplane to improve United's bottom line.

The bottom line is this: government enforced equality works only in the downward direction. United Airlines is an equal opportunity employer and an equal opportunity public accommodator, and, as such, it treats everyone like a ______. (You fill in the blank.)

a reply to: theworldisnotenough

What flight? What employees? Do you have a link to wtf you're talking about for us dummies that haven't a clue?