Doctor violently dragged from full United flight (1 Viewer)

[The General]

Other interesting thing on that chart - delta overbooks a lot, but appears to be much much better at getting volunteers to give up their seats.

I read that something like 40,000 people were re-accommodated last year.

This was the perfect storm to create a PR nightmare for United (which in my experience sucks pretty badly by airline standards).

 

[Tom Skerritt]

I read that something like 40,000 people are re-accommodated last year.

This was the perfect storm to create a PR nightmare for United (which in my experience sucks pretty badly by airline standards).

Not to mention the oligarchy that is the airline industry, price-fixing, etc. And on top of that, the government deregulation of the industry that makes it easier for the airlines to figuratively #### you in the ###.

 

[Righetti]

Other interesting thing on that chart - delta overbooks a lot, but appears to be much much better at getting volunteers to give up their seats.

As I posted earlier, Delta uses a blind bidding system where they ask all their passengers what it would take to give up their seat.  The lowest bid wins 

 

[The General]

As I posted earlier, Delta uses a blind bidding system where they ask all their passengers what it would take to give up their seat.  The lowest bid wins 

I see United moving to this toot sweet. A little better than trying to get someone off the plane with a deal they didn't agree to but were chosen at random to comply with.

 

[flranger]

Sum Ting Wong

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmclgO6w0C0

 

[culdeus]

Does your google not work?  The excerpt below shows that the airlines do have precedent to kick people off of flights against their will. Like I said before--just because the  small print of a company might allow them to do something s****y, doesn't mean that it's the right thing to do. 

Anyone can be kicked off an overbooked flight against their will. In 2015 alone,46,000 customers were involuntarily bumped from flights, according to the Department of Transportation.

Not the same.  Google better. 

 

[GroveDiesel]

I fully comprehend that--and I'm fully on record for saying that what United did was beyond reprehensible. You should read my earlier posts before you somehow think I'm on the side of United here.  However--the small print that most airlines have do not support what you are saying about your seat being guaranteed once you are "boarded, confirmed and reserved". If you read below--that is not the case.   The small print allows airlines to kick people off of planes against their will even if they are seated and boarded--and then airlines are permitted to ask authorities to remove the passenger.  What makes this situation especially disturbing is the level of force that this passenger was subjected to--it's beyond disgusting. I myself find the entire thing disgusting.  If an airline overbooks a flight--they should offer as much compensation required for other passengers to voluntarily make the necessary space--or they should charter some other sort of transportation for the overbooked parties.  

“Certainly you can be involuntarily bumped,“ aviation attorney Joseph LoRusso told CBS4’s Kelly Werthmann. “Can you be forcibly removed in a situation like this? That’s where we get into a bit of a gray area.”

LoRusso said federal law allows airlines to involuntarily remove passengers from overbooked flights, with compensation. Passengers have the right to refuse, LoRusso added, but if a person does not comply with airline instructions, federal law does permit the airline to ask authorities to remove the passenger from the plane.

Regulation 21 is the only regulation that allows an airline to remove a reserved confirmed seat customer who has boarded from a plane. Nowhere does it mention overbooking being a reason that an airline is allowed to remove someone from the plane. 

Regulation 25 dealing with overbooking all explicitly references preventing passengers from boarding. 

Anyone that disagrees is free to quote the federal regulation that they believe disagrees with that assessment. 

 

[MaxThreshold]

As I posted earlier, Delta uses a blind bidding system where they ask all their passengers what it would take to give up their seat.  The lowest bid wins 

And one of the "passengers" they ask is secretly a United plant who always replies "I'll do it for $10".  

 

[MaxThreshold]

I heard that by the time this ended they could have drove those United employees to their destination and only spend $30 on gas.

 

[jvdesigns2002]

Regulation 21 is the only regulation that allows an airline to remove a reserved confirmed seat customer who has boarded from a plane. Nowhere does it mention overbooking being a reason that an airline is allowed to remove someone from the plane. 

Regulation 25 dealing with overbooking all explicitly references preventing passengers from boarding. 

Anyone that disagrees is free to quote the federal regulation that they believe disagrees with that assessment. 

I'm not trying to argue nor did I ever claim to be an expert on the powers that airlines have over passengers.  If you read this article from Popular Mechanics-- it explains that airlines can still implement "denied boarding" regulations even after a passenger has boarded a plane:

The issue here that took this situation from bad to worse, and led to the video that's now a deserved PR black eye for United, is the timing. "The burning question is, why did they wait until everyone was seated before realizing they needed to move their employees to that flight?" Hobica asks. Most airlines avoid having to yank someone who has already settled in to their seat. Technically, that is still considered a "denied boarding" as long as the plane is still at the gate and is permissible under the law. Just try telling that to the court of public opinion, though, once the world has seen a video like this.

The full article goes further into detail and is quite informative. 

http://www.popularmechanics.com/flight/airlines/news/a26010/united-airlines-bump-passenger-rights/

In any case-- If the article is wrong and you are right--more power to you.  I still think what United did in this case was terrible and I find the entire practice pretty pathetic.  

 

[squistion]

I heard that by the time this ended they could have drove those United employees to their destination and only spend $30 on gas.

That was not an option:

http://viewfromthewing.boardingarea.com/2017/04/11/real-reason-man-dragged-off-united-flight-stop-happening/

There are a lot of myths about the situation, and it’s leading people to some bad conclusions.

[...]

• If the passenger could have just taken Uber, why not the crew? because United doesn’t get to transport its crew any way it wishes whenever it wishes, they’re bound by union contracts and in any case they were following standard established procedures. We can debate those procedures, that’s productive, but United didn’t do anything out of the ordinary.
  
  
  

 

[zoonation]

The bigger dollar amount is potential lost revenue from the PR hit, not what they will pay to the doctor.

I'm going to go ahead and guess that the hit on the year end bottom line is negligible and within a rounding error.  Because, at the end of the day, there are two types of travellers:

1.  frequent fliers who are married to their rewards and status.  Their behaviour won't change; and

2.  people looking for the cheapest fare.  their behaviour also won't change.

 

[EYLive]

If the passenger could have just taken Uber, why not the crew? because United doesn’t get to transport its crew any way it wishes whenever it wishes,

Funny, because multiple videos of the events on board Fight#3411 on 4/9/17 prove otherwise. They'll take your money, ignore your plans for transportation in favor of their own off-duty crew, beat, bloody and drag you off their plane if you decline, and call it "re-accommodating"... because they wish. Oh, and also because they need to follow proper union protocol. We wouldn't want United to break any rules now would we?

 

[Don Quixote]

I'm going to go ahead and guess that the hit on the year end bottom line is negligible and within a rounding error.  Because, at the end of the day, there are two types of travellers:

1.  frequent fliers who are married to their rewards and status.  Their behaviour won't change; and

2.  people looking for the cheapest fare.  their behaviour also won't change.

I don't know what will happen to the bottom line now, but my post was in response to someone questioning why the CEO apologized and admitting to mistreating the passenger.

If United insisted that it did nothing wrong and treated the passenger properly, I think a 3rd class of people, that avoided flying United, would have popped up.

 

[chet]

Apparently the reason makes little to no difference according to this Popular Mechanics article:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/flight/airlines/news/a26010/united-airlines-bump-passenger-rights/

There's a whole lot of stupid in this article.  I am surprised they kept it up.

 

[HellToupee]

this poor ******* . First he gets dragged off the plane and now we find out he's a bad hombre

Doctor dragged off flight was convicted of trading drugs for sex

The United Airlines passenger who was hauled off an overbooked plane is a poker-playing doctor from Kentucky with a sordid past.

Dr. David Dao, 69, who was captured in a now-viral video being forcibly dragged off the Louisville-bound flight at Chicago’s O’Hare Airport on Sunday, was working as a doctor specializing in pulmonary disease in Elizabethtown when he was convicted of trading prescription drugs for sexual favors.

According to documents filed with the Kentucky Board of Medical Licensure, Dao was arrested in 2003 on the drug-related offenses following an undercover investigation.

The board’s probe into the criminal charges found that Dao became sexually interested in a male patient, Brian Case, whom he gave a physical examination to, including a genital examination, and whom he eventually made his office manager.

Case quit that job due to “inappropriate” remarks made by Dao, who then pursued him and arranged to give him prescription drugs in exchange for sexual acts, according to the documents, filed last year.

In 2004, Dao was convicted on a slew of felony counts of obtaining drugs by fraud or deceit and was later placed on five years of supervised probation, the Louisville Courier-Journal reported.

Dao and co-defendant Case, identified in the documents by the state medical board as “Patient A,” were both indicted in the case.

Modal Trigger

Dr. David Dao’s house in Elizabethtown, Kentucky.

The medical board said Dao had a sexual relationship with Case and supplied him with narcotics while Case was his patient. The two would often meet at hotel rooms.

The two allegedly worked together to obtain prescription narcotics at several pharmacies over three years, according to reports.

The Kentucky Board of Medical Licensure permitted Dao to continue practicing medicine in 2015 under certain conditions, after he completed his probation and underwent psychological evaluations, the Louisville Courier-Journal reported.

Dao went to medical school in Vietnam in the 1970s before moving to the US, according to the Courier-Journal.

Dao, who previously worked at Hardin Memorial Hospital in Elizabethtown and once owned a medical practice, is a grandfather and father of five, the Daily Mail reported.

His wife, Teresa, who trained at Ho Chi Minh University in Saigon, is a pediatrician in Elizabethtown, according to the Daily Mail. Four of their five children are doctors.

Dao’s player profile on the World Series of Poker website lists his total earnings as $234,664 since he joined the poker circuit in 2006.

The bloody incident aboard Flight 3411 has caused a public relations disaster for United Airlines.

 

[Christo]

Lawyers - Can this guy add all this crap from his past being dredged up to his certain impending lawsuit?

It is pretty crappy that all this is being brought out for something caused by the Airline.

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

 

[Christo]

Lawyers - Can this guy add all this crap from his past being dredged up to his certain impending lawsuit?

It is pretty crappy that all this is being brought out for something caused by the Airline.

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

 

[Christo]

Neat board.

 

[jvdesigns2002]

There's a whole lot of stupid in this article.  I am surprised they kept it up.

I found it imformative and easy to read. I also found that it hit on some of the talking points that are being discussed in this thread as well.  I'm sorry if you felt like it wasted your time. 

 

[Christo]

I'm not going to look through the thread.

Was this posted yet? 

United threatens to cuff First Class passenger.

 

[The General]

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

He didn't do anything on the flight to deserve getting dragged off which has now created the story which he is the star of.

I figured there'd be some lawyerly way to stack some cash for this on any settlement he might get.

 

[Binky The Doormat]

honda?

 

[chet]

I found it imformative and easy to read. I also found that it hit on some of the talking points that are being discussed in this thread as well.  I'm sorry if you felt like it wasted your time. 

Wasn't meant as a slam on you but they got a lot wrong and is probably misleading for a lot of people.  

1: The flight wasn't oversold;

2: There's a big distinction between those who have boarded the plane and those who are waiting to board; and

3: It's illegal to remove passengers because unticketed crew need a ride.

Here's something that addresses many of the points and was posted earlier today:

1. First of all, it's airline spin to call this an overbooking. The statutory provision granting them the ability to deny boarding is about "OVERSELLING", which is specifically defined as booking more reserved confirmed seats than there are available. This is not what happened. They did not overbook the flight; they had a fully booked flight, and not only did everyone already have a reserved confirmed seat, they were all sitting in them. The law allowing them to deny boarding in the event of an oversale does not apply.

2. Even if it did apply, the law is unambiguously clear that airlines have to give preference to everyone with reserved confirmed seats when choosing to involuntarily deny boarding. They have to always choose the solution that will affect the least amount of reserved confirmed seats. This rule is straightforward, and United makes very clear in their own contract of carriage that employees of their own or of other carriers may be denied boarding without compensation because they do not have reserved confirmed seats. On its face, it's clear that what they did was illegal-- they gave preference to their employees over people who had reserved confirmed seats, in violation of 14 CFR 250.2a.

3. Furthermore, even if you try and twist this into a legal application of 250.2a and say that United had the right to deny him boarding in the event of an overbooking; they did NOT have the right to kick him off the plane. Their contract of carriage highlights there is a complete difference in rights after you've boarded and sat on the plane, and Rule 21 goes over the specific scenarios where you could get kicked off. NONE of them apply here. He did absolutely nothing wrong and shouldn't have been targeted. He's going to leave with a hefty settlement after this fiasco.

 

[zoonation]

I don't know what will happen to the bottom line now, but my post was in response to someone questioning why the CEO apologized and admitting to mistreating the passenger.

If United insisted that it did nothing wrong and treated the passenger properly, I think a 3rd class of people, that avoided flying United, would have popped up.

perhaps.  but only briefly.

 

[elbowrm]

Wasn't meant as a slam on you but they got a lot wrong and is probably misleading for a lot of people.  

1: The flight wasn't oversold;

2: There's a big distinction between those who have boarded the plane and those who are waiting to board; and

3: It's illegal to remove passengers because unticketed crew need a ride.

Here's something that addresses many of the points and was posted earlier today:

You are posting opinions as if they are facts.  There are persuasive opinions on the other side of each legal argument.  

We can all agree on United having royally ####ed themsleves to save a few hundred bucks, however.  And probably the whole industry's future costs in DB situations, since we all know a lot more about these rules now.

 

[whiskey7]

Total BS that this guy's past/personal problems are out now. Talk about adding insult to injury. Has nothing to do with what happened on that plane.

You serious, Clark? If what is being reported is true, this guy abused the authority (and trust) given a doctor so he could deal drugs for profit. As part of that, he allegedly over-prescribed pain meds to hook people on opioids so he could further profit off them. Further, he allegedly manipulated addicts for sexual favors. If this is all true, this guy is an A1 scumbag who is even lower than the dirt-ball street dealers. 

You are right that likely has nothing to do with what happened on the plane. But let's not act like they dug up a single mistake in an attempt to smear an otherwise good man here. 

 

[chet]

You are posting opinions as if they are facts.  There are persuasive opinions on the other side of each legal argument.  

We can all agree on United having royally ####ed themsleves to save a few hundred bucks, however.  And probably the whole industry's future costs in DB situations, since we all know a lot more about these rules now.

Not really on 1 & 3; maybe on 2.  United admitted that the flight wasn't oversold but we already knew that.

 

[Da Guru]

I read that something like 40,000 people were re-accommodated last year.

This was the perfect storm to create a PR nightmare for United (which in my experience sucks pretty badly by airline standards).

Really not a PR nightmare.  If United  fares are cheaper nobody will care. And if you think United sucks try flying Spirit.

 

[Willie Neslon]

You serious, Clark? If what is being reported is true, this guy abused the authority (and trust) given a doctor so he could deal drugs for profit. As part of that, he allegedly over-prescribed pain meds to hook people on opioids so he could further profit off them. Further, he allegedly manipulated addicts for sexual favors. If this is all true, this guy is an A1 scumbag who is even lower than the dirt-ball street dealers. 

You are right that likely has nothing to do with what happened on the plane. But let's not act like they dug up a single mistake in an attempt to smear an otherwise good man here. 

Didn't say they did.

 

[RokNRole]

The focus has shifted to the doctors reputation

Not to the impact this has on our lives

All things go according to plan

 

[GilbertGrape]

UAL closed down a little over 1%, was up about 1% yesterday. Closed almost right where it closed Friday.

Thanks, Karl Rove. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Seems right.

 

[-OZ-]

Lawyers - Can this guy add all this crap from his past being dredged up to his certain impending lawsuit?

It is pretty crappy that all this is being brought out for something caused by the Airline.

Sue the media for reporting the truth?  Of Course he can add it. good luck getting anything for it. 

 

[-OZ-]

The focus has shifted to the doctors reputation

Not to the impact this has on our lives

All things go according to plan

If the impact is to either stop over selling or to give better voluntary incentives for bumping, that's a win for us.  Stopping overselling would be bad for business/stocks so I doubt that happens. 

 

[Dan Lambskin]

He didn't do anything on the flight to deserve getting dragged off which has now created the story which he is the star of.

I figured there'd be some lawyerly way to stack some cash for this on any settlement he might get.

You mean aside from not complying with the airline and law enforcement request to get off the plane?  Still 99% sure had he done that he doesnt dragged off

 

[shader]

As I posted earlier, Delta uses a blind bidding system where they ask all their passengers what it would take to give up their seat.  The lowest bid wins 

That's a pretty good idea.  Much better than a "you're screwed" lottery.

 

[elbowrm]

Good summary from a http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/28166456-post3936.htmlflyer talk poster (that thread hit 265 pages already!)
Even if we don't get to know from the airline or unofficial info from those involved what happened exactly, we can make inferences from public info. Not sure if somebody else has posted this yet but this is what I found.

• This happened on Sunday 4/9.
  
• On 4/9, Flight UA4600 from DEN to Louisville was delayed 130 minutes, arriving at 12:31 AM Monday instead of 10:21 PM Sunday, having left at 8:04 PM instead of 5:40 PM. This was on an Embraer 145 aircraft with registration N14153 and operated by Trans States Airlines.
  
• That would mean that the UA4600 crew would not be allowed to show up for their next flight before 10:31 AM Monday, so probably not allowed to fly before 11:30 AM or so considering the mandatory rest time as well as the flight planning and preparation time in advance of departure.
  
• On Monday 4/10 there were UA flights scheduled out of Louisville on Embraer 145 aircraft at 6:05 AM, 7:30 AM, 9:20 AM, 2:45 PM and 3:45 PM Eastern. All operated by Trans States Airlines.
  
• Most likely the crew of UA4600 on Sunday was scheduled to operate the 9:20 AM flight on Monday, because even with their delay they would have been allowed to operate the later ones, and if they had been on schedule they would not have been allowed to operate the earlier ones.
  
• For a crew to operate the 9:20 AM flight on Monday they would have had to be in Louisville at 10:20 PM or so.
  
• The flight of the incident in the news, UA3411, was scheduled to leave ORD at 5:40 PM Central and arrive at 8:02 PM Eastern, though it actually arrived at 10:01 PM.
  
• The incoming delayed flight, UA4600, was not coming from cascaded delays from earlier flights, because the aircraft N14153 got to Denver on time as UA4680 having arrived from Grand Junction at 4:53 PM Mountain, and all earlier flights for this aircraft were on time as well. So no way for the airline to predict early enough that UA4600 would get delayed so much.
  
• UA3411 was scheduled to depart at 5:40 Central, 4:40 Eastern: 9 minutes after UA4680 landed at Denver (4:49 Mountain so 5:49 Central).
  
• However, UA3411 estimated departure was changed at 5:32 Central (4:32 Mountain, so 17 minutes before UA4680 landing). It was changed to 6:00 PM instead of 5:40. Afterwards the estimated departure time was pushed more and more many times.
  
• There was another Chicago-Louisville flight on AA a bit later than UA3411 (6:40-8:54 PM).
  
• Though there were delays at DEN around the scheduled time for the departure of UA4600, there were also many flights on time and the majority of delays were short, so unlikely that there was bad enough weather to massively delay all flights.
  

So if I'd had to bet on the sequence of events on the operations side I'd bet on this:

• UA4680 crew from Grand Junction to Denver found something wrong with the aircraft while en route
  
• They notified the airline en route so aircraft checks could be done before the next flight for this aircraft, UA4600 Denver-Louisville, and perhaps let the mechanics begin preparing for these checks before landing
  
• UA4600 was consequently delayed
  
• It became evident that the UA4600 crew would not be able to operate the Louisville-Denver 9:20 flight the next day
  
• An ERJ145 crew from Trans States Airlines that could operate that 9:20 flight from Louisville (UA4766 to DEN) was found to be available in Chicago
  
• With so little time to spare UA considered that sending this crew to Louisville on AA was more risky schedulewise than sending them on their own flight, or they might have considered it but the AA flight was full
  
• UA found that UA3411 was the only acceptable way to get an ERJ145 crew from Trans States Airlines to Louisville on time
  
• UA decided that inconveniencing 4 passengers from UA3411, who in case they had an urgent necessity to get to Louisville that same night could get there by road in 5 hours, would be less worse than inconveniencing up to 70 passengers or so from the 9:20 flight to Denver, making most of them lose their connections and having to rebook them on other flights, compensate, refund, etc. as well as cascading the delay to the rest of the flights this aircraft had to do on the day, with the same consequences for every flight
  
• UA3411 was already boarding or boarded when the UA4600 delay was known and a decision was made, and the aircraft was held so the crew they found for the 9:20 flight could get to it
  
• Then happened what we all know from the news
  
• UA3411 departed with a delay caused both by waiting for the UA4766 replacement crew and the incident, but arrived on time for them to get the mandated rest
  
• On Monday, UA4766 left for Denver on time at 9:20 with the crew that came in on UA3411
  

Apologies if this seems confusing but the story involves different crews, flights and aircraft with simultaneous events in different time zones. Hope it makes sense from an operations point of view that if events went this way the operational decision to take 4 passengers out and put 4 crew in instead was reasonable and correct not only in economic terms of the costs involved in the alternatives but in order to minimize impact on passengers as well; and also that the airline could not have known, in advance of the UA3411 boarding, that they would need to reposition crew there last minute.Sources - Flightradar24, FlightStats, ExpertFlyer, FlightAware

 

[chet]

You mean aside from not complying with the airline and law enforcement request to get off the plane?  Still 99% sure had he done that he doesnt dragged off

1:  not law enforcement

2:  crew request was illegal

The doc is an unlikely hero.

 

[shader]

You mean aside from not complying with the airline and law enforcement request to get off the plane?  Still 99% sure had he done that he doesnt dragged off

I haven't followed the story the last 24 hours or so.  But haven't many people come out and said that he was in his legal rights to stay in his seat?

If so, occasionally peaceful resistance to authorities (when they are legally wrong) can be a change for good?

It's like I told a friend yesterday, this has probably happened 50,000 times in the last year to multiple irate paying customers.

But in THIS scenario, he stood his ground and insisted on his rights, peacefully.

 

[shader]

Good summary from a http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/28166456-post3936.htmlflyer talk poster (that thread hit 265 pages already!)
Even if we don't get to know from the airline or unofficial info from those involved what happened exactly, we can make inferences from public info. Not sure if somebody else has posted this yet but this is what I found.

• This happened on Sunday 4/9.
  
• On 4/9, Flight UA4600 from DEN to Louisville was delayed 130 minutes, arriving at 12:31 AM Monday instead of 10:21 PM Sunday, having left at 8:04 PM instead of 5:40 PM. This was on an Embraer 145 aircraft with registration N14153 and operated by Trans States Airlines.
  
• That would mean that the UA4600 crew would not be allowed to show up for their next flight before 10:31 AM Monday, so probably not allowed to fly before 11:30 AM or so considering the mandatory rest time as well as the flight planning and preparation time in advance of departure.
  
• On Monday 4/10 there were UA flights scheduled out of Louisville on Embraer 145 aircraft at 6:05 AM, 7:30 AM, 9:20 AM, 2:45 PM and 3:45 PM Eastern. All operated by Trans States Airlines.
  
• Most likely the crew of UA4600 on Sunday was scheduled to operate the 9:20 AM flight on Monday, because even with their delay they would have been allowed to operate the later ones, and if they had been on schedule they would not have been allowed to operate the earlier ones.
  
• For a crew to operate the 9:20 AM flight on Monday they would have had to be in Louisville at 10:20 PM or so.
  
• The flight of the incident in the news, UA3411, was scheduled to leave ORD at 5:40 PM Central and arrive at 8:02 PM Eastern, though it actually arrived at 10:01 PM.
  
• The incoming delayed flight, UA4600, was not coming from cascaded delays from earlier flights, because the aircraft N14153 got to Denver on time as UA4680 having arrived from Grand Junction at 4:53 PM Mountain, and all earlier flights for this aircraft were on time as well. So no way for the airline to predict early enough that UA4600 would get delayed so much.
  
• UA3411 was scheduled to depart at 5:40 Central, 4:40 Eastern: 9 minutes after UA4680 landed at Denver (4:49 Mountain so 5:49 Central).
  
• However, UA3411 estimated departure was changed at 5:32 Central (4:32 Mountain, so 17 minutes before UA4680 landing). It was changed to 6:00 PM instead of 5:40. Afterwards the estimated departure time was pushed more and more many times.
  
• There was another Chicago-Louisville flight on AA a bit later than UA3411 (6:40-8:54 PM).
  
• Though there were delays at DEN around the scheduled time for the departure of UA4600, there were also many flights on time and the majority of delays were short, so unlikely that there was bad enough weather to massively delay all flights.
  

So if I'd had to bet on the sequence of events on the operations side I'd bet on this:

• UA4680 crew from Grand Junction to Denver found something wrong with the aircraft while en route
  
• They notified the airline en route so aircraft checks could be done before the next flight for this aircraft, UA4600 Denver-Louisville, and perhaps let the mechanics begin preparing for these checks before landing
  
• UA4600 was consequently delayed
  
• It became evident that the UA4600 crew would not be able to operate the Louisville-Denver 9:20 flight the next day
  
• An ERJ145 crew from Trans States Airlines that could operate that 9:20 flight from Louisville (UA4766 to DEN) was found to be available in Chicago
  
• With so little time to spare UA considered that sending this crew to Louisville on AA was more risky schedulewise than sending them on their own flight, or they might have considered it but the AA flight was full
  
• UA found that UA3411 was the only acceptable way to get an ERJ145 crew from Trans States Airlines to Louisville on time
  
• UA decided that inconveniencing 4 passengers from UA3411, who in case they had an urgent necessity to get to Louisville that same night could get there by road in 5 hours, would be less worse than inconveniencing up to 70 passengers or so from the 9:20 flight to Denver, making most of them lose their connections and having to rebook them on other flights, compensate, refund, etc. as well as cascading the delay to the rest of the flights this aircraft had to do on the day, with the same consequences for every flight
  
• UA3411 was already boarding or boarded when the UA4600 delay was known and a decision was made, and the aircraft was held so the crew they found for the 9:20 flight could get to it
  
• Then happened what we all know from the news
  
• UA3411 departed with a delay caused both by waiting for the UA4766 replacement crew and the incident, but arrived on time for them to get the mandated rest
  
• On Monday, UA4766 left for Denver on time at 9:20 with the crew that came in on UA3411
  

Apologies if this seems confusing but the story involves different crews, flights and aircraft with simultaneous events in different time zones. Hope it makes sense from an operations point of view that if events went this way the operational decision to take 4 passengers out and put 4 crew in instead was reasonable and correct not only in economic terms of the costs involved in the alternatives but in order to minimize impact on passengers as well; and also that the airline could not have known, in advance of the UA3411 boarding, that they would need to reposition crew there last minute.Sources - Flightradar24, FlightStats, ExpertFlyer, FlightAware

I don't think anyone doubts that the decision to replace four customers with four employees needed to happen.

But that really doesn't have much to do with the story here at all. 

 

[elbowrm]

Agreed, just thought the timeline provided helpful details that I hadn't seen anywhere else.

 

[AAABatteries]

Was on a Delta (NWA) flight taking off at Newark. Strong crosswinds so airline asked for 14 passengers to get off to make plane lighter ( they offered compensation). They leave. About 15 min later they all come back on the plane. Pilot says we are going to go to end of run way and burn off x pounds of fuel for 20 minutes instead. A pilot was sitting next to me, takes out a pen and starts crunching some numbers...then says "yes we should be ok". 

WTF?!?

 

[3C's]

Thanks, Karl Rove. 

Guess it's okay for people to talk about them losing 4% (Millions!, no Billions!!!) in early trading but not mention that it rebounded by the end of the day. Oh well. Anyway, looking strong in pre-market, poised to jump about 1%.

 

[elbowrm]

Another informative flyer talk post on what to do if this ever happens to you- not germane to the discussion in any way, but I think this is very helpful advice so passing it along:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/28155386-post447.html


Quote:


Originally Posted by MoreMiles
Can you share what we are supposed to quote in order to keep our seat? I think we will all need that one day.

Know the rules and the pain points for the particular airline.

1) Know your segment cost
2) Have some idea of other airlines' options - remember, airlines HATE paying another airline to fly you somewhere.
3) Airlines also hate to issue checks.

---

Here's my standard spiel when I get yanked. Always said nicely, but..

1) I wait for the airline person to speak first. In the case of AA, it was "We're so sorry Mr Lazybrook, here's a check for a thousand bucks, a voucher for a hotel and a confirmed first class ticket on the next flight out." On many airlines its just....."congrats you get a voucher for 200 bucks". At that point I tell them...that's not how this is going to work and then....

Nicely (which is hard because you're talking most likely to the person who screwed you - and who just tried to rip you off), say "ok, you've IVDBed me, lets figure this out. I'm going to ask a few specific questions, and write down your responses and your name, as I want to ensure that any and all procedures and regulations are complied with this matter. I didn't volunteer and I expect to be in destination XX at this time and date. Please understand that. "

1) If in the USA, "please provide me with the written IDB guidelines, as required by the DOT". If they don't have them immediately available, tell them, "I'm sorry you don't have those available at this time. Lets confirm that you don't have the document available in a timely manner". I also ask for a written explanation of exactly why I was chosen to be IVDBed. I also ask them to hold (not give to me) a list of the passenger manifest so that in the event that non-FLIGHT essential non-revs flew on the flight, that the information can be retrieved later by the investigators, if needed.  

This is the point when Air Canada's US contract employees figured out how to put me on my original flight.

2) Inform them that compensation is due within 24 hours, if they choose to not ship me on my original flight or make alternate arrangements to get me to my destination in a timely manner. I may, or may not accept said compensation, depending upon the disruption involved. Politely, but firmly explain to them that unless the voucher is of a truly extraordinary nature, that they will be paying cash.  

This is the point when Southwest pulled the flight back from the taxiway to take someone off and put me on it. 

3) The airline is still obligated to get me to my destination. Remind them that there are other carriers that they can pay to put me on.  

4) Explain to them, nicely, that any and all deviations from DOT/FAA regs will result in regulatory compliance investigation requests.  

On CO, none of this worked. 

----

Sometimes, you're on a stupid regional jet with less protection. In those cases, it can be a problem to get anything. But...you can still let them know that a FAA complaint will be filed, along with a request for regulation.

 

[Dan Lambskin]

1:  not law enforcement

2:  crew request was illegal

The doc is an unlikely hero.

Disagree

 

[Dan Lambskin]

Also this would be a great opportunity for the airlines to charge a No Bump premium.   For an extra $100 your seat is safe 

 

[Sheriff Bart]

WTF?!?

 Yeah that's the point where I start running up and down the aisle screaming I GOTTA GET OFF!! 

 

[3C's]

Disagree

Other than #1 and #2 being wrong he has a point.

 

[Righetti]

Also this would be a great opportunity for the airlines to charge a No Bump premium.   For an extra $100 your seat is safe 

How about a $100 don't get your head bashed in my a bunch of goons premium?