View Full Version : Much troubled airliner
I work about five miles from the ends of JFK's runways 22R & 22L
We see A380s on final everyday; they're an impressive sight.
Most of them (if not all) are Etihad Airways aircraft. I assume they're arriving from somewhere in the mid east, non stop.
Sputnick 2 coming to an airport near you...
http://sputniknews.com/business/20160713/1042909699/russian-aircraft-market-competition.html
WickerBill
07-14-16, 07:37 AM
Sputnick 2 coming to an airport near you...
http://sputniknews.com/business/20160713/1042909699/russian-aircraft-market-competition.html
Hopefully my travel portal will add an "Avoid Russian-made aircraft" option right next to the "Avoid propeller planes" option.
Hopefully my travel portal will add an "Avoid Russian-made aircraft" option right next to the "Avoid propeller planes" option.
What's wrong with props? One of the best thrill rides I ever had was flying a turbo prop to Toronto for a trade show, and grabbing my ankles the entire way. :gomer: :eek:
Also reports are that China is getting into the business...must have hacked the designs from Boeing or Airbus. :saywhat:
Does a space plane look like an ICBM on NORAD's screens? :p
Does a space plane look like an ICBM on NORAD's screens? :p
Good question...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHWjlCaIrQo
Number of players 0. :gomer:
WickerBill
08-25-16, 11:04 AM
Now the engines are causing the 787 fits... (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/08/25/rolls-royce-engines-are-the-source-of-latest-problem-to-hit-boei/)
chop456
08-26-16, 01:57 AM
Looked it up out of curiosity after reading your post.
At this point, the 787 has triple the orders and 2.5x the delivered units as the A380. Some talking head on TV the other day was speculating that there will be hardly any new orders for the A380, while the 787 will continue to be bought and built for the next 20 years.
Per Wikipedia, total orders for the A380 for '14, '15' and '16 were 15 units. 787 has 131 over that span, or a 7:1 ratio.
WickerBill
08-26-16, 07:41 AM
I haven't flown the A380, but the 787 - even in United livery and cabins - is a relative joy to fly. It is amazing how much better the higher cabin pressure and lower noise makes you feel after 15 hours.
Well, I don't mean you feel better. I mean you feel less bad.
TravelGal
08-27-16, 03:14 PM
Looked it up out of curiosity after reading your post.
At this point, the 787 has triple the orders and 2.5x the delivered units as the A380. Some talking head on TV the other day was speculating that there will be hardly any new orders for the A380, while the 787 will continue to be bought and built for the next 20 years.
Per Wikipedia, total orders for the A380 for '14, '15' and '16 were 15 units. 787 has 131 over that span, or a 7:1 ratio.
By way of corroboration, I was reading about a recent agreement on LAX expansion/extension of runways yesterday and the comment was included that they didn't expect the traffic from A380's to increase.
pfc_m_drake
08-27-16, 08:08 PM
Flying in an A380 is awesome. I've done it many times (all coach - on very long haul flights).
The problem is that the business case doesn't make sense. I've only had 1-2 flights (out of probably 12-15 total) on an A380 that were full.
On top of that, it's a classic case of 4-engine vs 2-engine (for both the 787 and 777-300ER). The 2-engine planes are straight-up more economical to operate (better fuel efficiency and less maintenance). And in the case of the 787, it has the range for long-haul flights, but can also be operated on shorter hub/spoke routes (indeed - cited as the culprit regarding the engine problems in WB's article). So you can't beat the versatility and economics of the 787.
Sadly, the business case for the A380 never materialized - and most airlines operate 1-2 of them as a 'flagship' to their fleets rather than the 'tractor trailer full of people' that was envisioned. Indeed - I think my last flight from ICN-JFK on a KAL A380 was about 1/3 full :saywhat: Much cheaper to cram those people into an 87 and burn way less fuel on the trip in the process.
Tifosi24
08-27-16, 11:12 PM
Our flight from Guangzhou to Beijing last Fall was scheduled as an A380 when we booked it with China Southern. When we showed up at the terminal, I was bummed to find out it was replaced with an A320. It was the right call for China Southern seeing that there were empty seats on the A320, which was set up in an all coach layout, talk about a bus in the sky.
Um. I don't think it's supposed to look like that..
http://www.pressherald.com/2016/08/27/engine-trouble-forces-southwest-flight-to-make-emergency-landing/
876
On the A380, I think the Euros just let their zeal to dethrone the 747 as Queen of the Skies blind them to the obvious economic realities.
Um. I don't think it's supposed to look like that..
Possible cause:
http://i68.tinypic.com/w1ba75.jpg
Don Quixote
08-29-16, 12:37 PM
No, it was this.
877
It isn't quite fair to compare the 787 and the A380. The A350 is direct competitor for the 787. They're selling a lot of those.
pfc_m_drake
08-31-16, 07:11 AM
It isn't quite fair to compare the 787 and the A380. The A350 is direct competitor for the 787. They're selling a lot of those.That's very true. Maybe the bigger point is that you could easily envision both the 747 and the A380 being out of production 5 years from now (and maybe even as soon as 2-3 years from now, depending on how things go).
It isn't quite fair to compare the 787 and the A380. The A350 is direct competitor for the 787. They're selling a lot of those.
The competition between the A380 and the 787 is a competition of concepts, not of manufactures.
Some of the operators of the A380 are state run airlines and in at least those cases I think the A380 is a much a point of national pride and a flying billboard as it is a profit center.
I work under the final approach for JFK’s runways 22L & 22R. The A380 is an impressive sight.
Boeing’s original plan for the 747 was to produce about 600 aircraft, however more than 1,500 have been built in the past 47 years.
chop456
08-31-16, 07:49 AM
It isn't quite fair to compare the 787 and the A380. The A350 is direct competitor for the 787. They're selling a lot of those.
Sure are.
Airbus A350 net orders 2014-2016: -2
Deliveries: 30
Total orders not yet delivered, 2006-2016: 780/810, or 96%
Deliveries in first 3 years of production: 30
Average deliveries per year since production began: 10
Boeing 787 net orders 2014-2016: 131
Deliveries: 331
Total orders not yet delivered, 2004-2016: 716/1,161, or 62%
Deliveries in first 3 years of production: 114
Average deliveries per year since production began: 74
WickerBill
08-31-16, 09:11 AM
There's a lot to digest in those numbers.
I'm stunned Boeing have 1100+ orders for the 78 already. Wow.
After the 797, will Boeing keep using '7' as the last serial number?
For example, 807, 827, 837..., or will they change to eights 808, 828, 838?
https://s10.postimg.org/fnwqg5odl/5604284742_285499dd2f_b.jpg
pfc_m_drake
08-31-16, 02:42 PM
There's a lot to digest in those numbers.
I'm stunned Boeing have 1100+ orders for the 78 already. Wow.Keep in mind that the 787 effectively replaces the 747, 757, 767, can fly both the short routes of the 737, and many of the long haul routes of the 777.
Versatility is the name of the game for that guy.
But also keep in mind that nothing is guaranteed. Orders for aircraft are often placed and canceled - so there is always that.
After the 797, will Boeing keep using '7' as the last serial number?
For example, 807, 827, 837..., or will they change to eights 808, 828, 838?
Boeing also made the B17, B29 (9-2) & the B52 (5+2)
chop456
09-01-16, 05:30 AM
But also keep in mind that nothing is guaranteed. Orders for aircraft are often placed and canceled - so there is always that.
Airbus A350 net orders 2014-2016: -2
TRUTH
chop456
09-01-16, 07:52 AM
Now the engines are causing the 787 fits... (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/08/25/rolls-royce-engines-are-the-source-of-latest-problem-to-hit-boei/)
http://money.cnn.com/2016/09/01/news/boeing-787-dreamliner-ana-engine-replacement/index.html
Insomniac
09-01-16, 11:47 AM
But also keep in mind that nothing is guaranteed. Orders for aircraft are often placed and canceled - so there is always that.
But they get to keep the deposit. :)
Japanese airline to replace 100 engines on its 787 Dreamliners (http://money.cnn.com/2016/09/01/news/boeing-787-dreamliner-ana-engine-replacement/index.html)
Ouch
TravelGal
09-02-16, 12:20 PM
This has been covered extensively in our agent briefings but this gives the exact number of Dreamliner Rolls Royce engines. I added the bold on the sentence in the middle.
Air NZ Acts After Air Nippon Dreamliners Are Grounded
Air New Zealand is putting in "proactive systems" for its Dreamliner fleet after problems were identified in engines of the same aircraft type operated by Japanese carrier ANA. Air New Zealand operates seven of the planes and says it is aware of a technical issue that has affected some Rolls-Royce Trent 1000 aircraft engines operated by other international carriers. It says that in partnership with Rolls-Royce, and with the approval of the Civil Aviation Authority, the airline has put proactive systems in place to manage the issue. All Nippon Airlines (ANA) has grounded planes to replace compressor blades in the aircraft's Trent 1000 engines. ANA has 49 Dreamliners in service. The airline uses its 787s for short hauls which means engines go through more "cycles" than other operators, so are put under more pressure than engines on planes used on longer routes. This accelerates the amount of servicing they need. In May last year Air New Zealand and other airlines said they would shut down Dreamliners completely every three months after tests by Boeing exposed a problem that could cause the plane to lose all electrical power and a loss of control. The United States Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) said laboratory tests had exposed a computer glitch in a 787 that was run continuously for 248 days and could cause it to lose power as generator units simultaneously went into failsafe mode. All Nippon Airways has decided to replace all of the Rolls-Royce engines in their Dreamliner fleet. Of the 445 Dreamliners in operation around the world, 168 feature Rolls-Royce engines. However, only ANA has decided to ground the aircraft. Fellow Japanese carrier JAL also operates a fleet of 30 B787s, but its Dreamliners are equipped with General Electric engines.
chop456
09-15-16, 07:08 AM
Singapore Airlines has decided not to keep the first A380 it leased, delivering a fresh setback for Airbus' super-jumbo plane. (http://www.bbc.com/news/business-37362488)
Is this the world's best private jet? The Boeing 787 that's an airborne penthouse apartment (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/luxury/travel/worlds-best-private-jet-the-boeing-787-thats-an-airborne-apartme/)
Insomniac
10-06-16, 10:24 AM
Is this the world's best private jet? The Boeing 787 that's an airborne penthouse apartment (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/luxury/travel/worlds-best-private-jet-the-boeing-787-thats-an-airborne-apartme/)
At well over $200M it better be!
look ma, no seats!
http://i.imgur.com/1wlmWBm.jpg
look ma, no seats!
That's the new surcharge...seats optional, or bring your own. ;) :gomer:
Installed!
https://s15.postimg.org/kpp1b7ogb/lawn_chairs_1.jpg
Installed!
https://s15.postimg.org/kpp1b7ogb/lawn_chairs_1.jpg
Cup holder is extra. ;)
datachicane
12-06-16, 08:02 PM
Business-class customers who opt out of an upgrade will be seated on a complimentary live badger.
http://www.spirit-animals.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Badger.jpeg
Sure, Sure.
But, they advertise the badger seats like this.
https://s18.postimg.org/4d7l5opnd/5078841313_6ae42b1028_b.jpg*
Then hit you with the disclaimer.
*Actual badger seats may vary.
https://s15.postimg.org/z25h8svnv/Badger.jpg
TravelGal
04-04-17, 11:50 AM
7-I20Ru9BwM.
"Those unfortunate midair explosions." :rofl: (tho not so funny in actuality). It didn't really tell us why the windows are larger. It explained (to me, anyway) why he thought they could be larger. Not why they are. "Because we like it that way" comes to mind. If anyone is "interacting" with him on the sites he references at the end, would you please tell him that "it's" is a contraction and never a possessive. Thank you.
Insomniac
04-04-17, 12:15 PM
"Those unfortunate midair explosions." :rofl: (tho not so funny in actuality). It didn't really tell us why the windows are larger. It explained (to me, anyway) why he thought they could be larger. Not why they are. "Because we like it that way" comes to mind. If anyone is "interacting" with him on the sites he references at the end, would you please tell him that "it's" is a contraction and never a possessive. Thank you.
He might lose his mind when he sees a G650 window.
"Those unfortunate midair explosions." :rofl: (tho not so funny in actuality). It didn't really tell us why the windows are larger. It explained (to me, anyway) why he thought they could be larger. Not why they are. "Because we like it that way" comes to mind. If anyone is "interacting" with him on the sites he references at the end, would you please tell him that "it's" is a contraction and never a possessive. Thank you.
Emergency exit like a bus? :gomer: ;)
Windows are out. Looking at the world through a display screen is in.
Viewing is the new seeing. :gomer:
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/2c/a5/d4/2ca5d4a62617caa56e07818b9eb0ebf1.jpg
Insomniac
04-04-17, 12:41 PM
If you don't care about depth perception/3D. :)
WickerBill
04-04-17, 01:14 PM
If you don't care about depth perception/3D. :)
There you go. I haven't got any depth perception, nor ability to see 3D, so this is perfect!
Quite different from *everything else* happening, like VR and 3D everything, which is distinctly un-perfect for me.
TravelGal
04-05-17, 12:04 PM
Is this group great or what? Yesterday morning, I watched the piece about the 787 windows. I love learning something even slightly technical outside my area of expertise. Last night I attended the launch festivities for LOT Polish Airlines nonstop service Warsaw-LAX. A 12-hour fight, made possible by the 787, as the piece pointed out. Peeps from Boeing in Seattle were there and they brought a window panel. Not everyone was as smart as I was about it though. ;) :thumbup:
Insomniac
04-05-17, 01:29 PM
There you go. I haven't got any depth perception, nor ability to see 3D, so this is perfect!
Quite different from *everything else* happening, like VR and 3D everything, which is distinctly un-perfect for me.
VR inflight is more complex for spatial orientation, so it may be a while before that becomes a reality. Airlines aren't looking to make the passengers sick (I think). There isn't much value in sacrificing immersion (open vs closed googles) to alleviate nausea if it's going to be little improvement over a display.
Windows also reduce the feeling of claustrophobia for some. It's going to take a great deal of technology to turn the walls into displays that simulate windows or transparent walls.
TravelGal
04-05-17, 03:59 PM
Windows also reduce the feeling of claustrophobia for some. It's going to take a great deal of technology to turn the walls into displays that simulate windows or transparent walls.
Reduces feelings of claustrophobia for *most.* How is the technology different (more difficult) than what is currently used for the walls of inside cabins on cruise ships? In words the lay person might understand, if you can.
It's going to take a great deal of technology to turn the walls into ... transparent walls.
I have a few neighbors that should get these walls on their house.
Let's see...
a-d-m-i-n <ret>
p-a-s-s-w-o-r-d <ret>
I'm in!
:D
Insomniac
04-05-17, 08:41 PM
Reduces feelings of claustrophobia for *most.* How is the technology different (more difficult) than what is currently used for the walls of inside cabins on cruise ships? In words the lay person might understand, if you can.
So on a cruise ship (I haven't seen them in person) each room is isolated so every room can show the same video feed from the same camera and no one would notice. Cruise passengers likely accept that because they know there isn't anything like that on the other side of their wall. If you had an ocean view room, would you want glass or a display? On a plane, you now know there was a design option between a window and a wall. You're going to expect a lot more from your fake window or wall. You can look down, up, or to the sides right now.
So if it is virtual windows, at a minimum they will need to employ some of the 360 camera technology so the passenger can move the feed to look around. That also will make it a little disorienting when you can see multiple windows simultaneously. Right now the view outside multiple windows makes sense.
The alternative is having the whole wall seem transparent, or at least be seamless with "windows" These would be bigger, but not movable. To cover an entire interior with that in a high resolution means either very high resolution cameras, which is probably decades away, or multiple high resolution cameras providing the feeds. Add in the processing capacity needed for all that data (can't just stick a 5U rack server on a plane) and it will take some work on hardware and software to get there.
So my main point is, if you're removing windows from planes, the alternative has to be pretty good, unless the tradeoff is for something else like flying at almost Mach 2 (https://www.spikeaerospace.com/).
Is this group great or what? Yesterday morning, I watched the piece about the 787 windows. I love learning something even slightly technical outside my area of expertise. Last night I attended the launch festivities for LOT Polish Airlines nonstop service Warsaw-LAX. A 12-hour fight, made possible by the 787, as the piece pointed out. Peeps from Boeing in Seattle were there and they brought a window panel. Not everyone was as smart as I was about it though. ;) :thumbup:
:cool:
I recall when LOT had a big celebration when their new Warsaw to O'Hare routed opened up. The festivities at O'Hare even made Chicago news. The next day the Dreamliner was grounded and their plane sat off to the side of the international terminal for months.
The Interwebs are up in arms over video of some guy being dragged off an overbooked United flight. Yes, we've had first hand experience with the fact that United has become pretty terrible lately, and yes it's their fault that they overbooked.
But does the Interwebs think that someone should be allowed to refuse the instructions of the flight crew just because they got their butt into the seat first? How long do the masses think that the plane should sit at the gate waiting for someone to agree to get off the plane? Do they imagine that there's some other choice?
Insomniac
04-10-17, 03:28 PM
The Interwebs are up in arms over video of some guy being dragged off an overbooked United flight. Yes, we've had first hand experience with the fact that United has become pretty terrible lately, and yes it's their fault that they overbooked.
But does the Interwebs think that someone should be allowed to refuse the instructions of the flight crew just because they got their butt into the seat first? How long do the masses think that the plane should sit at the gate waiting for someone to agree to get off the plane? Do they imagine that there's some other choice?
I keep wondering how he got to the seat to begin with? And why didn't they offer more for a volunteer? OK, they have broad latitude in their million page carriage agreement, but if you buy a ticket that could let them bump you for other people involuntarily, be nice if they let you know that. They have so many classes within economy, let them know their cheapest ticket means that the airline can rebook you on a later flight. They didn't offer enough to get a volunteer. They're getting real stingy with that and this is what happens.
I think the Interwebs thinks if you buy a ticket for a flight, you should be able to fly on that flight and not be removed from it because someone "more important" than you also bought a ticket. The reaction is probably also a result of most people not knowing you may be told to give up your seat involuntarily. A good number probably understand oversold, but then to add that on top with no compensation...
From the "You Can't Make This Stuff Up" files...
United CEO wins PR award (March 9, 2017) (http://www.prweek.com/article/1426909/united-airlines-ceo-oscar-munoz-named-prweek-us-communicator-year)
I wonder if they will forcibly remove him from the stage when he tries to accept his award. :eek:
WickerBill
04-10-17, 08:07 PM
Disclosure: I'm platinum on United.
The mistake made here was boarding the flight. "We cannot board until we get four volunteers" (and bump the pay up to $1200). They *have* to deadhead their flight staff around the country or they will inconvenience hundreds of flyers in a domino effect the next day.
It's all solved by not starting the boarding process until the number was correct.
chop456
04-11-17, 01:29 AM
It's all solved by not starting the boarding process until the number was correct.
Ding.
I'd also like to know the criteria by which this guy was chosen.
Disclosure: I'm platinum on United.
The mistake made here was boarding the flight. "We cannot board until we get four volunteers" (and bump the pay up to $1200). They *have* to deadhead their flight staff around the country or they will inconvenience hundreds of flyers in a domino effect the next day.
It's all solved by not starting the boarding process until the number was correct.
I wouldn't be surprised if they went ahead and boarded because they were already running into the timeline to get the flight out on-time. Yes, there are ways that they might have avoided this situation - most of which if adopted across the board would mean higher fares and worse on-time performance.
The problem is that no matter what they do, there are always going to be situations where someone screws up or forces beyond their control that require that someone has to deboard. The notion that you get the option of saying "No" and laying down in the aisle like a two-year-old at Walmart just boggles my mind. It's a symptom of the infantilization of our society.
datachicane
04-11-17, 01:46 AM
Sure didn't look to me like he in any way chose to lay down in the aisle. Just sayin'.
Insomniac
04-11-17, 09:11 AM
Disclosure: I'm platinum on United.
The mistake made here was boarding the flight. "We cannot board until we get four volunteers" (and bump the pay up to $1200). They *have* to deadhead their flight staff around the country or they will inconvenience hundreds of flyers in a domino effect the next day.
It's all solved by not starting the boarding process until the number was correct.
Exactly. It's really simple math and if the airline wants to play with fire on overbooking to maximize revenue, they should also be prepared to up the ante to get out of the mess. Also, IMO, it's worse the bumping was to move their staff. They should know that situation in advance and either had blocked out the 4 seats when they knew or knew with enough time to resolve the situation at the gate before boarding.
Insomniac
04-11-17, 09:16 AM
Ding.
I'd also like to know the criteria by which this guy was chosen.
One article I read indicated it wasn't purely random but generally takes the class of the ticket, price paid and frequent flyer status into account when choosing.
TG may know the answer to this, but if they were offering to fly them the next day, why weren't they providing hotel accommodations and food vouchers as well?
On a semi-related note, for how long can an airline claim "weather" for a cancellation. One of my colleagues enjoyed cancelled flights for 3 days from Delta's disastrous week before just requesting a refund and rebooking on AA on Saturday.
Insomniac
04-11-17, 09:36 AM
I wouldn't be surprised if they went ahead and boarded because they were already running into the timeline to get the flight out on-time. Yes, there are ways that they might have avoided this situation - most of which if adopted across the board would mean higher fares and worse on-time performance.
The problem is that no matter what they do, there are always going to be situations where someone screws up or forces beyond their control that require that someone has to deboard. The notion that you get the option of saying "No" and laying down in the aisle like a two-year-old at Walmart just boggles my mind. It's a symptom of the infantilization of our society.
This situation is entirely of their own creation. All the forces are in their control. JetBlue chooses not to oversell.
I disagree with your view of society. One guy refuses to leave the plane is far from a representation of society. They get more attention now.
Insomniac
04-11-17, 09:36 AM
Came across this: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/250.5
Looks like the max United would have to pay is $1350 in cash for this situation. Still more than the $800 they stopped at, but I wonder if that played a role in why they stopped offering at $800.
I wouldn't be surprised if they went ahead and boarded because they were already running into the timeline to get the flight out on-time. Yes, there are ways that they might have avoided this situation - most of which if adopted across the board would mean higher fares and worse on-time performance.
The problem is that no matter what they do, there are always going to be situations where someone screws up or forces beyond their control that require that someone has to deboard. The notion that you get the option of saying "No" and laying down in the aisle like a two-year-old at Walmart just boggles my mind. It's a symptom of the infantilization of our society.
Since this incident involved finding seats for four United employees, it may have been a flight crew being repositioned (possibly at the last minute) to Louisville. And if the four included pilots there were most likely work rules in their contract that had to be considered including the amount of 'rest' before the next days flight. Some of these work rules are mandated by the FAA, others by the union. It could have been a last minute issue (a flight crew in Louisville had 'timed out' due to weather delays and could no longer fly) where it was unavoidable to bump four from the flight to make room for the four United employees. Although that doesn't make the actions taken to remove the passenger excusable.
My son is a pilot for United but is currently out of the country. I'll find out more on this in a few days.
WickerBill
04-11-17, 11:00 AM
TravelGal where are you? We need your insight on this :)
datachicane
04-11-17, 11:45 AM
I do think it's necessary to distinguish between United's possible missteps here (which may or may not have been avoidable), and the reason why we're having this discussion in the first place. It was Chicago Aviation Security staff, not United employees, who dragged Dr. Dao from the aircraft. From the many video sources out there it's difficult not to conclude that their conduct was, umm, problematic.
WickerBill
04-11-17, 01:05 PM
I do think it's necessary to distinguish between United's possible missteps here (which may or may not have been avoidable), and the reason why we're having this discussion in the first place. It was Chicago Aviation Security staff, not United employees, who dragged Dr. Dao from the aircraft. From the many video sources out there it's difficult not to conclude that their conduct was, umm, problematic.
At the same time, when you call in the Brute Squad, you know what to expect, right?
Insomniac
04-11-17, 01:37 PM
At the same time, when you call in the Brute Squad, you know what to expect, right?
I do. When security is removing you from the plane, your fight is over. They aren't going to debate with you. They're there to take you off the plane and that's it. You give them a reason and the force may or may not be proportional to the provocation/situation. Resist or don't listen to instructions at your own risk!
Turns out this is not the good doctor's first run-in with the law (http://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/local/2017/04/11/david-dao-passenger-removed-united-flight-doctor-troubled-past/100318320/)...
Dao, who went to medical school in Vietnam in the 1970s before moving to the U.S., has worked as a pulmonologist in Elizabethtown but was arrested in 2003 and eventually convicted of drug-related offenses after an undercover investigation, according to documents filed with the Kentucky Board of Medical Licensure last June.
The documents allege that he was involved in fraudulent prescriptions for controlled substances and was sexually involved with a patient who used to work for his practice and assisted police in building a case against him.
datachicane
04-11-17, 02:23 PM
Turns out this is not the good doctor's first run-in with the law (http://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/local/2017/04/11/david-dao-passenger-removed-united-flight-doctor-troubled-past/100318320/)...
Doesn't matter whether he's a good guy or not, and in any case it's a bit ex post facto given what the security guys knew about him.
I fully expect that, should something unpleasant happen to me at the hands of some random authority, someone will try to justify it based on some (at the time unknown) event from my past. Humans are definitely weird about authority.
Doesn't matter whether he's a good guy or not, and in any case it's a bit ex post facto given what the security guys knew about him.
I fully expect that, should something unpleasant happen to me at the hands of some random authority, someone will try to justify it based on some (at the time unknown) event from my past. Humans are definitely weird about authority.I wasn't saying it justified anything.
datachicane
04-11-17, 03:08 PM
I wasn't saying it justified anything.
Fair enough.
Sounds like the guy had some fairly significant trauma-related issues going on, according to his 2009 psych review. Might explain why he may not have responded the way we'd like to think we would in a similar situation, and definitely throws some light on his mumbling 'just kill me' afterwards.
United Airlines says controversial flight was not overbooked; CEO apologizes again (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2017/04/11/united-ceo-employees-followed-procedures-flier-belligerent/100317166/)
I was once on a flight where I was "stand by" status for each leg of the trip. I though to myself if they need my seat I'll refuse to give it up, what are they going to do, drag me off the plane kicking and screaming?
Insomniac
04-12-17, 09:33 AM
United Airlines says controversial flight was not overbooked; CEO apologizes again (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2017/04/11/united-ceo-employees-followed-procedures-flier-belligerent/100317166/)
That makes it better. :D :rolleyes:
Buy the seats you need then. They know how the pricing works.
I don't know how they won the PR award. Least incompetent? You can protect your employees and say what's right. It's not that hard. "The United employees were following our procedures. The ultimate outcome of what happened in Chicago was not our intention. United will be reviewing our policies to determine how this situation may be better handled in the future." (I wouldn't have apologized to the passenger personally.)
TravelGal
04-12-17, 02:25 PM
TravelGal where are you? We need your insight on this :)
Blush. OK, here's my 10 cents. In response to the some of the earlier comments (selection below).
First, the plane was not overbooked. It boarded properly. Each mouse in his own house. Apparently, the flight crew of 4 was unexpected. Repositioned to fix some OTHER SNAFU. That's why the gate (apparently) couldn't correct the problem before boarding as WB correctly suggested they should have done. The flight crew always has priority because of those 492 pages of fine print everyone agrees to when they purchase a ticket. As Insomniac says, 99.9% of the people do not know that following the flight crew's instructions extends to getting their butt off the plane. But, since UA (apparently) did not expect this, they could not reserve the 4 seats. Again, the flight was not overbooking or oversold. It was an internal procedural error on UA's part not to advise the gate of the 4 seats.
Yes, JetBlue is the only airline that does not over book. Check out yesterday's CrankyFlier for charts on how often overbooking occurs.
Yes, the maximum allowable by law is $1350 per person for involuntary boarding. [sarcasm alert] Maybe it's taken out of the gate agents' pay. I have no idea why they didn't go beyond the $800. To be honest, which I always am, I'm not clear on whether the would have had to provide hotel because the passenger was accepting the money as compensation. You get the food vouchers and hotel when you're just waiting for your same flight to depart. I've heard tales of multi-day weather delays. I don't think there is a limit or you'd find yourself taking off in the teeth of a hurricane.
How he was chosen appears to be a mystery. First they said it was a random algorithm. Then they came up with the price/status/etc story. As an agent, it only seems logical to me that they would do the latter. Like getting the room by the broom closet or getting walked to a different hotel when you book on Expedia. BUT, I'm skeptical that the gate or even UA itself can crunch that much information for the subset of every passenger on that specific aircraft in the time they had available. Maybe SteveH's son would know. I'll see if I can find out from my sources. All airlines are going to the NDC (New Distribution Capability), which will track everything about you--where you fly, how often you do the same route, how much you pay on average for your tickets, what time of day, type of seat or meal you like--so knowing your mileage status and the price of your ticket may not be out of the question even now.
Cheerio,
Marge
I keep wondering how he got to the seat to begin with? And why didn't they offer more for a volunteer? OK, they have broad latitude in their million page carriage agreement, but if you buy a ticket that could let them bump you for other people involuntarily, be nice if they let you know that. They have so many classes within economy, let them know their cheapest ticket means that the airline can rebook you on a later flight. They didn't offer enough to get a volunteer. They're getting real stingy with that and this is what happens.
I think the Interwebs thinks if you buy a ticket for a flight, you should be able to fly on that flight and not be removed from it because someone "more important" than you also bought a ticket. The reaction is probably also a result of most people not knowing you may be told to give up your seat involuntarily. A good number probably understand oversold, but then to add that on top with no compensation...
Disclosure: I'm platinum on United.
The mistake made here was boarding the flight. "We cannot board until we get four volunteers" (and bump the pay up to $1200). They *have* to deadhead their flight staff around the country or they will inconvenience hundreds of flyers in a domino effect the next day.
It's all solved by not starting the boarding process until the number was correct.
Exactly. It's really simple math and if the airline wants to play with fire on overbooking to maximize revenue, they should also be prepared to up the ante to get out of the mess. Also, IMO, it's worse the bumping was to move their staff. They should know that situation in advance and either had blocked out the 4 seats when they knew or knew with enough time to resolve the situation at the gate before boarding.
One article I read indicated it wasn't purely random but generally takes the class of the ticket, price paid and frequent flyer status into account when choosing.
TG may know the answer to this, but if they were offering to fly them the next day, why weren't they providing hotel accommodations and food vouchers as well?
On a semi-related note, for how long can an airline claim "weather" for a cancellation. One of my colleagues enjoyed cancelled flights for 3 days from Delta's disastrous week before just requesting a refund and rebooking on AA on Saturday.
Additional officers placed on leave over United passenger removal (https://www.yahoo.com/news/additional-officers-placed-leave-united-passenger-removal-222312365.html)
“Aviation Security Officers (ASOs) are part of the public safety teams at both O’Hare and Midway, and complement and assist the Chicago Police Department (CPD), Chicago Fire Department (CFD) and federal law enforcement. While they do have limited authority to make an arrest, Sunday’s incident was not within standard operating procedures nor will we tolerate that kind of action. That is why we quickly placed the aviation security officer on leave pending a thorough review of the situation.”
Insomniac
04-13-17, 09:13 AM
I've heard tales of multi-day weather delays. I don't think there is a limit or you'd find yourself taking off in the teeth of a hurricane.
I was talking about this latest Delta one. They had bad thunderstorms in Atlanta on Wednesday and were still cancelling flights on Sunday. My colleague had a flight back through Atlanta on Thursday evening and they cancelled it and rebooked him for Sunday. He somehow got it rescheduled to Friday evening through the web site. Then they cancelled again on Friday. At that point he asked for a refund and rebooked on AA for Saturday. He had to get two more nights in Philly because of the mess in Delta operations, not weather.
United is never going to live this down. They'll have to change their name.
I expect this will also make flight attendants' jobs harder industry wide. They will be less likely to threaten removal for fear of bad PR.
United Passenger “Removal”: A Reporting and Management Fail (http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2017/04/united-passenger-removal-reporting-management-fail.html)
A more complete account than I have seen however there appears to be several suppositions within the article, not all the facts are known to draw the conclusions it has.
I do believe that this could have occurred with any carrier operating out of O'Hare. Over-reaction of Chicago law enforcement is not a recent issue. Repositioning of crew occurs all the time and in some cases at the very last minute for a variety of reasons. I'll bet not only United but every carrier has been reviewing policy and procedures since this occurred. While my son is a pilot for United he hasn't been flying regularly since last fall. He's been participating as a pilot rep on a special project and has been temporarily assigned to headquarters in what was the Sears Tower. Had he not been on vacation this week I'm sure he would have gotten the inside on this. Consequently, when he returns to his office on Monday, what he does share with me, I might not be able to share here.
Sidebar: While waiting at the gate yesterday, I overheard the pilots loudly discussing their views on some union business and how they would vote. Something about how SkyWest could go have intercourse with themselves.
It was funny, but I couldn't help think this should be a cockpit conversation not a boarding gate conversation. :D
Insomniac
04-13-17, 01:55 PM
Just post it as HevetS.
Just post it as HevetS.
!kO
datachicane
04-13-17, 04:35 PM
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/2ZvJYLsH2GgsVYHm-_PZkfTCyCtvYbkEj14FPgQoQnJJYthyASisstpiRtoSKMk5jvS bERHReJXJCCTN0Wl_ODooLjttQvYvo2YWDtFZJWMrnIiqcxD4D rbyhxehNxTq5ID4PRW5i7LkRud6yL-Wl4ejkRELd9bsk9JRtWutdU1W7jp7nPfMWCx8jqOdNRlOqO7aQ ECv1A3nukYTQG2c9LTjF9XW1YKmu6927AjZUskv2fa4Z1meZaC fe7yBusQTPBPIk52yHV7J0ByVx2KHXBkI975wNQCAWGEe9JASs YT7LulzAbq_9__p3PCD2UMU0VDrOSZLBkjy1_JCaHrwAW6sE3t VsHmiZMbwoviMWxZJ0RihgHnH4Zb5GuuRrviEhQp1O4tRhGP9i 9s4wOO8gBR6crRV67RIf9v1UL5eMbjc8rvfXYpbgsY4UAa_uJY rqMV2x7dnxlLqC5A5OK8CpaO29MC2_Qz1a65oZwCPD2SGqzBlp 32iLVtuvM-TeJzspjCsFdEHdCRiXnaPWRfVmMKHxs6TZmAFPIm0bJAhBrb_P q5omhXXX3eNH6wPFOM8CA3WdbybA_K_Mb6fNfKJmv40P8-tqQzqG-hBcuX-4fHgV4ck_nUR=w568-h331-no
TravelGal
04-13-17, 08:12 PM
I was talking about this latest Delta one. They had bad thunderstorms in Atlanta on Wednesday and were still cancelling flights on Sunday. My colleague had a flight back through Atlanta on Thursday evening and they cancelled it and rebooked him for Sunday. He somehow got it rescheduled to Friday evening through the web site. Then they cancelled again on Friday. At that point he asked for a refund and rebooked on AA for Saturday. He had to get two more nights in Philly because of the mess in Delta operations, not weather.
I was sure that was what you meant but I used "hurricane" anyway. Delta really got itself in a computer logjam over that one. Not only stranding passengers but crew all over the place (country). They didn't know how to get who where so they didn't drag anybody off to do it. They are eternally grateful to UA for taking the glare of publicity away from that SNAFU.
It's all flowing downhill nicely on this one and it will probably be, as SteveH observes, the law enforcement folks that take the brunt of it. Still, the beginning was the ineptitude of UA not knowing how to alert their gate agents that a substitute crew was arriving for transport (beam me up, Scotty) to Louisville.
So, I can't resist. What's your favorite meme? Mine is a tie between "UA they put the 'hospital' in 'hospitality' " and UA, now with red eye AND black eye flights."
gerhard911
04-13-17, 08:33 PM
WTF anybody subjects themselves to commercial airlines is a mystery to me. I guess some are expected to do it for work but so many other alternatives to a face to face meeting these days...
I might consider a rail trip but flying is off the table for me.
WickerBill
04-13-17, 08:39 PM
WTF anybody subjects themselves to commercial airlines is a mystery to me. I guess some are expected to do it for work but so many other alternatives to a face to face meeting these days...
I might consider a rail trip but flying is off the table for me.
Why? I love to fly. Paying $100 for global entry and Pre, and having status because work sends me all over, makes it pretty easy and enjoyable. And face to face always beats video conferencing.
gerhard911
04-13-17, 08:49 PM
Why? I love to fly. Paying $100 for global entry and Pre, and having status because work sends me all over, makes it pretty easy and enjoyable. And face to face always beats video conferencing.
So, you like getting treated like $h!t by airline employees (not too mention TSA)? No thanks. Maybe you have a status (NFC what "Pre" means) that gets you "special treatment" but we plebeians are treated abhorrently. FTA. Just like the IRL, burn it to the ground...
datachicane
04-13-17, 09:00 PM
Nah, it ain't that bad. I fly a few times a year, mix of work and fun, and the really bad experiences are pretty few and far between. Weather delays, etc., happen, but so does your train being delayed for a landslide or giant rock on the tracks (which seems to happen with some regularity out here).
I do have to say, after not having flown through O'Hare for quite a few years, the TSA types I encountered there recently had serious attitude problems I haven't run into elsewhere. I've rarely seen them anything but helpful and professional at my home airport (PDX).
gerhard911
04-13-17, 09:34 PM
Nah, it ain't that bad. I fly a few times a year, mix of work and fun, and the really bad experiences are pretty few and far between. Weather delays, etc., happen, but so does your train being delayed for a landslide or giant rock on the tracks (which seems to happen with some regularity out here).
I do have to say, after not having flown through O'Hare for quite a few years, the TSA types I encountered there recently had serious attitude problems I haven't run into elsewhere. I've rarely seen them anything but helpful and professional at my home airport (PDX).
I guess I just have bad luck then. Every flight I have been on in the last 10 years has been absolute torture. Most times due to airline incompetence or indifference. Never any "mea culpa" for total customer service failure. They could not give a $h|t less. I threw out the train alternative in hopes that it could be better. Thanks for alerting me to the fact that's it's no better.
If I can't drive there, I don't need to go there.
FTA
WickerBill
04-14-17, 07:26 AM
I never get treated poorly. Pre allows me to bypass the cancer machine in the TSA line and not take off my shoes. But even before I got that, I was "randomly selected" for the pat down EIGHT TIMES out of 12 flights in 2015.... and I still didn't think it was much of a hassle, really. It was more of an amusement - if it was really random, I should've been playing the lottery.
I'm fascinated by the insane logistics that go into airports and airlines, so perhaps my affinity obscures the difficulties.
Last year, I lost 24 hours of a flight to Australia due to mechanical troubles, and I've even been made to spend the night in Newark (!!) before... but overall, in the grand scheme of things, I don't let it stress me out.
I've never had any TSA issues. Had to wait an hour for my luggage at DTW once. That's the only issue I've ever run into. That said, the worst thing about flying is the (lack of) legroom for us vertically endowed folks. But maybe they can cram just one more row of seats into that plane... :rolleyes:
I only fly 5 or 6 times each year. I have seen far more instances of passengers been absolute jerks than any airline staff. That's not to say all staff are great but I've never witnessed them doing anything improper. Small sample, however. I do have Global Entry so that allows me to avoid much of the interaction with security.
Spoke to my son about two hours after he landed. He quit reading news reports several days ago since they were all factually incorrect regarding the related conditions. Not surrounding the actual event itself but their reporting on airline rules, etc. A few things of note, repositioning of crew can occur suddenly as it appears in this case. It isn't uncommon to request passengers give up their seat after boarding. Especially on a small craft like the CRJ700 which he flew for several years and is also coincidentally the craft in this case. That plane and other smaller regional jets are weight restricted. He told me on several occasions he has had to ask for one or more to give up their seat after boarding once they did their weight calculations. They couldn't leave with a full cabin. He never had any issue. But if there were one, the flight crew or the gate staff wouldn't be the ones to resolve it. Will events like this embolden passengers to be more resistant in the future? Which ultimately will cause greater issues for all. Also, if the crew being repositioned had an early flight the next day, there was no choice for them to take a later flight. FAA and/or contract rules stipulate they must have 10 hours rest before their flight. If that was at 6 am, then they absolutely had to be on this flight. Once all the facts are known, this may look entirely different.
My thoughts are this could have occurred with any carrier, at any airport. It isn't an issue unique to United. And that the issue ultimately is how enforcement handled it, which is not necessarily a United issue. Unless United instructed enforcement to use whatever means necessary to remove the passenger, which is doubtful. I'll bet every carrier has been reviewing policy and procedures this week to make sure they will be squeaky clean in the future. And if there are changes to be made, they won't necessarily be to the benefit of the flying public. But to shield the airline from liability.
Also as an aside, if I am ever confronted by law enforcement, I'm going to comply no matter how strongly I feel I am correct. As I would guess most here would as well. Especially in Chicago. If you resist, you are inviting whatever happens next. Not that what happened is acceptable but don't set up a situation where anything like that could happen. There has been a lot of police violence over the past few years where had the victim not walked away or dropped their gun, they wouldn't have gotten roughed up or worse regardless of their innocence.
Insomniac
04-14-17, 11:50 AM
Thanks for the insight. I think United should be rightly criticized for their part for not resolving it through voluntary means.
I saw this article yesterday, a different situation, but there was a price where they could've had 4 people get off that plane..
Why Delta Air Lines Paid Me $11,000 Not To Fly To Florida This Weekend (https://www.forbes.com/sites/laurabegleybloom/2017/04/09/why-delta-air-lines-paid-me-11000-not-to-fly-to-florida-this-weekend/)
The use of force was separate from what United did. Certainly there inability to resolve it before hand led to it, the passenger's actions caused the forceful removal. I said before you have to comply. For the overwhelming majority, complying works. On the flip side, non-compliance is almost always met with force. It's not always proportional/appropriate, and hopefully they can work to improve that in general for the good of everyone.
On the flip side, non-compliance is almost always met with force. It's not always proportional/appropriate, and hopefully they can work to improve that in general for the good of everyone.
Cops aren't trained for "proportional" responses. They use physical violence to subdue.
Don't call them unless you need someone "re-accommodated". They aren't negotiators or diplomats.
TravelGal
04-14-17, 12:11 PM
Why Delta Air Lines Paid Me $11,000 Not To Fly To Florida This Weekend (https://www.forbes.com/sites/laurabegleybloom/2017/04/09/why-delta-air-lines-paid-me-11000-not-to-fly-to-florida-this-weekend/)
The use of force was separate from what United did. Certainly there inability to resolve it before hand led to it, the passenger's actions caused the forceful removal. I said before you have to comply. For the overwhelming majority, complying works. On the flip side, non-compliance is almost always met with force. It's not always proportional/appropriate, and hopefully they can work to improve that in general for the good of everyone.
In addition, I saw that Delta has given generous mileage credit to ALL passengers who were affected by those tremendous storms and the logistical nightmare I referred to above.
SteveH, your son said what I said, passengers have to get off when requested. I know I've had flight attendants come down the aisle and point at me to pick up my stuff and leave. Also that crews get repositioned with little notice. BUT they had to know the request was in and a crew was headed to the airport in Chicago. You don't just materialize at O'Hare, even if you're walking in from a hotel. It's at that point the gate agents should have been alerted, IMHO.
Not sure when the facts of the story will be known but when they are United may very well not look as bad as they do now. This may be one case that should go to trial just to get the real story told and determine how much liability United actually has. That is assuming that it was entirely enforcement's issue. I doubt if that will happen though. There will be a settlement just to bury it quickly.
United has been the recipient of other instances of bad press lately. The most recent was the two young women who were denied boarding because of their attire. The fact that they were flying on a friends/family pass for free wasn't initially reported. Those passes have requirements for attire. I have flown with those several times. My son made sure I knew exactly what was expected of me. Shame on someone other than United for these girls not knowing. All airlines have these requirements, not just United. But that doesn't get reported and it goes viral which seldom is 100% accurate.
Delta has to be thanking its lucky stars because they otherwise would have dominated the news cycles over the time it took them to recover from the storms. Barely made a peep.
Just announced that United has changed its policy, all crew must be booked at least one hour in advance.
'Never Happen Again': United Issues Updated Policy After Man Dragged Off Plane
http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/United-Issues-Updated-Policy-After-Man-Dragged-Off-Plane-419505873.html
TravelGal
04-15-17, 01:48 AM
Yeah, right. Until it's an emergency. They are just trying to make it look like they are doing something. :rolleyes:
The Real Reason a Man Was Dragged Off That United Flight, and How to Stop It From Happening Again (http://viewfromthewing.boardingarea.com/2017/04/11/real-reason-man-dragged-off-united-flight-stop-happening/)
TravelGal
04-15-17, 12:53 PM
I think that's what you and I have been saying, SteveH.
Insomniac
04-15-17, 04:18 PM
i don't like this part:
United should have just kept increasing the denied boarding offer <snip>
More importantly, United didn’t do it because Department of Transportation regulations set maximum required compensation for involuntary denied boarding (in this case 4 times the passenger’s fare paid up to a maximum of $1350). So they’re not going to offer more than that for voluntary denied boardings
Clearly their motivation is to get people to voluntarily take less than the statutorily required amount if the airline denies boarding. Then just deny boarding. Their policies and limits on what the people could do enforce that. It's an issue of just because they can, doesn't mean they should. Personally, I didn't know they even did this (involuntary), and perhaps this whole incident exposes these practices to the public. And as I said before, the fact that it wasn't an oversold situation doesn't make it better. It doesn't pass a basic fairness test. United Express needed to get 4 people on the flight. Pay market value for those 4 seats.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.