This is not just a United thing, I imagine, but it's certainly the sort of thing that (this week) United is in the news over.
The key take-away is that air travel, in general, is hampered by the worst of both worlds: highly complex regulation and sets of rules, and various decision points where people can say "No" with no basis whatsoever except their personal whim.[1] And the very time-pressured nature of air travel means, ultimately, one either complies or doesn't get on the plane.
The result is that if you try to do something that isn't in the regs, you'll be denied. And if you do everything that is within the regs … you can still be denied (by TSA, by the gate agent, by the flight crew). And all around you is the psychic energy of hundreds of people who want to just go and who only know that you are the one holding them up while you try to argue your point.
The tale provides as well an example of how one peevish decision by an authority figure at the gate can have ramifications all down through the trip.
——
[1] As such, it reminds me of those old jokes about life in the Soviet Union. Which is not meant to be reassuring.
Originally shared by +Trey Harris:
United Airlines made me abandon my mobility device at the gate. Before my honeymoon.
I've been waiting to post this until I heard a response from United. But with the recent uproar over their handling of passengers, I figured it was time.
United Airlines made me ABANDON my mobility device at the gate before my honeymoon
Last month, @United Airlines made me abandon my previously-approved, DOT & TSA-allowed mobility device. At the gate at Newark Liberty…
And yet they want to allow cell phone talking on planes. The whole industry sucks, chews, and blows.
I am sorry about her plight. But halfway through that write up seemed more like a Segway promotion literature.
+Sowmyan Tirumurti The article did wax a bit lyrical about the device in question, though if it's been that great a help it's understandable. I just skimmed a bit through that part.
I think we want the gate agent to have authority to prevent unsafe things on airplanes. If you called and got permission to take your whatchamacallit on the plane, and the gate agent could see that it was in fact quite dangerous, it has to be in their authority to prevent you from taking it aboard for the safety of all the other passengers even if you claim it is an accommodation for your disability. In this case, I suspect it was considered dangerous because it looked like one of those hover board things that burst into flames recently due to the batteries. It may be that the gate agent needs additional training on distinguishing safe from unsafe items, but I don't see why we should think this was a decision made on a whim. Given that the FAA banned the exploding phones from planes and that this thing has a much larger battery and looks like another device known to burst into flames, I think it's completely reasonable for the gate agent to prevent it from flying.
It's completely reasonable — lacking any other guidance. Information from the airline and from other authoritative sources, with verbal communication confirming it, should have been taken into account. Otherwise, why have any rules or places you can check with beforehand rather than just saying, "Welp, come on down and take your chances with what whims the TSA agent / gate agent / flight crew might have that day"?
And that's part of the dilemma, as we have both important process and regulation (because you don't want the gate agent letting things on because they don't realize it's dangerous, but if someone follows the rules for something identifiable, we also expect that there shouldn't be a further problem unless the rules don't apply.
The issue here is that this is a time- and urgency- sensitive problem. When you're stopped at the gate (even at the TSA line), you don't have a lot of options. You have limited time to appeal the decision (and apparently the only folk you can meaningfully appeal the decision to are also time-stressed), and your choices are (a) comply or (b) don't fly (with the cascading costs and inconveniences, at least, from both results). In such a high-cost situation, allowing arbitrary decision-making on the spot is a recipe for serious problems. Just like this.
I still don't see how you can justify calling it a whim or arbitrary. It seems to me that it's just as likely that it was a considered judgement. When you call and tell them you want to bring something on the plane, you may not tell them what it really is, or the gate agent may see something about the situation that is not apparent to the folks on the phone.Yes, the passenger was horribly inconvenienced and they are in a terrible position when the gate agent refuses to let them board with their device. But I want the gate agent to be able to make decisions on the spot when safety of the other passengers is at stake, and I'm willing to have some people be inconvenienced to preserve that. There will be mistakes, but I don't want the gate agent to simply be a rubber stamp for the phone agents since the information available to the two is very different. I think it must be understood that whatever else you are told, the people responsible for ensuring that the plane is safe (e.g. air and ground crew) have authority to make the flight safe. If there is a pattern of mistakes or discrimination, then the agent should be retrained, reassigned or fired, but we simply cannot remove all judgment and responsibility from their job.
I'm not suggesting that gate agents (et al.) shouldn't have some discretion here, but given that every reason raised to deny the device was was responded to, the ultimate decision (after kicking it on to multiple people) certainly seems arbitrary or based on "Well, I just don't want to."
The passenger got verification by phone of the device by United's Special Needs desk, at which time the specific device was provided. The Special Needs desk documented their clearance of the device on the passenger's itinerary.
TSA disabilities services also cleared the device and annotated the itinerary, and provided an email documenting their clearance of this specific device.
The gate agent ignored not just the written annotation identifying the device, but the verbal follow-up by the Special Needs desk of United — not because what what being said didn't align with what was being seen ("You're talking about a Segway MiniPro, but this thing is a Acme Hover Board") — and then, unable to provide a reason to deny it, kicked it up to the manager.
The manager ignored the UL certification about fire safety. The manager ignored United's own web page about what mobility devices were allowed. When the manager then tried to fob it off on the TSA. The TSA sent their duty manager to the gate to okay it — and the United manager, unable to rationalize denying the device, kicked up up to the pilot.
The pilot then proceeded to ignore all both the United web page information, and the TSA manager's okay, and decides to disallow it — not for any reason given, simply because he didn't care to allow it on.
That doesn't sound like a sensible system of discretion to cover unanticipated circumstances. It sounds like three people simply didn't want to do it, for reasons that could not be argued or articulated — and the third simply had ultimate veto power.
Yeah, that sounds pretty capricious. The odd thing to me is that the capriciousness of three employees all went the same way. And, I should apologize for not having read the whole article. I read until it started to sound like a pity party and stopped. I don't think the author did himself any favors with how he wrote the essay.
+David Newman I concur.
In my engineering we used to do a failure mode effect analysis and determine a risk prioritization number (RPN) to make judgements during product design. The RPN was the product of three numbers: consequences of potential failure mode, current controls, and occurrence frequency.
The world has seen cellphones exploding and causing fire. That generalized to battery operated devices. The more power a battery packs, the more extensive could be the damage. In an aircraft at high altitude this can be catastrophic. Consequence of potential failure was high.
I am sure the Samsung phone model that had the battery explosion problem also must have passed through UL. UL does not say some thing will not fail. It rates goods according to many categories based on the energy required to trigger fire, the resulting sustainability of fire etc. UL is awarded based on type testing, and design analysis. A specific device may have a specific defect too. So UL listing is not an adequate current control. It is certainly better than a non tested product.
However the idea of having a Special needs team and a TSA who have responsibility for safety, and operating without time pressure is to make calls on devices based on detailed knowledge of what they authorize. In this case they authorized. A specific incidence of failure due to such a device has obviously not occurred. So occurrence frequency was very low.
The decision makers may have indepth knowledge or make a judgement based on common sense. Each person has a different role. The gate agent may have the least expertise, but may physically witness the maximum variety of things being taken through. To this person, this item was obviously a strange one not seen earlier. If they had not seen it frequently, the stats of failures not being seen is an obvious consequence, and the RPN method fails. But at boarding time, it is for the agent to escalate, and move on with their prime task.
They had a special needs desk, and explicitly listed the equipment as allowed. They annotated it. The TSA was also for explicitly allowing it. These people made their assessment earlier with adequate time on their hands and documented it. They are also expected to have more subject domain knowledge on safety of things than the gate agent. It is not clear as to how and when they classified this as safe. Was it before the cellphone batteries started exhibiting their failure. Was it based on any specific safety test for carrying items in an aircraft?
I think it was up to the United manager to see all the written evidence and let it go. If he went by the evidence provided by other experts, it would be common sense. If he denied it, it should have been based on a knowledge that is more than what these experts had. (Assumed Segway vs actual Hoverboard, as pointed out by Dave). But it appears he responded to a sense of fear and discomfort with the prior screening process. 'If in doubt play safe' is often a safety related attitude.
When it was referred to the Pilot, though he had veto authority, he saw two other United staff physically present there objecting to it. The odds are low for a veto holder to overrule colleagues, unless he happens to have extra knowledge on the subject.
Safety is such a thing that we do not accept a premise based on a 51:49 odds in our judgement. Certainly not with a high stakes situation. It is a moral dilemma. The key take out for me is that a gate agent and a United manager did not have enough confidence in the prior screening process of Special Needs desk and TSA, and the device was a rare one among things they have come across. I guess they must have seen failure modes related to relying too much on such prior screening with unfamiliar items.
The plight of the passenger who suffered due to this denial is also something I empathize with. She did every thing that could be done by a passenger in good faith. But the prior approval process did not generate adequate confidence in two employees on the ground. That is the aspect to be reviewed.