55Jay

A good move by United.  Belated.  Reluctantly.  It's such a reasonable sounding policy, nearly defies logic to think it wasn't the policy in the first place or that it's needed at all. 

Had you told me this United story as fiction before it happened, I probably would of said, "Naw, mate, United's not THAT stupid, never going to happen like that."

But that's the world and society we live in.  I reckon 98% (+/-) of the people in the world are decent folks, but the way our society and systems work,  we have to put more policies and laws in place to control yet another new low in human behavior by the 1 or 2%. 

If old Moses were a still around, he would would be Sharing on Facebook, Twitter, and ThaiVisa via Android App..... "Jeez, come on you numpties, there's only 10!  How bloody hard can it be for Ch***t's Sake!" 

2 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

 

Go on then!  I may not be able to comment until tomorrow though.

Erf, ok, never mind, I'll do it tomorrow.  Have a good night.  Cheers, J.

6 hours ago, mommysboy said:

I think it likely UA would be held vicariously liable for what security did, even if the captain did not order the customer to be removed.

I think you're right.  I have a theory about that.  Do you want to hear it?  I offered it to Dipto what's his name but he didn't respond.  I don't think he can handle it.  Probably make his head explode.

It's a kick ass, totally plausible theory involving United's misrepresentation of the facts to CDA in order to get them on that aircraft acting as their (United's) private security agent, but under government Color of Authority / Color of Law.   Trust me, it's good.  A real page turner. 

8 minutes ago, Andrew Dwyer said:

Breaking news !!

http://www.daftynews.com/outcry-shocking-scenes-emerge-passenger-dragged-onto-ryanair-flight/

I needed a good laugh today, THANKS!  That's classic! 

4 hours ago, Dipterocarp said:

The CEO has said they will no longer allow law enforcement to remove people in oversell situations.We will now all be the mercy of intransigent SJW warriors who stick to seats like Occupy Wall Street protestors or tree huggers who chain themselves to privately owned Redwoods. Sure some flights will now be cancelled. The louts who have made flying such a burden can voice their displeasure at baggage claim For me it is better to be delayed then see a man beaten.

And they shouldn't.  But again, don't blame Dao or the public, United did this to themselves.  And created the conditions for it which has now blown up in their face.  Put the blame where it should be, Dip.

The louts who've made flying such a burden is UA (and others) by overselling seats and then putting the burden of THEIR intentional bullshit, onto the flying public, who've been conditioned to it as the new normal. Corporations will screw you over if they can get away with it, and unfortunately, at times, it's taken the government to step in and force them to clean up their act, do the right thing and quit fk'ing people over.  They do their best to find the loop holes and ways around the new legislation so they can.... well, you get it.  I hope.

At any rate, this wasn't an oversold flight.  That's been established.  But still interesting to note United tried to float that turd early on.  You ought to be feeling like your intelligence has been insulted by their flagrant arrogance, lying through their teeth, thinking you're a dope who'll believe anything they say.  You carry on blaming Joe Six Pack and ignoring rather simple elements of what went on here in a bid to defend the airline.  Or, maybe just avoid having to admit your initial instincts were wrong, so you gunna ride your failed argument into the dirt.  That's so Donald Trump of you!

7 hours ago, Dipterocarp said:

When the crew give an order to deplane, you have no legal right to disobey, even if the justification of this order is unsound.  As you enjoy absurd examples remember a ship Captain can order you set adrift in a lifeboat. He'll answer for it later but this is fundamental aviation/maritime law.

 

Whatever injuries this man poor old man suffered later are from his personal choice to illegally remain in his seat, the subsequent interactions with police and  security could hardly be suspected, and no order was given by the airline to brutalize him. The man was not violent but this has been going on like this in the USA for a long time, there are many links online of people being dragged off airplanes. A country here police kill more people in a good 30 day period than UK cops have in 80 years! Almost complete impunity. Where pepper spray is applied directly into the eyes of non-violent college students for blocking footpaths (who could have been ignored indefinitely and have rights to protest under the Constitution).

 

It is a huge PR nightmare from UA they have deep pockets and will pay huge sums to settle out of court. Far too sympathetic a witness to put before a jury. 69 years old, concussed,broken nose and two teeth knocked out permanently? Horrible. I think this is more to do with police brutality in America than anything else.

 

The airlines in Japan released statements that they would never allow such a thing to happen, unthinkable. They offer cash (not rubbish flight vouchers). The CEO of United has said publicly that they will no longer use/call Law enforcement to remove passengers in such situations. Perhaps, by becoming the first US carrier to embrace non-violence they can improve as a compassionate company. The US airlines have been  for ages best known for rudeness.

 

I would not want to be the one delayed but any decent person would admit  it is much better some flight is cancelled than an old  man beaten by security forces.

Cheap shots and insults aside, the salient, critical point here is UA's motivation behind the involuntary deplaning.

The scope of an airline's authority under the laws cited is not limitless, nor intended to extend to  discretionary business decisions, or routine service issues, such as this Dao incident.

The law does provide airline crews authority over pax relative to the safe operation of the aircraft and safety of all pax on board.  The law provides recourse and severe repercussions if a passenger interferes with and/or assaults crew in the performance of their duties; duties being the safe operation of the aircraft and safety of crew and pax on board.

The Dao incident doesn't meet that test at all. 

I notice (in a later post) you resurrected the Trespass scenario again, trying to bootstrap what took place  (or actually events that didn't) into a half-baked legal justification. 

I've got a fun theory that has a far better chance of being proven out as fact than that.  Do you want to hear it?  Not off topic, directly relevant to this event.

1 hour ago, mommysboy said:

The only possible offence is disobeying an order from a police officer (or equivalent).  This amounts to obstruction.  Whether the Law Enforcement officer has that equivalent power is a key issue.

Yes, but when the order is unlawful or has no basis in law, such as in this case, it is not a lawful order or instruction therefore there is no "failure to obey".  Like telling you to jump off a bridge.  You say, No, screw you, I'm not going to jump.... and then they arrest and charge you with failure to obey an order.

If they try to compel you to comply by pushing you off the bridge, but you resist and manage to stay on the railing, that is not obstructing an officer in the performance of his duty.  Because he's got no legal justification.

Silly examples but it makes the point clear.  I hope so anyway.  Cheers.

14 minutes ago, kkerry said:

His lawyer (he reminds me of Chuck McGill in Better Call Saul) just held a press conference...

 

Dr. Dao has suffered severe concussion, lost two teeth, had his nose broken and will require reconstructive surgery...

 

Better start the negotiations at twenty million...

Dr. Dao was, apparently, on the phone with his lawyer in that latest video.  No doubt his lawyer told him he didn't have to get off the plane.  I could hear Dao on the phone saying they are threatening to use force. 

That lawyer was on the other end of the line doing High 5's and hand stands over this one.  United and Chicago Aviation Department..... good job guys!  Duh!

2 hours ago, mommysboy said:

 

Yes part of the confusion comes from my not knowing exactly what an LE Officer is.  We all understand what a policeman is and have a fair idea what his job entails, and what power he has.

 

If he is basically employed by the airline company, then he is in no position to give orders, and no law has been broken at all.

Sorry, LE is Law Enforcement. 

The security guys who went on the plane are employed by the City of Chicago, although I've read they are a cost neutral service to the city.  To me, that means they are funded by fees and taxes from airline tickets, airport concessions and operating fees - essentially a limited, unarmed security service inside the sterile/security area of the airport, instead of using private/contract guards.  A lot of guy would use this as a stepping stone to a "real" police job in Chicago PD.

At any rate, these chaps shouldn't have been involved in this kind of scenario in the first place, taking orders from United employees without proper due diligence, and acting as United's personal security/bouncer service.  I can see how familiar relationships between UA gate staff, and the CDA guards, could have been a factor in this event. 

Now, had Dr. Dao committed a crime, or was a safety issue or a security threat, that would have been different.  But he wasn't any of that, this was strictly a United Airlines operational desire, and they got these CDA security guys to do their dirty work instead of sorting it out on their own.  

City of Chicago is NOT happy about this.

2 hours ago, eldragon said:

 

I think this is one of those polarizing issues where you're either gonna feel like the authorities didn't need to do what they did and could've found another way OR they were entitled to do what they did and there was no reason they shouldn't have. I lean more towards the latter. I just feel like it's a slippery slope when people start saying, "They didn't have to..." about law enforcement agencies. It's easier if we all follow the rules, or challenge them at the appropriate time and place.

You have to focus one step back. 

United should have found another way to get it done and never involved the airport police/security in the first place; they had no role in this type of scenario.  Which is why the CDA rogered up to their mistakes early on. 

7 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

 

Absolutely.  Until last night I assumed it is a criminal offence to refuse the order of a police officer.

It certainly can be, depends on the situation.

25 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

Well yes.  Don't get me wrong, because I think the way the authorities acted is a disgrace, It's a bit of a mind bender of course, as usually the object is to prevent someone from leaving the scene.

 

As you say, if there is no offence- just what the hell are they doing there?

Have another think about that.  "but clearly the enforcement officer was charged with freeing the seat."

Charged by who?  A United Airlines employee?  For what reason?  Folks tend to embellish a bit to get the cops there and involved. You can see how that worked out after the post-event analysis.  Ooops.  We screwed up.

Properly trained LE officers don't follow orders from civilians or private company employees.  They have to remain objective, weigh up the situation and see if there's a legal justification for them to get involved.  Sometimes there isn't, may be a civil matter or a disagreement but no crime has been committed.  They may remain on the scene and try to mediate between the 2 parties and keep the peace, but until there's a crime or a threat of one, they don't get involved and certainly don't take sides because they work around/closely with airlines, and start laying hands on people to do the airline's bidding for them. 

1 minute ago, mommysboy said:

Well yes.  Don't get me wrong, because I think the way the authorities acted is a disgrace, but clearly the enforcement officer was charged with freeing the seat.  It's a bit of a mind bender of course, as usually the object is to prevent someone from leaving the scene.

 

As you say, if there is no offence- just what the hell are they doing there?

I think that's how it'll pan out.  But I could be wrong.  Often am.  

It's a mind bender because we've been so conditioned to complying.  If you don't, even when you're right, you're a scum bag.  That's the deal with some of the guys on this thread who lack mental elasticity - can't think outside the box they've been told to stay in.

2 minutes ago, funandsuninbangkok said:

"Dr Dao" is a convicted felon refusing to leave a plane with an offer of $800 and a free hotel room and a flight in the morning. Scam artist

LOL.

9 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

Yes, I appreciate it is difficult to come up with a realistic scenatio-I couldn't really think of one.

 

But what would the charge have been?  I'm guessing obstructing a police officer in the line of his duties.

 

I suppose the example you give would come under the defence of reasonableness.

No.  First off, this scenario wasn't in LE's line of duty.    They were not arresting Dr. Dao because there was nothing to arrest him for.  Obstruction of what?  United Airlines wanting his seat and he said no?  They can't force the guy out of the chair for that reason. So their orders to do so weren't lawful.  That's called boot strapping.  Similar to the Fruit of the Poisonous tree WRT evidence obtained illegally.

Just now, reenatinnakor said:

Not at all... The CEO is just saying things now that his PR advisers tell him to. Usually the first thing that comes out of a persons mouth is what they really think, deep down he still stands by his first comment.

Sent from my LG-H990 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

Then he's an immature knucklehead.  That's an easy one, mate.

14 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

UA and Law Enforcement have behaved deplorably, but I am having trouble squaring up the passenger refusing to leave, because in doing so he refused a law enforcement order.  As I understand it, this is obstruction'.  He is lucky not to have been charged, and had things not turned out the way they did I think he likely would have been.

 

Is there any legal bod who can confirm what the charge would have been, and if there are any legal defences to it?

 

It's a extreme example but makes the point.  If law enforcement ordered you to jump off a bridge, would you?  Of course not.  They can not order people to do things arbitrarily.  They need to be able to articulate reasonable  justification.  They can't, and you see their response to this after the fact.

The circumstances that led to them boarding that aircraft and getting involved in this company/customer relations issue, is the topic of heated debate within the Chicago City government.  UA set these guys up to fail and have been white lying ever since.

45 minutes ago, sandrabbit said:

which seems to be majority of the posters ....

 

 

Must be lonely for him being one of the last non-SF left on the internet. 

But it's ironic when the toughest, hardest sounding guys on this thread insist they would lay down and get punked like a chump by an airline.  No questions when told by an air hostess to get up and leave, yes sir, 3 bags full, tuck tail and run.

Dr. Dao had balls.  Stood up for himself because he knew it was BS.  He endured their threats of jail and took the beat down they said they were gunna give him, for his convictions.  In the final analysis, he was right.  Supporting THAT GUY makes one a butt hurt SF?   Hilarious!

Yeah, and Rosa Parks was a real pain the neck too.  Somebody shoulda thrown that chick off the bus, the nerve of her.

8 minutes ago, tuktuktuk said:

I'd like to know. In my experience cops rarely throw the first punch, but don't hesitate to throw the last few.

Can you tell us a bit more about your experience?

1 minute ago, ddavidovsky said:

It's hard sometimes.

 

Not sure if UA provide diaper-change rooms on their planes, but evidently now they should start providing butt-hurt rooms for all the whining snowflakes to have a cry in.

 

You're talking about your head, right?  Just sometimes?  Or just when it doesn't involve you personally?

And here I was thinking I was a borderline sociopath, selfish prick who lacks empathy!   

No joke - I've got a beer condom that reads:  "I'm not insensitive.  I just don't give a s**t!" 

4 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

But it has to be remembered that this had nothing to do with 'safety'....

 

It was all about getting rid of a paying passenger to make room (cheaply) for other airline staff.

Precisely.  "Safety Stand Down" a military term .  A pause for the cause, after an accident, or a string of otherwise preventable human related "aw shits". 

1 minute ago, dick dasterdly said:

Start quote  I" don't wish any long term harm on UA although quite frankly they are doing a bang up job of that all on their own."  End quote

 

To look on the bright side this incident has brought into focus a host of issues.

 

Are airlines allowed to bring in security staff to remove passengers - for the airlines' own issues (i.e. nothing to do with security)?

 

Indeed.  Sanity check.  Re-calibrate.  Corporate culture and ethics "safety stand down". 

20 minutes ago, ddavidovsky said:

I'm standing by for every childish, petulant individual to now start pulling tantrums to get that they want.

Curious that nobody here seems interested in promoting responsible social behaviour.

You're referring to yourself, right? 

1 hour ago, Kadilo said:

Now the lawyers are involved things will escalate no end. From an incident that could of been prevented in the first place then escalated due to UA incompetence they will find themselves footing the bill for not only the Docs physical injury but no doubt for the lasting mental and emotional damage they will claim. He won't have to play poker again for sure.
The court scene will be a bit like on here, 2 extremes. Those that want UA to go bust and the inevitable fallout from that, and those that say the Doc asked for it.
Of course the reality as always is somewhere in between.
I'm sure UA wish they could turn the clock back .........


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

I don't have a hard on for UA, I'm not a disgruntle ex-customer or SJW bangin' on about big greedy corps, banksters and global warming.  Although I admit, my views in this thread could lead a few guys throw me in that bin.   I used to be just like them not that many years ago and still catch myself knee-jerking into the old unquestioning, narrow thought process. 

This was only a few people who lost the plot although the UA response indicates it might be a top down cultural issue and or other leadership problems.  I don't wish any long term harm on UA although quite frankly they are doing a bang up job of that all on their own.  CEO seems to be coming around and making sense now, reluctantly, 4 days later. 

Chicago Aviation Dept did alright, quick to grasp and acknowledge the simple elements of what went on here, and why it and they were wrong.  Like my first Senior VP in civilian/corporate land told me, "Jay, bad news doesn't get any better with age".  Take responsibility, fix it, carry on smartly.  That's a military value, he was retired Marine Colonel, so we got along just fine.

Just now, dick dasterdly said:

Agree with the rest of your post, but not:-

 

"I can relate with the security guy in jeans who had enough of this snapper head runnin' his suck hole.  Last chance bud.  OK, up to you.  WHAMO! "

 

The 'last' security guy should have had the same sense as the earlier two - but he was determined to be aggressive and injure the innocent passenger if necessary to drag him off the 'plane.

 

He may have received instructions (after the reluctance of the initial two security guys) to do exactly this - which only implicates further the management involved as well as the security officer only too happy to comply with those orders.

No problem.  Distinction between being able to relate, because I've been there in his shoes, and agreeing with what he did.  I don't.  Yes, the two younger uniforms had the sense to stop and not escalate.  The Supervisor showed up, I'll handle this boys, step aside....  A trained LE/Security guy knows, or should know, the limits of his authority to act, but they are human, and sometimes, for a host of reasons, their emotions can and do get the better of them.