55Jay

5 minutes ago, Dagnabbit said:

2 hours ago, sandrabbit said:

Oh the parallels to the Thai Army Lt Col who, a few days ago, suggested in no uncertain terms that Thais should cease and desist sharing damning, inconvenient videos on FarceBook. 

Quit outing us or else!    Oh, because it's bad for national security, unity and....blah blah blah.

3 hours ago, ddavidovsky said:

Well there you are. Exactly as I described. They reasoned with him calmly for a long time. The guy refused to comply. You don't argue with security. You comply and if you have a grievance, take it up legally later.

 

This kind of mindless, childish arrogance and selfishness is unacceptable in any circumstance, especially on a plane when everyone is being held up.

 

People on here should stop promoting this kind of anti-social behaviour. Calls to boycott the airline or for the airline to be brought down completely (as some individual above wants), or for management to be dismissed, or simply for people to lose their jobs - all display a barely sane vindictiveness and brutality.

"display a barely sane vindictiveness and brutality."  Turn that around. Ironic, ain't it?

Preaching to the choir, Dave.  Among many positions I held in my 1st career, one was Chief Skull Cracker and Maintainer of Good Order and Discipline among military populations on ships.  Once we were at sea, it was different.  Captain was a law unto himself within reason of course.  I spoke softly most of the time but wielded a big stick, and had a bunch of goons to back it up.   The lads were compelled by culture, regulation, law and tradition to obey, even if they thought it was unfair.  Disrespect me or the boss, the rules, tense up when I put my hands on, you were on the deck in cuffs. Then some career enhancing legal stuff because we wuz also and very convenient, the Legal Dept!  Jerk that chain hard and fast, make an example to the rest, oil on the water.

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! 

We are talking about an airline.  A civilian.  On an airliner.  Not the military.  Or a correctional facility.  Or instant karma by thugs operating on street rules. 

The airline got creative with their corporate discretion.  They used government agents to enforce it, for a reason that had nothing to do with security, safety, or a potential threat, which would be backed by law. 

Stand by for a re-calibration and sanity check on airlines and airport LE/Security agencies - which is probably needed.   Not only UA.  They just drew the short straw and got caught out.

6 hours ago, eldragon said:

What is an "internal, corporate decision"? When I say the airline was entitled to their decisions, I mean they were within the terms of the agreement they make with passengers when they sell them a ticket. It's covered in the contract of carriage. The fine print. I could be wrong, or it could eventually be determined that I'm wrong, but at the moment everything I'm reading on the issue says UA had the right to remove Mr. Dao.

Meaning that the air crew/UA staff have been emboldened and reinforced to play fast and loose with the authority and recourse they DO have under the law.  In other words, boot strapping the law for trivial and/or non-criminal/ security/safety/threat related situations, which the law was intended for.

49 U.S. Code § 46504 - Interference with flight crew members and attendants: An individual on an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States who, by assaulting or intimidating a flight crew member or flight attendant of the aircraft, interferes with the performance of the duties of the member or attendant or lessens the ability of the member or attendant to perform those duties, or attempts or conspires to do such an act.

14 CFR 135.120: No person may assault, threaten, intimidate, or interfere with a crew member in the performance of the crew member's duties aboard an aircraft being operated under this part.

Confronting this is uncomfortable and as you've said in a later post, you are now fatigued by this conversation.  I know, makes my head hurt, thoughts are scrambled by mental interference from a lifetime of programming, bias and reflexive thinking - mind the cops, pay your taxes, be a Patriot, etc.   You seem to be balanced though, but when you got tired, you check binned and went with your initial reflex.  

Anyway, have a good one, happy Songkran.   

10 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Was it just the man that dragged the victim down the aisle, or were the other two officers also suspended. They were actually in uniform and obviously complicit in what went on.

From all I've read (quite a bit yesterday), just the #3 officer (in jeans) has been put on leave, no mention of the 2 uniforms that I've seen, or noticed. 

Other accounts and by watching the video of the altercation, the 2 younger uniformed CDA security officers were said to be the first ones to show up.   When Dao rebuffed their efforts, they called for, I presume, their supervisor - the third guy in jeans.  Listening to the latest vid posted here, you can hear #3 escalating, bluffing with a veiled threat of jail, to which Doa says fine, I'll go to jail (words to that effect).    I got the impression from his posture and tone of voice that #3 had enough dicking around with this geeky passenger, and went hands on to make an impression.

3 minutes ago, eldragon said:

Facts seem all over the place on this story, but I'm not hearing anyone say the airline wasn't entitled to any of the decisions they made. He refused to leave the plane. He was removed. Any apologies that are made at this point are strictly a PR move.

IMV, it's rather clear cut and becoming moreso as the days flip by.

I agree with you, UA is entitled to make decisions.  That doesn't mean those decisions are always right, nor are they backed by government security/LE officers, and the use of force at all times by default.

The decision to remove Dr. Dao (and the others) was for purely operational, business and revenue  self-interests - duty of care and customer relations nowhere in sight on this one.  Jimmy Kimmel's UA satire/spoof video a page of two back, was spot on.  LOL.

Anyway, involving government security or LE under what looks to be false/misleading pretense in order to enforce their internal, corporate decision in this case, is wrong.  And, as we're likely to see in the fall out from this, will involve criminal and civil repercussions for CDA and UA, respectively.

I think CDA's acknowledgement was not just about PR. I think they "got it", because it is so clear cut. 

UA's stubborn, arrogant response is problematic on a few levels.

Some in Chicago's govt apparatus have opined, as have I, these Chicago Aviation Dept. security guys had NO BUSINESS being on that plane too begin with.  Dealing with passengers is UA's responsibility. 

Quote

Zalewski said the aviation officer who is now on a leave of absence had no business getting involved in the incident, let alone boarding the flight from Chicago to Louisville.

It should have been handled by United, O’Hare’s flagship carrier, in the boarding area, before passengers ever boarded the flight, the alderman said. And if the airline needed backup to handle a recalcitrant or unruly passenger, that should have been provided by Chicago Police officers, who were just minutes away when the viral video was taken, Zalewski said.

http://chicago.suntimes.com/news/viral-video-kills-chance-aviation-security-officers-will-be-armed/

A properly trained LE officer would know they had no legal justification to get involved, much less use force.  They would have turned to UA cew/staff and said something along the lines of, "Sorry guys, he's not breaking any laws or creating a security threat, there's nothing we can do at this time".  In other words, we're not your personal United Airlines bouncer service, so you need to figure something else out... This is an internal UA problem in the first instance, and a service provider/customer relations issue.

2 hours ago, Andrew Dwyer said:

Just to add to the confusion, another video has appeared filmed from the seat right behind him , make of this what you will !

http://www.ladbible.com/news/viral-new-footage-shows-united-airlines-man-20170412

Thanks for that.  Very useful.  Dr. Dao's lawyer is loving this gift. 

3 hours ago, eldragon said:

Whether you agree with a rule or not, you can't disobey one and expect to avoid the use of force. I mean, in case you haven't noticed, airports and airplanes are highly secure environments. You're not understanding how security and law enforcement work if you think they're gonna sit there and negotiate with a guy over a seat on an airplane. Once they've made a decision to do something, they follow through with the plan.

 

I maintain the only issues here are with the airlines decision to bump the guy and their timing in doing so.

There was no rule.  The Dr. broke no rule, law or security regulation.  

Agree with that.  The CDA security officers were called in by UA under false pretense, misleading at best, and acted upon it.  After the videos began coming out, they realized they were A) in the wrong  and their #3 officer who initiated the use of force against the Dr., was in the wrong. 

Agreed again.  The airline's decision to randomly bump customers for crew, wasn't the best one at that time.  Their decision to press the issue with this passenger who clearly wasn't willing to give up his seat for this reason, was wrong.  Deciding to abandon airline policy they hadn't yet exhausted, and involve law enforcement/security in a situation that did not involve any criminal or security violations, was wrong.  Misrepresenting the situation to the CDA, was wrong.

8 hours ago, ddavidovsky said:

You weren't there, and neither was anyone on this thread. So why not assume, as is most likely, that the security officer:

- first asked the man politely to accompany them off the plane

- then instructed the man to get off the plane

- then warned the man that if he didn't get off the plane he would be forcefully removed.

 

This is what security offices normally do, and we can safely assume the officer in this case wanted to achieve the objective with the minimum fuss. Those who assume otherwise are simply stirring up trouble - a typical SJW ploy.  Why the reckless assumption that the man was assaulted? He happened to take a knock against a chair arm and cut his lip. Grow up.

 

When someone causes a disturbance and other forms of irrational and unpredictable behaviour in a high-security place like an airplane there is certainly legal, moral and practical justification for their removal, by force if necessary. If he got hurt, it was his own fault. As we can see from the video clip, the man is displaying signs of diminished responsibility and could therefore have run amok. He broke the law and doesn't have a leg to stand on. The airline should prosecute.

Doesn't matter.  The problem here is there was no criminal or security reason to remove the Dr. from the plane.  Chicago PD get that, and that they were in the wrong in physically removing the guy from the plane.  Quite frankly, they should have even been there to begin with.

The Dr. was not causing a disturbance nor acting irrationally.  If you are referring to the video after he got back on the plane, then your just wrong, or intentionally obtuse.  

The plane being a "high security environment" is immaterial to this event.  

He broke no laws or security regs to precipitate this event.  The airline has no leg to stand on, which is why they (laughably) said they weren't pressing charges. 

Kim Jung Un's methods of resolving internal and personal problems doesn't inspire confidence.

Execution by anti-aircraft guns?  Is this a S. Korean put on or you reckon there's some truth to this?  This guy has lost it.

North Korea's Supreme Leader Kim Jong Un has executed more than 340 people since taking power in 2011, according to a South Korean think tank.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/02/10/north-korea-executions/80173970/

4 minutes ago, baboon said:

What is his Thaivisa username?

TV Mods banned him already, something about a dodgy IP address. 

Twitter maybe? 

3 minutes ago, baboon said:

I'm glad to see at least one fellow poster who does not want to play fast and loose with the lives of countless innocent people, from the comfort of a safe distance away from the hostilities. 

If you could get KJ on board with that too, I'd give you 100 Baht.

59 minutes ago, deepinlaos said:

 

it's a deterrent against US aggression

You've been drinking the NK Kool-Aide. 

7 minutes ago, reenatinnakor said:

I bet you any money it wouldn't have happened if the passenger was a black man... And definitely not if a woman, of any race.

I've flown them many times and United are a shit airline, I hope they go bankrupt because of this and everyone associated with them loses their jobs. They could have handled this for about 1k cash... But no, now they will go out of business! It will be funny.

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

I hope they get their s**t together, come clean and use this event to re-calibrate.  I was soft on the CEO at first, but he's taking waayyy to long to pull his head out.  If I was on the board, I would have lost confidence in his judgement and ability to lead objectively. 

Like I said yesterday, suspect other majors are watching this disaster unfold and are checking and clarifying polices with their staff to ensure they never get into such an avoidable jam like this.

1 hour ago, Dipterocarp said:

Thanks. I read elsewhere there is no legal right in the UK jurisdictions to use force in the case of trespass. Sounded like "rubbish" to me. Apparently the Chicago Aviation Officers are sworn peace officers in state of Illinois so they have some authority. I thought they were just rent-a-cops. The same sequence of events should have happened, explaining charges and prior to cuffing. In the states however you are required to remain passive and not resist in anyway, such as flexing arms and struggling, or else they can lay other charges such as "resisting arrest" , etc

You're co-mingling a scenario that doesn't apply here.  Again.

Dr. Dao was not being arrested.   He had committed no crime.  He wasn't drunk or creating a disturbance or thought to be a threat.  By accounts from other pax, he was not belligerent or unruly even with the UA staff when they tried to unseat him twice.  He just said no, then no I can't, I really need to be at work tomorrow.  

They just couldn't let it go.  Pride comes before the fall. 

They used the correct buzz words they knew would get the second tier airport police there in a jiffy for some action.  What happened next was predictable and UA staff knew it.

CEO lied in his characterizations of this early on, trying to spin public opinion using the good old old "security" blanket.  Didn't work.  He still hasn't come clean.  Ego in the way now.

You're still behind the power curve, casting about trying to find something to prop up your failing position.

Meanwhile, Chicago PD took ownership and accountability.  Talk about irony! 

Routine operational requirements or even an overbooking/oversale scenario isn't a Trump Card, giving UA carte blanche. Like, "Woo Hoo, the gloves are off, anything goes now!" 

UA and the police lost the plot here.

Chicago PD management grasped that glaringly obvious fact early on, raised their hand and owned it, "Yeah, our guy(s) screwed up on this one".  That's how rational, mature adults and senior management officials conduct themselves if and when their folks screw up.  It happens.  Often.  Humans can and do screw the pooch.

UA's CEO Munoz, on the other hand, went the other way and in doing so, confirmed poor judgement is not confined to a few managers/supervisors at the UA Chicago station.  Moreover, by circling the wagons and issuing a cheerleader's memo of unconditional support to the employees involved, might well be a symptom of a broader, top down cultural problem.  Or he's just a weak leader, terrified of internal conflict with employees and their union.  Or both.

Well, I hate to toot Trump's trumpet but credit where credit is due.  Maybe their meeting went better than we might have thought.  We'll see, steady as she goes down the bumpy path.

Good examples by Dipterocarp. Obscure, but realistic, could happen.  But they didn't.

Just to remind, this flight was NOT overbooked.  It was a full flight. 

The requirement to move 4 crew on the flight came after everyone, including Mr. Dao, were already on board. 

After following company procedure but failing to exhaust all their options within that framework, UA Management chose instead to randomly select 4 people for involuntary deplaning in order to accommodate the 4 UA employees. 

3 pax left the plane, not clear it they received any compensation. 

1 refused to give up his seat (Dr. Dao). A nearby passenger said Dr. Dao was NOT belligerent or unruly when refusing to give up his seat, but was "appropriately annoyed".  Pax went on to say they were "100% with Dr. Dao on his refusal to be removed from the flight".  According to Pax, a second try by UA is when Dr. Dao told them he was a Dr., had to see patients the next day, etc.....  

If it was so easy to "randomly" choose 4 people do deplane, then it wouldn't be too difficult to randomly try a few more.  I don't know, perhaps a person who, while inconvenienced like anyone else would be, may be less impacted by the bump.  Or reopen the bidding with more compensation, which they had not exhausted yet.

They didn't do that.  UA management apparently had no other choice except to keep screwing with Dr. Dao, the randomly chosen passenger who had already told them no thanks.  TWICE. 

UA didn't take another run at Dr. Dao.  They had the Chicago PD do it for them.

Pax interviewed said it was only then Dr. Dao started becoming upset, and was, in the end, bodily removed against his will and injured in the process.  For no real, sound justification beyond, "We need your seat, get up" "because we said so". 

The cheeky United CEO is being far too liberal with the truth when characterizing Dr. Dao as "belligerent and unruly", intimating that was the reason he was removed.  It wasn't.  They were bent on removing him anyway.  It wasn't for overbooking either.

4 minutes ago, Dipterocarp said:

You appear to be arguing once a passenger steps on a plane he cannot be deplaned, i.e. denied boarding, This is not what the intent of "denied boarding" means in actual operations. 

 

Say a full flight is delayed on  the Tarmac couple hours for some reason. Now ready to go Fog rolls in at the destination. The pilot is legally required to take more fuel, creating a weight restriction equal to 4 passengers, who would now be asked to deplane according to the air carriers policy. This is an operational requirement exactly like the airlines required crew movements. 

A Dipterocarp, bending way over to grasp at straws? 

Dishing TMZ and Heavy dot com dirt didn't have quite the impact you envisioned, eh? 

29 minutes ago, Dipterocarp said:

Yes , an interesting character. Professional Poker Player and failed Physician, suspended for handing out painkillers illegally at Louisville in exchange for sexual favors of the alternative nature. Not the type to follow sheepishly follow authoritarian rules and lawful instructions.

http://heavy.com/news/2017/04/david-dao-united-doctor-airlines-louisville-kentucky-passenger-removed-video-photos/

And?

49 minutes ago, Khon Kaen Dave said:

Ok.... now you've lost me. is this some sort of quote from the lost chord by the moody blues, or some deep quote from a Floyd album that no one has ever listened to.

I fink he's having a go at the junta, police, et al, comparing them to another group in the not so distant past.  But I could be wrong.  Often am.

21 minutes ago, Credo said:

I don't know where people get off thinking it is up to them to decide what is right or wrong.   When a police officer, security personnel or anyone in a position of authority tells you to do something, first you do and then you complain later.   

 

I've been on a plane when they called for volunteers, and I volunteer unless I have a connecting flight and they offer compensation no problem.

 

The one thing is, if a person in a position of authority tells you to do something, first do it and then ask questions or complain later.  

 

 

How about it they tell you to jump off a bridge?  Do you complain on the way down then ask questions after impact?  Just kidding, couldn't resist.

Jimmy's monologue.  Enjoyed the Applebee's analogy. 

16 minutes ago, champers said:

Even Fox News think United have gone beyond the pale. United's share price has risen on the back of all this. (???).

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/uniteds-stock-is-set-to-fall-5-and-wipe-1-billion-off-the-airlines-market-cap-2017-04-11

1 hour ago, watgate said:

I sent an email to United Airlines stating that due to the reprehensible treatment of the asian doctor I will NEVER use United Airlines. Even now their CEO is showing his arrogance by begrudgingly giving a half-hearted apology and defending the actions of the perpetrators. 

Good effort.  I haven't sent anything to the Black Hole though.

The only thing these cats care about is loss of revenue, market share, and a falling share price which will cause the board to act on behalf of shareholders. 

The next best thing is the possibility of that.  A smart CEO (and board) would intervene and solve this straight away to keep it from getting to that stage or, at least contain and minimize the damage already done and hope it fades into the short news cycle and our collective memory as soon as possible. 

United CEO has taken another path.