Officer on leave after dragging United Airlines passenger off plane

[Familyonthemove]

A US newspaper tried to run a smear campaign against the Doctor who was assaulted.   335 angry replies in one hour from readers who could see through this shameless and transparent tactic. 100% were critical of the action by UA and the feeble response by their CEO.

 

Meanwhile on TV we have people saying he's probably not a doctor, he was drunk, and that it was his fault for not meekly getting out of the seat he paid for to allow airline staff to fly free.

[eldragon]

15 hours ago, ddavidovsky said:

This says more about society nowadays. Everyone has such a highly-strung sense of entitlement and readiness to take offence that they can't tolerate the slightest inconvenience - even when offered adequate compensation. What is wrong with them? I would have just shrugged and got off.

Exactly. This echos the elitist liberal attitude of "I don't care what your rules and regulations are. They're stupid and I don't have to obey them."

[Johpa]

19 minutes ago, eldragon said:

Exactly. This echos the elitist liberal attitude of "I don't care what your rules and regulations are. They're stupid and I don't have to obey them."

 

No, this has to do with contract law and the legal ambiguity of forcibly deplaning someone who had already been boarded and seated. Your contract with the airline gives the airline the right to deny boarding but does not seem to address unilateral actions taken after you are boarded and taken possession of your seat. The airlines seem to acknowledge this by attempting to buy someone out of their seat and they seek the lowest bidder for a reschedule.  It is their responsibility to make an offer that will entice someone to accept an alternative flight.  The fact that most people are sheep and will do whatever an "authority figure" demands does not make the demand legal.  And I just don't see how one's response to this situation reflects political leanings.

[55Jay]

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.

 

[Kadilo]

United Airlines boss sorry for 'horrific' passenger removal
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39572841

......and the climb down begins


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[Dagnabbit]

What seems odd to me is that this is obviously a civil issue.

 

Police aren't trained or paid to sort out civil issues. We can see that clearly in the video.

 

So how is it that they airlines have enough sway with the police that they can ask them to eject a passenger over what is a civil issue vs a safety issue? 

 

Standing your ground and refusing to be ejected is not being belligerent, it's simply standing up for yourself when you disagree. If all civil disagreement is considered 'non-compliance' and worthy of physical assault, then the world truly is in a bad place. As it is, I think we'll see the tides turn as a result of this.

[Dagnabbit]

3 minutes ago, Kadilo said:

United Airlines boss sorry for 'horrific' passenger removal
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39572841

......and the climb down begins


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

 

Too late - his initial reaction is on record.

[Kadilo]

 
Too late - his initial reaction is on record.

For sure. I'm sure a mixture of the diving share price plus the escalating condemnation of events has forced him to issue a belated apology.
Too little too late as you say. Damage done.


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[eldragon]

1 hour ago, Johpa said:

 

No, this has to do with contract law and the legal ambiguity of forcibly deplaning someone who had already been boarded and seated. Your contract with the airline gives the airline the right to deny boarding but does not seem to address unilateral actions taken after you are boarded and taken possession of your seat. The airlines seem to acknowledge this by attempting to buy someone out of their seat and they seek the lowest bidder for a reschedule.  It is their responsibility to make an offer that will entice someone to accept an alternative flight.  The fact that most people are sheep and will do whatever an "authority figure" demands does not make the demand legal.  And I just don't see how one's response to this situation reflects political leanings.

 

Then I guess we'd have to read the fine print on the sales agreement. But I'm more of a common sense kidna guy and I've always been under the impression that the pilot- and in turn the airline- can remove anyone from the plane for whatever reason they see want, and I wouldn't argue with em over it. Obviously they don't want to make a habit of it b/c that would piss off a lot of customers. But it's done more than 40K times per year. 

[Dagnabbit]

3 hours ago, sandrabbit said:

but they offered vouchers not cash, $800.

Yeah - useless things if you don't plan to travel soon.

 

I'd go for a penthouse in a local hotel and a couple of hookers off Craigslist

[Prbkk]

 

[Rhys]

6 hours ago, Johpa said:

That passengers are involuntarily deplaned is not a legal argument. 

 

The guy is will become a folk hero just like this guy:

 

 

 

 

  ... try again, the media has started the demonizing of the impaired physician... 5 minutes will be all, expect a few encores... then back to normal of the friendly skies...

[pbeieio]

Every single flight I have taken on any U.S. Arline has been anything between ordinary to terrible!

As far back as 1987 my company has deliberately avoided using them other than for internal (US) flights, where the true meaning of "cattle class" is demonstrated by ALL U.S. carriers.

What is more frustrating is that the "cattle" accept it!!!!!

 

The ground staff and air crew are all lazy, indolent, ignorant plebs with an undeserved  "air" of "entitlement". 

 

This behaviour is typical of ALL U.S. Airlines!!!

 

I always consider that "y'all have a nice day"  is said with a sense of hope, rather than anticipation, when flying with this sorry bunch!

 

American Standard?? I have one in my toilet!!

 

 

 

 

 

I 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

22 hours ago, car720 said:

I want to say something about the difference between a law enforcer and a peace keeper but I just don't know how to say it anymore.  What a wonderful world we live in today.  Who was it that said, "Greed is good"?

Gordon Gecko.

 

I hope the guy sues the thug guard ( it was a no brainer assault ), the airline and the management and gets a HUGE payout.

I also think if anyone flies United after this, they deserve anything they get.

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, Prbkk said:

 

Interesting segment, but what sort of person do they have in the audience? If they think it was so funny, I hope they are the ones getting dragged off their next flight.

[mommysboy]

3 hours ago, Dagnabbit said:

Yeah - useless things if you don't plan to travel soon.

 

I'd go for a penthouse in a local hotel and a couple of hookers off Craigslist

 

Why would he want to fly with them again anyway?

[ddavidovsky]

The guy was not only a anti-social self-entitled childish buffoon (how does someone like that become a doctor?), but quite simply his actions were illegal. An airplane is a highly sensitive area. It's irresponsible to defend him.

 

The airline could certainly sue him for all the trouble he has caused - which in reputational terms is substantial due to all the butthurt outrage warriors in the world nowadays - but probably won't because that would be bad PR. I feel sorry for the airline for having to deal with these idiots.

 

The biggest issue here is not to do with a trivial fracas on a plane, nor even that of management - it's how video-driven outrage is being used to shape society. Make no mistake, societally this will have dire long term effects. It's already demonstrably killing the human spirit by dragging everyone down to the comfort zone of the most insecure.

[thaibeachlovers]

6 hours ago, Dipterocarp said:

It is just an example, I can think of many. A full flight. One business class seatbelt breaks. There is no replacement available. The seat must be blocked, business class passenger is not gonna get bumped off the plane just down to economy class. Now one of the poor sods back there is SOL. Fight with the cops? Bad idea.

No replacement seat belt! You will have to do better than that.

If they are using seat belts that defective, they shouldn't be allowed to fly.

 

[mommysboy]

4 hours ago, eldragon said:

 

Then I guess we'd have to read the fine print on the sales agreement. But I'm more of a common sense kidna guy and I've always been under the impression that the pilot- and in turn the airline- can remove anyone from the plane for whatever reason they see want, and I wouldn't argue with em over it. Obviously they don't want to make a habit of it b/c that would piss off a lot of customers. But it's done more than 40K times per year. 

Futile arguing with a police officer- that's for sure.  They are not the sharpest tools in the box.  Not that this in any way excuses the way just about every official acted in this shameful episode. 

[thaibeachlovers]

6 minutes ago, ddavidovsky said:

The guy was not only a anti-social self-entitled childish buffoon (how does someone like that become a doctor?), but quite simply his actions were illegal. An airplane is a highly sensitive area. It's irresponsible to defend him.

 

The airline could certainly sue him for all the trouble he has caused - which in reputational terms is substantial due to all the butthurt outrage warriors in the world nowadays - but probably won't because that would be bad PR. I feel sorry for the airline for having to deal with these idiots.

 

The biggest issue here is not to do with a trivial fracas on a plane, nor even that of management - it's how video-driven outrage is being used to shape society. Make no mistake, societally this will have dire long term effects. It's already demonstrably killing the human spirit by dragging everyone down to the comfort zone of the most insecure.

The DOCTOR needed to see patients. They could have moved someone else off the plane that didn't have to help the sick and dying.

In this case the airline needs to be punished for forgetting the people that matter are the ones paying the bills and thinking that they are more important. Remember the saying "the CUSTOMER comes FIRST.

The airline was at fault for being so incompetent that they filled up the plane before working out that they needed to fly staff. They come across as a bunch of moronic oafs. The time to "offload" customers is before any one goes on board.

[eldragon]

1 minute ago, mommysboy said:

Futile arguing with a police officer- that's for sure.  They are not the sharpest tools in the box.  Not that this in any way excuses the way just about every official acted in this shameful episode. 

The officers were told to go in there and remove the guy. They didn't do anything wrong. The blame is clearly on the airline here, and to a lesser extent the dude for refusing to leave the plane. 

[mommysboy]

5 minutes ago, ddavidovsky said:

The guy was not only a anti-social self-entitled childish buffoon (how does someone like that become a doctor?), but quite simply his actions were illegal. An airplane is a highly sensitive area. It's irresponsible to defend him.

 

The airline could certainly sue him for all the trouble he has caused - which in reputational terms is substantial due to all the butthurt outrage warriors in the world nowadays - but probably won't because that would be bad PR. I feel sorry for the airline for having to deal with these idiots.

 

The biggest issue here is not to do with a trivial fracas on a plane, nor even that of management - it's how video-driven outrage is being used to shape society. Make no mistake, societally this will have dire long term effects. It's already demonstrably killing the human spirit by dragging everyone down to the comfort zone of the most insecure.

 

I certainly agree with your last paragraph however, this appears to be one incident with solid grounds for complaint.

 

Why do you think their reputation has been unduly tarnished? IMO they behaved disgracefully and deserve all the shaming to come.

 

The airline of course must have powers of ejection, and the police have a job to do, but he was no terrorist suspect.  The policeman would have done better to laugh in their faces and tell them they were crazy.

 

I suspect another reason the airline will not pursue legal redress (and you are right the doctor contravened the law) is that UA would be dealt with mercilessly by the courts in the issues where they are at fault.

[mommysboy]

3 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The DOCTOR needed to see patients. They could have moved someone else off the plane that didn't have to help the sick and dying.

In this case the airline needs to be punished for forgetting the people that matter are the ones paying the bills and thinking that they are more important. Remember the saying "the CUSTOMER comes FIRST.

The airline was at fault for being so incompetent that they filled up the plane before working out that they needed to fly staff. They come across as a bunch of moronic oafs. The time to "offload" customers is before any one goes on board.

In this instance no passenger needed to be inconvenienced to make way for operational staff who for one reason or another had not got their act together.

 

 

[brewsterbudgen]

The guy was not only a anti-social self-entitled childish buffoon (how does someone like that become a doctor?), but quite simply his actions were illegal. An airplane is a highly sensitive area. It's irresponsible to defend him.

 

The airline could certainly sue him for all the trouble he has caused - which in reputational terms is substantial due to all the butthurt outrage warriors in the world nowadays - but probably won't because that would be bad PR. I feel sorry for the airline for having to deal with these idiots.

 

The biggest issue here is not to do with a trivial fracas on a plane, nor even that of management - it's how video-driven outrage is being used to shape society. Make no mistake, societally this will have dire long term effects. It's already demonstrably killing the human spirit by dragging everyone down to the comfort zone of the most insecure.

Interesting post. There is no turning back the clock, so video-driven outrage is here to stay. Whether its effects will be dire is debateable (and worthy of a thread of its own). Perhaps the newly acquired power of ordinary people on social media, rather than corporate or government media, will lead to a better, more open society?

[rockingrobin]

4 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The DOCTOR needed to see patients. They could have moved someone else off the plane that didn't have to help the sick and dying.

In this case the airline needs to be punished for forgetting the people that matter are the ones paying the bills and thinking that they are more important. Remember the saying "the CUSTOMER comes FIRST.

The airline was at fault for being so incompetent that they filled up the plane before working out that they needed to fly staff. They come across as a bunch of moronic oafs. The time to "offload" customers is before any one goes on board.

The question that arises , where is the distinction between denied boarding and refusal of travel

[mommysboy]

3 minutes ago, eldragon said:

The officers were told to go in there and remove the guy. They didn't do anything wrong. The blame is clearly on the airline here, and to a lesser extent the dude for refusing to leave the plane. 

And the officer who conducted the ejection?  As far as I can tell he has received nothing but universal condemnation.  I think he acted outside of his given protocols.  I hope he is convicted of assault- a 69 year old man for God's sake.

[thaibeachlovers]

4 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

The question that arises , where is the distinction between denied boarding and refusal of travel

Hmmmm. Being delayed as against cancelling a passenger's flight?

[thaibeachlovers]

13 minutes ago, eldragon said:

The officers were told to go in there and remove the guy. They didn't do anything wrong. The blame is clearly on the airline here, and to a lesser extent the dude for refusing to leave the plane. 

What no one seems to have picked up on is that the guy dragging the passenger down the aisle is NOT a cop. Cops wear uniforms- he is wearing jeans. Did he have the authority to physically manhandle anyone?

[Prbkk]

25 minutes ago, ddavidovsky said:

The guy was not only a anti-social self-entitled childish buffoon (how does someone like that become a doctor?), but quite simply his actions were illegal. An airplane is a highly sensitive area. It's irresponsible to defend him.

 

The airline could certainly sue him for all the trouble he has caused - which in reputational terms is substantial due to all the butthurt outrage warriors in the world nowadays - but probably won't because that would be bad PR. I feel sorry for the airline for having to deal with these idiots.

 

The biggest issue here is not to do with a trivial fracas on a plane, nor even that of management - it's how video-driven outrage is being used to shape society. Make no mistake, societally this will have dire long term effects. It's already demonstrably killing the human spirit by dragging everyone down to the comfort zone of the most insecure.

Absolutely wrong. The guy might be an unsympathetic character and 99.999% of passengers, myself included, would have complied with the directive. That said, this is a monumental stuff-up by United and by security. The incompetent processes led to the situation, the airline's stinginess compounded it, the initial communication from Munoz was risible in respect of just how out of touch he is with public sentiment and expectations of corporate accountability, the violence was completely uncalled for.

Hardly surprising that hundreds of millions wiped off stock values. 

Overall: a case study in how not to run a business.

[mommysboy]

9 minutes ago, brewsterbudgen said:

Interesting post. There is no turning back the clock, so video-driven outrage is here to stay. Whether its effects will be dire is debateable (and worthy of a thread of its own). Perhaps the newly acquired power of ordinary people on social media, rather than corporate or government media, will lead to a better, more open society?

I don't suppose anything routine or ordinary will get videoed or watched.  Video footage is difficult to deny, whereas spoken testimony can be twisted.  On the other hand, it is annoying to have cameras everywhere, theoretically watching your every move.