Officer on leave after dragging United Airlines passenger off plane

[Kadilo]

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

[Rob13]

I doubt the decision  to re-accommodate Dr Dao was racist. More likely they selected people  they thought would be spineless and cause the least problems for them.  Next time they'll be choosing deaf-mutes to kick off the plane.

[rockingrobin]

4 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

I suspect (but could be wrong) that the victim's lawyers petitioning the court to stop any recordings being deleted has more to do with the chain of events - e.g. reasons given for calling in security staff to physically remove a passenger from the 'plane.

 

But agree that it will be interesting to find out the discussions between crew staff and the  'random selection' procedure applied.

UA CoC doesnt provide for random selection

 

' The priority of all other confirmed passengers may be determined based on a passenger’s fare class, itinerary, status of frequent flyer program membership, and the time in which the passenger presents him/herself for check-in without advanced seat assignment'

 

Rule 25

https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriage.aspx#sec25

[thaihome]

Interesting take by Aviation law expert Arthur Wolk, the founding partner of the Wolk Law Firm in Philadelphia:

 

http://www.townandcountrymag.com/leisure/travel-guide/a9266366/david-dao-united-law-suit/

 

There is nothing in that contract that gives United the right to commit an assault and battery on a passenger," he told me over the phone.

"This is not a denied boarding incident, which is covered by the contract; this man was already boarded. This is not an oversold incident, as provided for by the contract; this airplane was not oversold—every passenger was ticketed and had a seat.

"This was not a situation where the passenger was unruly, committed a criminal act, interfered with the flight crew, was incapable of being a passenger by himself or anything of that nature, obviously until they attempted to physically throw him off the airplane.

"So to me, United Airlines breached their own contract of carriage."

 

As stated in article this will never make it to court and United and Chicago Airport will settle this quickly for "undisclosed sum".

 

What I hope comes out of this is an exposure of how the entire transportation industry is taking advantage  of and abusing customers under the guise of "security and safety". The power given to staff is way out of hand in handling customers. The scene from Anger Mangement on the plane is more true then not.

TH

 

[55Jay]

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.

Edited April 13, 2017 by 55Jay

[balo]

Seems like theres no Happy Easter this year for United Airlines, I wonder how their next commercial will look like? We're sorry ? 

 

 

[Dagnabbit]

2 hours ago, sandrabbit said:

Just found this, interesting.

 

United Airlines is taking a beating for forcibly removing a passenger from one of its planes, but the passengers who shot the videos that exposed the incident may also run into some trouble.

 

According to the airline's policy on electronic devices, passengers are free to take pictures and shoot video as long as they are "capturing personal events." But the policy forbids passengers from capturing other passengers or airline personnel without their consent.

 

Technically, that means the passengers were in violation of United's policies and could face legal repercussions in civil court or be barred from future United flights. Practically, aviation and legal experts doubt United would take that step.

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2017/04/12/videos-united-airlines-flight-may-violate-rules/100372674/

lol

 

So you think United will sue them for sharing the videos?

 

Another PR Coup?

 

Wont happen - not in a million years.

[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.

Edited April 13, 2017 by 55Jay

[harrry]

13 hours 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.

When asked if the passenger, David Dao, was at fault for the actions that led to his removal from his Louisville, Kentucky-bound flight at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport, Munoz said, simply: "No, he cannot be. He was a paying passenger sitting in his seat on our aircraft. No one should be treated that way."
 straight from the CEO

http://www.ndtv.com/world-news/united-ceo-felt-shame-watching-video-of-deplaned-man-accepts-responsibility-1680722

[dick dasterdly]

35 minutes ago, 55Jay said:

"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.

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.

[55Jay]

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. 

[dick dasterdly]

1 hour ago, rockingrobin said:

UA CoC doesnt provide for random selection

 

' The priority of all other confirmed passengers may be determined based on a passenger’s fare class, itinerary, status of frequent flyer program membership, and the time in which the passenger presents him/herself for check-in without advanced seat assignment'

 

Rule 25

https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriage.aspx#sec25

And yet UA insisted that the selection was random!

 

Not sure how they differentiate between fare class/itinerary/frequent flyer status etc. - but will be interested to find out.

 

Not that it actually matters as the point is that UA called in security staff to physically force a 'random' passenger off the plane - even though there were no security risks involved.

 

Hopefully this incident will ensure that airlines are no longer able to call in security staff when there are no security issues involved - only the airlines financial interests.

[ddavidovsky]

59 minutes ago, 55Jay said:

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.

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.

[dick dasterdly]

34 minutes ago, Dagnabbit said:

lol

 

So you think United will sue them for sharing the videos?

 

Another PR Coup?

 

Wont happen - not in a million years.

I think that was sandrabbit's point - it won't happen as UA are already in a world of trouble PR wise.

 

This incident is also likely to change rules/laws set up for security reasons (assuming this is the case) - as they were so easily subverted to 'airline' reasons.

[dick dasterdly]

1 minute 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.

I haven't seen any posts promoting anything other than "responsible social behaviour".

 

Which is why the vast majority of us have no time for the irresponsible behaviour of both UA and the security thug.

[Rob13]

2 minutes ago, ddavidovsky said:

to get that they want.

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

Responsible social behavior like  turning  paid seated passengers into trespassers because a flight crew is unable to get to the airport on time. Give it a rest,buddy. UA effed up and they're getting what they deserve.

[55Jay]

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.

Edited April 13, 2017 by 55Jay

[Basil B]

1 hour ago, dick dasterdly said:

I suspect (but could be wrong) that the victim's lawyers petitioning the court to stop any recordings being deleted has more to do with the chain of events - e.g. reasons given for calling in security staff to physically remove a passenger from the 'plane.

 

But agree that it will be interesting to find out the discussions between crew staff and the  'random selection' procedure applied.

Possible based on who was likely to cause the least fuss, yes, If I suspect how the the selection process went United are not going to want them tape getting into the public domain, possible some derogatory remarks relating to other passengers too...  me think there's going to be a lot of sackings at United.

 

This is going to hit United where it hurts, big time.

[dick dasterdly]

Just now, 55Jay said:

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.  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.  Last thing the US needs is fewer choices in airlines, shitty and or otherwise.  LOL.  CEO seems to be coming around and making sense now, albeit 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.

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)?

 

[55Jay]

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? 

[55Jay]

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". 

[dick dasterdly]

Just now, 55Jay said:

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

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.

[Kadilo]

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.

Agree entirely. Emotions are running high. There is fault on all sides but the overall responsibility lies with UA and the CEO for his ridiculous internal memo adding fuel to the already inferno.

Even with his eventual climb down which was far too late to prevent a PA disaster, the lawyers will be having a field day. I'm amazed he hasn't yet resigned, watch this space.

That said I wouldn't want to see normal working people with families to support having their jobs put in jeopardy by mindless thug like behaviour. I probably wouldn't even want him, the guy in the jeans to lose his job tbh , just learn from his obvious mistake. We are all human and have all up at some point in our lives.

As for the Doc you cannot blame him for getting out of it what he can. The videos of him during the event were stomach churning. The thought that a 69 year old grandfather could potentially be put through that episode because he had a need to get home the next day and dared to speak his mind rightly or wrongly , is very disturbing.

I hope common sense prevails and he gets his just reward, no one gets sacked and people can continue to be gainfully employed.

That's what I hope ........

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[55Jay]

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". 

Edited April 13, 2017 by 55Jay

[ddavidovsky]

28 minutes ago, Rob13 said:

Responsible social behavior like  turning  paid seated passengers into trespassers because a flight crew is unable to get to the airport on time. Give it a rest,buddy. UA effed up and they're getting what they deserve.

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.

 

[dick dasterdly]

23 minutes ago, Kadilo said:

Agree entirely. Emotions are running high. There is fault on all sides but the overall responsibility lies with UA and the CEO for his ridiculous internal memo adding fuel to the already inferno.

Even with his eventual climb down which was far too late to prevent a PA disaster, the lawyers will be having a field day. I'm amazed he hasn't yet resigned, watch this space.

That said I wouldn't want to see normal working people with families to support having their jobs put in jeopardy by mindless thug like behaviour. I probably wouldn't even want him, the guy in the jeans to lose his job tbh , just learn from his obvious mistake. We are all human and have all up at some point in our lives.

As for the Doc you cannot blame him for getting out of it what he can. The videos of him during the event were stomach churning. The thought that a 69 year old grandfather could potentially be put through that episode because he had a need to get home the next day and dared to speak his mind rightly or wrongly , is very disturbing.

I hope common sense prevails and he gets his just reward, no one gets sacked and people can continue to be gainfully employed.

That's what I hope ........

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

Disagree with the following parts of your post-

 

1) "There is fault on all sides"  - No, the fault lies entirely with UA and the security guy.

 

2) " I probably wouldn't even want him, the guy in the jeans to lose his job tbh , just learn from his obvious mistake. We are all human and have all up at some point in our lives."  - No, he is a thug who has no problem with resorting to physical violence -even when his 'victim' is showing nothing of the sort.  He has to lose his job.

 

3)  "As for the Doc you cannot blame him for getting out of it what he can".  - He was an innocent victim, attacked by one security guy when the airline called in the security staff.  He wasn't 'looking' to "get out of it what he can" - until, of course brutalised this way.

 

4) A few people need to lose their jobs - to make it entirely clear that twisting the rules to suit corporate interests is unacceptable.  The security thug losing his job goes without saying, as he's clearly a thug with a licence.....

Edited April 13, 2017 by dick dasterdly

[55Jay]

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!" 

[tuktuktuk]

5 hours ago, rockingrobin said:

 Explain, how did the bloody nose come about

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

[dick dasterdly]

6 minutes 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.

 

And that about sums up the entirety of your posts on this subject.

 

The vast majority who think the airline and security guard screwed up badly are obviously "whining snowflakes/butt-hurts"....

[55Jay]

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?