Officer on leave after dragging United Airlines passenger off plane

[Kadilo]

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.....

That's fair enough. I can see why you would disagree it's just my opinion. I think everyone deserves a second chance even when they mess up on this scale. Obviously it would require remorse and a willing to retrain.

As for the Doc I meant get out if what he can post assault. I'm sure it was the furthest thing from his mind when he stepped up on the plane.


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[tuktuktuk]

4 hours ago, billd766 said:

 

Nice try at blaming the victim by bringing into the story something that has absolute nothing to do with it.

 

If he had been a convicted murderer and served his time would UA have refused his custom? How about if he was a convicted bank robber who had served his time, or an ex CEO who served time for swindling the public and fraud. Does that make a difference?

 

How about me who was banned from driving for a year for no insurance. That was back in 1962 when I was 18. If I were to try to fly on UA would they refuse to carry me?

 

What he did prior to the flight is of no consequence at all.

 

The problem has been with UA and their actions and with their CEO.

 

At 72 if I were selected " at random" to be removed from the flight and I had to be at work at 8 in the morning I would have refused also.

 

The fault and the solution lay in UA hands and they screwed it up completely from the start. Now they are facing the "unexpected backlash" and are still failing to understand the problem.

 

If the CEO was an honourable and moral person he would have accepted the blame and resigned. He didn't/hasn't and can't seem to understand the problem.

I don't know, maybe I need an attitude adjustment. Unlike most people here, from the second I saw the video I put him in the <deleted> category.  Reading about his record of subverting an honorable profession was just further proof of character. 

 

Maybe I'm a coward, but if three  guys who are bigger and stronger than me come and tell me to leave the plane I'll do it. 

 

I fly United. Not because I like them, but because they're cheap. 

[55Jay]

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.

Edited April 13, 2017 by 55Jay

[Basil B]

1 hour ago, Dagnabbit said:

3 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.

United want to brush this under the carpet as quickly as possible, any litigation of passengers for sharing the video is only going to drag it out for years, I am sure United Lawyers are trying to contact Mr Dao to offer him millions (where as the courts would likely award at most only award a few thousand dollars for the assault and it would likely be the employers of the goons not the airline who would be sued).

 

It is likely the airline can deny boarding due to overbooking and only have to pay a fixed compensation, big mistake was to allow the passengers to board before deciding to off load them.    

[mommysboy]

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?

 

 

[Basil B]

11 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?

 

 

This probably answers your question...

Quote

Is it legal for the airline to treat a fare-paying passenger like this?

Yes. The captain is in charge of the aircraft. And if he or she decides that someone needs to be offloaded, that command has to be obeyed. From the moment that the unfortunate individual in this case said, “I’m staying put”, he became a disruptive passenger. He was disobeying the captain’s command. Officials were legally entitled to remove him, and they did so using plenty of physical force.

http://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/travel/united-airlines-what-you-need-to-know-about-overbooking-and-passengers-rights-a3512771.html

 

I think one thing that airlines may need to do is publish their policy on how they select passengers to deny boarding.  

Edited April 13, 2017 by Basil B

[55Jay]

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.

Edited April 13, 2017 by 55Jay

[funandsuninbangkok]

On 4/10/2017 at 6:52 PM, Emster23 said:

If United policy had any brains, they should have used market place strategy: Have attendant go in and announce "We need 2 seats: I am offering next flight + $50"  no takers "Same + $100" .... "Next flight, $125 and hotel voucher" etc etc

That had offered $800 already. Still no takers. 

[Dagnabbit]

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)?
 

The answerto your question is "not for much longer"!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[reenatinnakor]

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.

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

[mommysboy]

1 minute ago, 55Jay said:

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 a 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 issues, is the topic of heated debate within the Chicago City government.  UA set these guys up for a fall.

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.

[55Jay]

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.

[funandsuninbangkok]

40 minutes ago, 55Jay said:

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.

"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

[stevenl]

That had offered $800 already. Still no takers. 

In vouchers.

sent using Tapatalk

[55Jay]

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.

Edited April 13, 2017 by 55Jay

[55Jay]

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.

[Basil B]

What next Airlines selling insurance to guarantee one is not denied boarding due to over booking???

[mommysboy]

2 minutes ago, 55Jay said:

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? 

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?

[wcoast]

New video has emerged showing the victim to be anything but "disruptive and belligerent" as the CEO accused.
http://mashable.com/2017/04/12/united-airlines-new-video/
This doctor will never have to work another day in his life.

Sent from my SM-A910F using Tapatalk

[funandsuninbangkok]

1 hour ago, dick dasterdly said:

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"....

Dr Dao was in the wrong. You see a few seconds of a video and think you know everything. 

 

 Captain decides who stays and who goes.  By the time the THIRD security person came on the plane to deal with Dao, his mission was simple - get him off. 

 

Happens sometimes but this guy is a convicted felon fraudster and you fell for it. 

 

163 million passengers flew United in 2016. How many fell out of the sky?

Edited April 13, 2017 by funandsuninbangkok

[55Jay]

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.

[Basil B]

What do think should be the Airline policy on who the deny boarding or off load first???

 

• Last to check in?
• Last sold tickets?
• Cheapest tickets?
• Staff discounted tickets?
• Other?

[funandsuninbangkok]

1 minute ago, Basil B said:

What do think should be the Airline policy on who the deny boarding or off load first???

 

• Last to check in?
• Last sold tickets?
• Cheapest tickets?
• Staff discounted tickets?
• Other?

Who paid the least. Dao no doubt!

 

cheap bastard!

Edited April 13, 2017 by funandsuninbangkok

[mommysboy]

1 minute ago, 55Jay said:

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.

 

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

 

 

[Kadilo]

What do think should be the Airline policy on who the deny boarding or off load first???

 

• Last to check in?
• Last sold tickets?
• Cheapest tickets?
• Staff discounted tickets?
• Other?

Old frail Grandad who won't kick up a stink with least resistance. .......oops

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[55Jay]

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. 

Edited April 13, 2017 by 55Jay

[55Jay]

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.

[Basil B]

2 minutes ago, funandsuninbangkok said:

Who paid the least. Dao no doubt!

I think without a policy or if they not being able to prove the policy was strictly adhered too does leave the gate open to substantial compensation claims...

 

I can see the compensation claim now... "I missed out on buying the winning lottery ticket in the Kentucky Lottery would have been $30mil"

 

This could open the flood gates for claims from other passengers from other airlines as well who have been denied boarding in the last few years.

[Mosha]

How hard is it, you sort it at check in.

Sent from my iris 505 using Tapatalk

[eldragon]

5 hours ago, 55Jay said:

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.   

 

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.