Officer on leave after dragging United Airlines passenger off plane

[thaibeachlovers]

5 hours ago, Scott said:

As I understand it, there are a lot of Asians who are upset and see this as being racial in nature.   I think United has a fairly prominent presence in Asia, so not so good for business.  

 

Whether what I have heard from Asian friends about how this is being received overseas, is correct or not, I don't know.   It is a perception and with situations like this perception is important.  

 

 

 

IMO perception is everything in a competitive airline industry. The international airline business has a lot of choice. I fly Thai because I won't fly on my national airline ever again because of the way the cabin crew behaved on the one flight I made with them. The situation was not really a problem as far as the flight was concerned, but it's the perception on which I made my decision. If I were on a flight where passengers were removed from their seats on the plane I wouldn't ever fly with them again, never mind dragging an old man screaming and bloodied down the aisle.

I also won't ever willingly fly with a certain major British airline again because back in the 1970s I was offended by a priggish hostess's attitude. Perceptions do matter.

Edited April 12, 2017 by thaibeachlovers

[Scott]

A post violating Fair Use policy has been removed.   You can only quote the headline and 3 sentences and a link to the remainder of the article.  

[thaibeachlovers]

2 hours ago, 55Jay said:

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.

From the other thread, the other 2 officers have also been put on "leave".

[Dipterocarp]

The public outrage stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of US law and aviation/maritime law in particular. The moment Dr. Dao disobeyed crew instructions he had committed a Federal offense and had no legal right to remain on the aircraft. Even if the airline had failed to uphold their contractual obligations the passenger had no right to force the airline to comply, only seek monetary damages before a court or arbitration. Mr. Dao's injuries are due his interaction with law enforcement, and his failure to comply with legal and valid instructions to deplane. Some of the officers are on leave for their brutal handling of Dr. Dao so surely he can charge them/ seek damages from the City of Chicago. I doubt any court would find the airline liable for bodily injury as there is no evidence any airline staff or crew touched him.

 

"The United Airlines Incident from the Perspective of an Airline Transport Pilot rated Aviation Attorney."

 

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/united-airlines-incident-from-perspective-airline-transport-fenton

[lvr181]

The law allowing the airline to remove a passenger(who was clearly of no security concern) from a plane is wrong and  immoral at the very least. The airline offered a seat to the passenger who paid for it (and was allowed to board) would be the basis of a contract - offer and acceptance! Now we have a breach of contract. The actions of the airline and its employees/agents are absolutely reprehensible and wrong in their interpretation and application of the "law". Hopefully the airline, its CEO and employees/agents are taken to the cleaners over this instance as an example to others not to do the same. And the law should be immediately amended to avoid this type of situation in the future.

 

 “Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men.” - Douglas Bader

[Chip Allen]

Wonder if it ever occurred to them to tell the passengers that the plane sits on the ground until four volunteers step forward? The way this was handled should cost them a fortune. Every officer involved in this should be fired and credentials revoked. No more cushy employment for these rubes.

Edited April 13, 2017 by Chip Allen

[tuktuktuk]

Why am I not surprised now to read that Dr. Dao is also a "pill doctor"?  He's been charged multiple times for illegal prescription drug offenses and had his license to practice medicine suspended for a number of years.  He still practices under a restricted license.  Not that it justifies how he was treated, but it explains the disdain for authority.  If I were United, in addition to apologizing and offering a settlement, I'd also refuse service to him in the future.

[dick dasterdly]

1 hour ago, lvr181 said:

The law allowing the airline to remove a passenger(who was clearly of no security concern) from a plane is wrong and  immoral at the very least. The airline offered a seat to the passenger who paid for it (and was allowed to board) would be the basis of a contract - offer and acceptance! Now we have a breach of contract. The actions of the airline and its employees/agents are absolutely reprehensible and wrong in their interpretation and application of the "law". Hopefully the airline, its CEO and employees/agents are taken to the cleaners over this instance as an example to others not to do the same. And the law should be immediately amended to avoid this type of situation in the future.

 

 “Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men.” - Douglas Bader

"The law allowing the airline to remove a passenger(who was clearly of no security concern) from a plane is wrong and  immoral at the very least."

 

Exactly.  IF ' any existing law can be manipulated to allow for security/police to forcibly remove passengers from 'planes purely for airline 'operational/saving money' reasons (as opposed to genuine security concerns), then hopefully it will be changed as a result of this incident.

[Rhys]

1 hour ago, tuktuktuk said:

Why am I not surprised now to read that Dr. Dao is also a "pill doctor"?  He's been charged multiple times for illegal prescription drug offenses and had his license to practice medicine suspended for a number of years.  He still practices under a restricted license.  Not that it justifies how he was treated, but it explains the disdain for authority.  If I were United, in addition to apologizing and offering a settlement, I'd also refuse service to him in the future.

 

....these types of MDs are royal Rectums to deal with in the hospital setting ... yes being an impaired MD would explain his attitude of entitlement.   Of course, sad they way he was removed should follow approved physical removal procedures, but the impaired MD brought it on himself, delaying departure and creating a spectacle as he said he would, "you have to drag me out of this seat."  

 

No excuses both ways...

 

 

 

 

[tuktuktuk]

3 minutes ago, Rhys said:

....these types of MDs are royal Rectums to deal with in the hospital setting ... yes being an impaired MD would explain his attitude of entitlement.   Of course, sad they way he was removed should follow approved physical removal procedures, but the impaired MD brought it on himself, delaying departure and creating a spectacle as he said he would, "you have to drag me out of this seat."  

 

No excuses both ways...

 

 

 

 

I have to put myself in the shoes of the security guards.  They were no doubt briefed by the captain.  He didn't accompany them because he had a responsibility to secure the cockpit in case of trouble.  They were probably only told that the airline has decided to remove this passenger from the flight and they were authorized to use force to compel him to leave the aircraft.  It would have been very hard for them to go back to the captain later and say "he doesn't want to leave".  They probably went too far, but after the good doctor punches you in the stomach or kicks you or bites you the animal instinct kicks in.

[mommysboy]

7 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.

I dont know.  Yes, they are entitled to remove passengers without justification at the time.  But there are aviation rules (I think) as to what situations do or do not qualify.  And then there is statutory superiority- the law of the land.

 

You seem to be aiming towards the position that the passenger is ultimately to blame for refusing to leave! Is that correct?

 

In my view, both the airline and security are to blame upwards of 90%.  I do not think it was wise to refuse to leave, even though the passenger was in the right.

 

I do not think that all that remains is a PR exercise.  I think security could well be in line for criminal charges, and the airline could be facing action for breach of contract, and defamation, as well as possible censure from the aviation authority for misuse of rules.

 

Basically they used a hammer to crack a nut- 99% of normal people will agree.  So I am at a bit of a loss to explain your attitude as you seem pretty normal.

[mommysboy]

10 minutes ago, tuktuktuk said:

I have to put myself in the shoes of the security guards.  They were no doubt briefed by the captain.  He didn't accompany them because he had a responsibility to secure the cockpit in case of trouble.  They were probably only told that the airline has decided to remove this passenger from the flight and they were authorized to use force to compel him to leave the aircraft.  It would have been very hard for them to go back to the captain later and say "he doesn't want to leave".  They probably went too far, but after the good doctor punches you in the stomach or kicks you or bites you the animal instinct kicks in.

Did he kick or bite then?  I can't tell from the video.

 

And yes I understand your point.  But security are not the only ones to be wearing shoes!

 

They do deserve some mitigation if they were left in the dark as to the reason for removal (there wasn't one).  And again if they had no option but to remove the passenger.  They were handed a poison chalice in my view.  But that does not excuse the incompetence.

 

PS: I am beginning to see there was no good, lawful reason at all to remove the passenger, except the possible refusal to leave itself, and to this end the airline has tried anyway it can to make a case that the doctor was disruptive, or belligerent.  But the point is that until the point of assault he appears calm, rational and reasonable.

Edited April 13, 2017 by mommysboy
addition

[eldragon]

17 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

I dont know.  Yes, they are entitled to remove passengers without justification at the time.  But there are aviation rules (I think) as to what situations do or do not qualify.  And then there is statutory superiority- the law of the land.

 

You seem to be aiming towards the position that the passenger is ultimately to blame for refusing to leave! Is that correct?

 

In my view, both the airline and security are to blame upwards of 90%.  I do not think it was wise to refuse to leave, even though the passenger was in the right.

 

I do not think that all that remains is a PR exercise.  I think security could well be in line for criminal charges, and the airline could be facing action for breach of contract, and defamation, as well as possible censure from the aviation authority for misuse of rules.

 

Basically they used a hammer to crack a nut- 99% of normal people will agree.  So I am at a bit of a loss to explain your attitude as you seem pretty normal.

 

My opinion is if you're asked to leave a plane for whatever reason, you do it. As soon as you resist that request, you're asking for trouble. Sorry, I can't go into any more detail. I'm exhausted from discussing the topic here and with my friends. Dipterocarp nailed my thoughts on the issue. If you need any more clarification, check out his post at #305.

[tuktuktuk]

4 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

Did he kick or bite then?  I can't tell from the video.

 

And yes I understand your point.  But security are not the only ones to be wearing shoes!

 

They do deserve some mitigation if they were left in the dark as to the reason for removal (there wasn't one).  And again if they had no option but to remove the passenger.  They were handed a poison chalice in my view.  But that does not excuse the incompetence.

 

PS: I am beginning to see there was no good, lawful reason at all to remove the passenger, except the possible refusal to leave itself, and to this end the airline has tried anyway it can to make a case that the doctor was disruptive, or belligerent.  But the point is that until the point of assault he appears calm, rational and reasonable.

I don't know if he struck or not, but it wouldn't surprise me.  From the videos I've seen I can't tell anything.  These guys are asked to remove passengers all the time, usually because they're drunk and obnoxious.  They don't have the latitude to negotiate or reason with people.  They're just told to remove the guy in seat 12c and that he refused an order to do so from a flight attendant.   You can't expect every security guard to have the capability of a trained negotiator.  It used to be that you didn't even need people like security guards.  

[mommysboy]

5 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.

I think you are right on this point. But possibly they did breach aviation rules determining the circumstances under which removal can take place, ie, they may not have had any right at all.  Certainly, from what has followed it appears they may have had no right.

 

There is also the general law of the land that usurps any contract.

[stevenl]

I have to put myself in the shoes of the security guards.  They were no doubt briefed by the captain.  He didn't accompany them because he had a responsibility to secure the cockpit in case of trouble.  They were probably only told that the airline has decided to remove this passenger from the flight and they were authorized to use force to compel him to leave the aircraft.  It would have been very hard for them to go back to the captain later and say "he doesn't want to leave".  They probably went too far, but after the good doctor punches you in the stomach or kicks you or bites you the animal instinct kicks in.

Making it up as you go to justify your opinion.

sent using Tapatalk

[kunfish]

So of all the people on the plane, they didn't just randomly select a seat number, they chose an Asian.
I won't be flying United again. Racist B@stards.

4 people were escorted off the plane.

What a mess.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kunfish]

Airlines such as United select passengers to be involuntarily denied boarding based on a number of factors, including the fare class of their tickets, frequent-flyer status, their itinerary, and when they checked in to the flight. No mention of race, sorry.

 

Anyway, at least it wasn't a white 'aviation security officer' that was responsible.

White officers focus on black passenger.

 

Pecking order or preference.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mommysboy]

1 minute ago, tuktuktuk said:

I don't know if he struck or not, but it wouldn't surprise me.  From the videos I've seen I can't tell anything.  These guys are asked to remove passengers all the time, usually because they're drunk and obnoxious.  They don't have the latitude to negotiate or reason with people.  They're just told to remove the guy in seat 12c and that he refused an order to do so from a flight attendant.   You can't expect every security guard to have the capability of a trained negotiator.  It used to be that you didn't even need people like security guards.  

 

You can expect them to be reasonable and act with a duty of care !!  They are trained professionals not night club bouncers.

 

So basically you have embellished a little, haven't you?

 

If the security guard had no option to establish grounds, or could not refuse, then that is some mitigation imo.

 

By the way, I really think the doctor should have just left on personal safety grounds, regardless that he was in the right. Silly to argue with security.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[rockingrobin]

3 hours ago, Dipterocarp said:

The public outrage stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of US law and aviation/maritime law in particular. The moment Dr. Dao disobeyed crew instructions he had committed a Federal offense and had no legal right to remain on the aircraft. Even if the airline had failed to uphold their contractual obligations the passenger had no right to force the airline to comply, only seek monetary damages before a court or arbitration. Mr. Dao's injuries are due his interaction with law enforcement, and his failure to comply with legal and valid instructions to deplane. Some of the officers are on leave for their brutal handling of Dr. Dao so surely he can charge them/ seek damages from the City of Chicago. I doubt any court would find the airline liable for bodily injury as there is no evidence any airline staff or crew touched him.

 

"The United Airlines Incident from the Perspective of an Airline Transport Pilot rated Aviation Attorney."

 

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/united-airlines-incident-from-perspective-airline-transport-fenton

The request from flight crew as to be lawfull , reasonable and justifiable , otherwise a passenger is compelled to obey instructions from crew even if such actions are unlawfull

[tuktuktuk]

Yes, I'm hypothesizing to a degree. To describe the security guards as trained professionals may be step too far. Usually when people are mad and resist they strike out some too, but not always.  When people get bloody noses from cops it usually came after they slapped him or tried to grab his gun.   I've seen it more than a handful of times in bars in New Orleans.  Pissed off or not I would have politely left my seat and avoided the confrontation.

[stevenl]

Yes, I'm hypothesizing to a degree. To describe the security guards as trained professionals may be step too far. Usually when people are mad and resist they strike out some too, but not always.  When people get bloody noses from cops it usually came after they slapped him or tried to grab his gun.   I've seen it more than a handful of times in bars in New Orleans.  Pissed off or not I would have politely left my seat and avoided the confrontation.

No, not to 'a degree'. You're making it up to suit your stance.

sent using Tapatalk

[tuktuktuk]

1 minute ago, stevenl said:

No, not to 'a degree'. You're making it up to suit your stance.

sent using Tapatalk
 

You think the security guards bloodied his nose just for fun?  Usually more to the story than that.

[rockingrobin]

8 minutes ago, tuktuktuk said:

8 minutes ago, tuktuktuk said:

You think the security guards bloodied his nose just for fun?  Usually more to the story than that.

 

 Explain, how did the bloody nose come about

Edited April 13, 2017 by rockingrobin

[dick dasterdly]

1 hour ago, tuktuktuk said:

I have to put myself in the shoes of the security guards.  They were no doubt briefed by the captain.  He didn't accompany them because he had a responsibility to secure the cockpit in case of trouble.  They were probably only told that the airline has decided to remove this passenger from the flight and they were authorized to use force to compel him to leave the aircraft.  It would have been very hard for them to go back to the captain later and say "he doesn't want to leave".  They probably went too far, but after the good doctor punches you in the stomach or kicks you or bites you the animal instinct kicks in.

The initial two security guards seemed unsure how to proceed - it was only the third security guard (who arrived later?)  that physically dragged the passenger away.

 

I too have sympathy with the first two security guards, but would be interested to find out who called them to the 'plane - and the reasons given.

 

We also need to know who gave the third security guard permission to use physical force - or was it a decision he made on his own 'initiative'?

 

Regardless, any law  that allows the physical removal of a passenger would have been put in place for reasons of security/well being of other passengers - neither of which apply in this case.  Any possible law that exists, was used inappropriately by the airline, which hopefully will result in the law (if it exists) being amended to stop airlines using it entirely inappropriately - as happened in this case.

Edited April 13, 2017 by dick dasterdly

[reenatinnakor]

The silence seems deadly from the Dr and his lawyers! Let's hope this is the biggest lawsuit in the world and United go bankrupt because of this. There won't be a person in the world that won't be happy with that!

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

[dick dasterdly]

1 minute ago, reenatinnakor said:

The silence seems deadly from the Dr and his lawyers! Let's hope this is the biggest lawsuit in the world and United go bankrupt because of this. There won't be a person in the world that won't be happy with that!

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

There's another thread about this.

 

His lawyers have started proceedings - requesting that UA retain all footage/voice recordings etc. to ensure that no evidence as to how this happened is 'lost'.

[Andrew Dwyer]

 Explain, how did the bloody nose come about

Someone has slowed down the video at the exact moment he gets dragged out and you can clearly see him hitting the arm of the seat in the opposite row with his face.
Not sure where I saw this as there is a lot of media coverage.

[reenatinnakor]

There's another thread about this.
 
His lawyers have started proceedings - requesting that UA retain all footage/voice recordings etc. to ensure that no evidence as to how this happened is 'lost'.

Yeah just read that on the Guardian. This is going to be interesting. In a country where you can get millions for being careless and spilling hot coffee on yourself, Dr Dao and his lawyers have literally just won the Powerball and mega millions in the same week!

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

[ddavidovsky]

10 hours ago, 55Jay said:

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

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.