Officer on leave after dragging United Airlines passenger off plane

[ddavidovsky]

11 minutes ago, thaihome said:

 

If the only solution the airport policeman (wearing causal plain clothes) thought  to the situation was to reach across a seat and drag a 69 year old man physically out of his seat and drag him down the aisle in full view of some 70 other passengers, the policeman has no business being in law enforcement.   This is the exact same attitude that gets unarmed people shot (I note that the Chicago airport police are not allowed to be armed). 

 

The most obvious way to me would be to rather then make the passenger a martyr to airline incompetence and police brutality would be to make it understood to other passengers the plane was going nowhere until he got up. It would not have taken long for the other passengers to turn on him and demand he leave. At that point, dragging him out would have been applauded.  But unfortunately,  there is a certain percentage of police in the US whose first reaction is always to violence.

 

Having spent a very small bit of time in law enforcement I can tell you there are some that look forward to exactly theses situations and live for the adrenaline rush they get from acting out their aggressions . 

 

TH  

You want security men to act like social workers. I'd rather they acted like security men and kicked ass when necessary - for the good of everyone.

 

This thread has degenerated into a typical whiny faux-outrage fest. Did someone actually say above that the guy's life has been ruined? Everyone needs to strap on a pair and stop promoting victimhood.

 

 

 

 

[richard_smith237]

6 minutes ago, ddavidovsky said:

You want security men to act like social workers. I'd rather they acted like security men and kicked ass when necessary - for the good of everyone.

 

This thread has degenerated into a typical whiny faux-outrage fest. Did someone actually say above that the guy's life has been ruined? Everyone needs to strap on a pair and stop promoting victimhood.

 

 

 

 

 

OK... so you are in a restaurant, you've paid in advance for the meal... then a Waiter comes and tell you to get out because they need your table for someone else....  You would get out happily ?...  you would be happy that security acted like 'Men' and kicked your ass (if necessary) ?... 

 

This is not 'faux-outrage' it is truly shocking that someone who has paid for their seat can get kicked off a flight in such a manner. It was handled extremely poorly.

 

I agree that sometimes people do need to strap on a pair - but this is not one of those situations.

 

Issues like this need to be stood up against... Doing so is for your benefit, for everyones benefit. Next time you fly on a full flight and are not treated this way consider it is so because Airlines have learned a lesson....

[scorecard]

What seems to have been forgotten is that the man dragged off the flight is 69 years old, which means he was very likely too old to fight off the thugs.

 

The thugs can easily see he is an old man, why didn't they have some basic respect for age and say something to whoever was directing them from the airline?

 

Why didn't the airline staff on site when they realized he's an old man take some quick action to abort the action? 

[rockingrobin]

42 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Only once have I been made aware my flight was over-booked. 

 

I was offered money and a hotel to take the following days flight. I can't remember the amount, but I refused. 

This was before Check-In... 

 

So.. IF they knew this flight was overbooked before boarding - how did this guy get on the flight ?

IF they only found out that the flight was overbooked after boarding, my question is <deleted> is the airline playing at !!!

 

Handled extremely poorly...  This may cost United in a law suit, it will cost them in revenue. I'll avoid them like I avoid budget carriers. 

 

 

 

I dont think the the flight was overbooked before boarding.

According to the CEO, the flight was fully boarded when crew members approached the gate staff and said they needed to be on the flight

[richard_smith237]

2 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

I dont think the the flight was overbooked before boarding.

According to the CEO, the flight was fully boarded when crew members approached the gate staff and said they needed to be on the flight

 

Which makes this even more disgusting...  there are and have always been far more intelligent ways of handling such issues...  Issuing 'cash' rather than the crappy vouchers, or offering a free ticket are simple, easy to implement methods of solving this situation simply and effectively...  

 

This Airline is either Truly foolish, or extremely arrogant in their handling of this situation. 

[55Jay]

Just seems (it may not be true) that US flight attendants have developed short fuses and chips on their shoulders in the last couple decades since....you know.    Quick to call in law enforcement intervention, like a personal, on-demand, government funded bouncer service.  Just use the right buzz words "He might be a THREAT!", off you go, to airport jail for attitude adjustment. 

 

Doesn't matter if you're in the right, if you argue or stick up for yourself, you are irrational, possibly mentally disturbed, and that shoe horns you into the "threat" category even more.

 

These flight attendants are jaded, dealing with the same shit day in day out.  They might simply have enough one day, and make an example out of someone to vent their accrued frustration, and the fact they hate their jobs.  It doesn't take long either, they fall into the "culture".  My 1st wife was a trolley dolly.  Said all her colleagues were in agreement - worst part of the job was passengers.  If they could do away with them, it would be the perfect career, flying around the world in empty airplanes. 

 

This guy was clearly in a state, wanting to go home.  Maybe chose somebody else that might not be so disagreeable or high strung about it.  But no.  That's no longer the point.  He failed to comply with trolley dolly's orders which were bullshit and corporate designed to begin with - but never mind that now.  Call in the cops, maybe they can intimidate him into complying.  If not, well, whatever they do, and we know what that is........ isn't my fault.  I bet the Dollies were enjoying the spectacle at first.   Bet they aren't now.  

[watgate]

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

[scorecard]

1 minute ago, rockingrobin said:

I dont think the the flight was overbooked before boarding.

According to the CEO, the flight was fully boarded when crew members approached the gate staff and said they needed to be on the flight

 

Just wondering whether crew members can just front up to the gate, totally unannounced by a previous memo to the boarding agents / staff, show some company ID and say 'I want a seat on this flight and get boarded or do they need to show a document signed by a higher level of authority to get seats?

 

Doesn't of course change the fact it was all very poorly handled.

[thaihome]

21 minutes ago, ddavidovsky said:

You want security men to act like social workers. I'd rather they acted like security men and kicked ass when necessary - for the good of everyone.

 

This thread has degenerated into a typical whiny faux-outrage fest. Did someone actually say above that the guy's life has been ruined? Everyone needs to strap on a pair and stop promoting victimhood.

 

 

 

 

There is not a law enforcement official in the US that believes the police should be the first to initiate violence in a non-violent confrontation. So, yes, a competent law enforcement officer is indeed required to be a "social worker" at times. 

 

Only about 27% of police personal have fired their weapons in line of duty. There are definite personality patterns of those that have done so. 

Overall, those who have fired a weapon on duty and those who haven’t are broadly similar in terms of their personal traits, the types of communities they serve and even their attitudes about crime-fighting. But an analysis of the survey results finds some modest but intriguing differences.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/02/08/a-closer-look-at-police-officers-who-have-fired-their-weapon-on-duty/

 

It appears the first two officers on the scene made no move to become violent and it was only the third one that  showed up and made a single demand and then grabbed the 69 year old man and dragged him from his seat. He is undoubtedly the one that has been suspended and hopefully will be fired.

 

If his reaction to what up untill  his arrival was a non-violent incident is to assault a 69 year old man he has no business being in law enforcement or security or any position that requires him to reason with the public. I sure don't want to have to meet him and I'm only 65.

 

TH 

[rockingrobin]

1 minute ago, scorecard said:

 

Just wondering whether crew members can just front up to the gate, totally unannounced by a previous memo to the boarding agents / staff, show some company ID and say 'I want a seat on this flight and get boarded or do they need to show a document signed by a higher level of authority to get seats?

 

Doesn't of course change the fact it was all very poorly handled.

I understand but have not confirmed, that there was a later flight available

[tuktuktuk]

I hate to say it, but I have take a different view.  When uniformed security personnel instruct you to leave your seat you must comply.  Fighting it endangers everyone surrounding you.  I agree that United handled it badly and I don't fully understand the rule that they invoked.  In spite of the fact that being kicked off the plane would make me really angry, I would never do what this doctor did.  It's just like the way people resist arrest today.  It's futile and puts you at risk.  Get off the plane and fight later.  United should have the right to refuse anyone service and you should have the right to seek redress through the courts, but not with your fists. 

[daveAustin]

40 minutes ago, ddavidovsky said:

You want security men to act like social workers. I'd rather they acted like security men and kicked ass when necessary - for the good of everyone.

 

This thread has degenerated into a typical whiny faux-outrage fest. Did someone actually say above that the guy's life has been ruined? Everyone needs to strap on a pair and stop promoting victimhood.

And you would take it like a man had you been dragged off a plane and assaulted because they overbooked? pfft. I could understand if he had a bomb or was drunk and abusive, but c'mon! 

 

Hear United CEO says the passenger was belligerent and that United probably won't press charges lol. They're begging for it aren't they. Let's hope the chap presses charges and they get shafted for millions plus loss of revenue.

[ddavidovsky]

38 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

OK... so you are in a restaurant, you've paid in advance for the meal... then a Waiter comes and tell you to get out because they need your table for someone else....  You would get out happily ?...  you would be happy that security acted like 'Men' and kicked your ass (if necessary) ?... 

 

This is not 'faux-outrage' it is truly shocking that someone who has paid for their seat can get kicked off a flight in such a manner. It was handled extremely poorly.

 

I agree that sometimes people do need to strap on a pair - but this is not one of those situations.

 

Issues like this need to be stood up against... Doing so is for your benefit, for everyones benefit. Next time you fly on a full flight and are not treated this way consider it is so because Airlines have learned a lesson....

As far as I understand, the airline's rules on this issue are stated in the small print and the customer has legally bound himself in an explicit contract to those rules in buying the ticket. In a restaurant, as there's no explicit contract covering the issue, basic consumer rights would apply and the customer would have a genuine grievance.

That's clear enough to me and and I'm not even a lawyer.

 

In any case, neither of us was there at the time so we don't know exactly how it happened. Experience tells me though that most likely the security men requested the man politely but firmly at first to accompany them off the plane. They would be trained to do that. They wouldn't have known in any case what this was all about - they were simply told to remove the passenger.

No doubt after several refusals, at which point they could see the man wasn't in his right mind, he was deemed to be a potential danger to the flight and was forcibly ejected. That was correct.

How he managed to get back in is the only question worthy of investigation here - he could have been a genuine psycho. 

 

Edited April 11, 2017 by ddavidovsky

[canthai55]

50 minutes ago, ddavidovsky said:

You want security men to act like social workers. I'd rather they acted like security men and kicked ass when necessary - for the good of everyone.

Well Keyboard Warrior - this passenger was assaulted. By Fascist Thugs. Of which - I am sure - you are, or wish to be - one.

[Flustered]

It would help if FMs actually read what happened rather than made bland comments.

 

There was no overbooking, the excuse made by United for the passengers removal. Everyone boarded and then 4 aircrew turned up and wanted a seat because they had to be in St Louis on Monday. United only offered coupons (when in fact passengers can insist on cash or cheque), an overnight hotel and the next flight. 3 accepted but the Chinese passenger did not want to accept the next flight which was on Monday afternoon. The rest is video evidence for the courts and United will be paying a hefty amount to shut this down.

To further compound United's pathetic handling of this case, United operates more non stop US-China flights, and to more cities in China, than any other airline. Not for much longer. Over 100 million Chinese have taken to Twitter over this. Expect big ramifications.

[55Jay]

6 minutes ago, ddavidovsky said:

As far as I understand, the airline's rules on this issue are stated in the small print and the customer has legally bound himself in an explicit contract to those rules in buying the ticket. In a restaurant, as there's no explicit contract covering the issue, basic consumer rights would apply and the customer would have a genuine grievance.

That's clear enough to me and and I'm not even a lawyer.

 

In any case, neither of us was there at the time so we don't know exactly how it happened. Experience tells me though that most likely the security men requested the man politely but firmly at first to accompany them off the plane. They would be trained to do that. They wouldn't have known in any case what this was all about - they were simply told to remove the passenger.

No doubt after several refusals, at which point they could see the man wasn't in his right mind, he was deemed to be a potential danger to the flight and was forcibly ejected. That was correct.

How he managed to get back in is the only question worthy of investigation here - he could have been a genuine psycho. 

 

The point is the reason this all started to being with.  United is not the only airline pulling this bullshit day in day out, but the holes in the Swiss cheese lined up, they were too cocky and cavalier, and now they are out there on front street.  Senior management is trying to set the tone in the media, but it's not going well, people are buying this crap.   They are going to lose this one.  Other airlines are watching this and have likely sent out internal memos already. 

Edited April 11, 2017 by 55Jay

[ddavidovsky]

1 minute ago, 55Jay said:

The point is the reason this all started to being with.  United is not the only airline pulling this bullshit day in day out, but the holes in the Swiss cheese lined up, they were too cocky and cavalier, and now they are out there on front street.  Senior management is trying to set the tone in the media, but it's not going well.  They are going to lose this one.  Other airlines are watching this and have likely sent out internal memos already.

Probably. I don't underestimate the power of faux-outrage. It destroys lives like nothing else.

[Rhys]

...thus flying brings out the best in people...

[thaihome]

Just now, ddavidovsky said:

Probably. I don't underestimate the power of faux-outrage. It destroys lives like nothing else.

I think you may be the only one characterizing this with the "faux" outrage label.

 

It would appear the sight of a 69 year old man with a bloody face being dragged through an  airliners has generated "real" outrage. And it's only getting worse as United is refusing to say it screwed up and accept responsibility.  

 

Appears the  Chicago Airport Police are the only ones actually taking positive actions in suspending the officer. I suspect that suspension happened when the other two told their superiors what happened. 

TH 

[Rhys]

13 minutes ago, Flustered said:

It would help if FMs actually read what happened rather than made bland comments.

 

 

There was no overbooking, the excuse made by United for the passengers removal. Everyone boarded and then 4 aircrew turned up and wanted a seat because they had to be in St Louis on Monday. United only offered coupons (when in fact passengers can insist on cash or cheque), an overnight hotel and the next flight. 3 accepted but the Chinese passenger did not want to accept the next flight which was on Monday afternoon. The rest is video evidence for the courts and United will be paying a hefty amount to shut this down.

To further compound United's pathetic handling of this case, United operates more non stop US-China flights, and to more cities in China, than any other airline. Not for much longer. Over 100 million Chinese have taken to Twitter over this. Expect big ramifications.

 

watch some of the antics of the Chinese flyers on the tube... 

[ddavidovsky]

4 minutes ago, thaihome said:

I think you may be the only one characterizing this with the "faux" outrage label.

 

It would appear the sight of a 69 year old man with a bloody face being dragged through an  airliners has generated "real" outrage. And it's only getting worse as United is refusing to say it screwed up and accept responsibility.  

 

Appears the  Chicago Airport Police are the only ones actually taking positive actions in suspending the officer. I suspect that suspension happened when the other two told their superiors what happened. 

TH 

Any thoughts for that security officer who was just doing his job dealing with a fractious idiot on a plane?  Have you wondered whether he has a wife and kids?  People who lose their jobs lose their livelihoods, their reputations - possibly even their marriages. They can be a suicide risk - oh yes. There's a life thoroughly ruined. Anyone who is happy with that is a dangerous and irresponsible member of society.

 

This is faux-outrage because it's a trivial event. Some idiot getting a bloody nose he asked for (by breaking the rules he was contracted to) is not worth campaigning over - certainly not worth a torch-and-pitchfork outrage costing people's jobs and livelihoods. Perspective needed.

[A1Str8]

It's interesting to see how certain suppressed little robots, that used to be humans, in this case the so called security jump on any opportunity to show that they are someone and they they have some power, while in fact they are just the laughingstock of the whole world. 

[thaihome]

1 minute ago, ddavidovsky said:

Any thoughts for that security officer who was just doing his job dealing with a fractious idiot on a plane?  Have you wondered whether he has a wife and kids?  People who lose their jobs lose their livelihoods, their reputations - possibly even their marriages. They can be a suicide risk - oh yes. There's a life thoroughly ruined. Anyone who is happy with that is a dangerous and irresponsible member of society.

 

This is faux-outrage because it's a trivial event. Some idiot getting a bloody nose he asked for (by breaking the rules he was contracted to) is not worth campaigning over - certainly not worth a torch-and-pitchfork outrage costing people's jobs and livelihoods. Perspective needed.

To put it bluntly,  that officer deserves to lose his livelihood in law enforcement.  He has no place in it if that is his reaction in less then a minute of arriving on the scene.  

 

Again, I have personally known such people and it was their presence  in law enforcement and the unwillingness of management to address their excesses  that was one of the key factors in me choosing another profession 50 years ago.

TH 

 

[scorecard]

28 minutes ago, ddavidovsky said:

As far as I understand, the airline's rules on this issue are stated in the small print and the customer has legally bound himself in an explicit contract to those rules in buying the ticket. In a restaurant, as there's no explicit contract covering the issue, basic consumer rights would apply and the customer would have a genuine grievance.

That's clear enough to me and and I'm not even a lawyer.

 

In any case, neither of us was there at the time so we don't know exactly how it happened. Experience tells me though that most likely the security men requested the man politely but firmly at first to accompany them off the plane. They would be trained to do that. They wouldn't have known in any case what this was all about - they were simply told to remove the passenger.

No doubt after several refusals, at which point they could see the man wasn't in his right mind, he was deemed to be a potential danger to the flight and was forcibly ejected. That was correct.

How he managed to get back in is the only question worthy of investigation here - he could have been a genuine psycho. 

 

"

No doubt after several refusals, at which point they could see the man wasn't in his right mind, he was deemed to be a potential danger to the flight and was forcibly ejected. That was correct.

How he managed to get back in is the only question worthy of investigation here - he could have been a genuine psycho."

 

Now your going way beyond simple assumptions about the whole matter and woth noevidence:

 

- 'No doubt after several refusals, at which point they could see the man wasn't in his right mind...' Wow, on what basis do you make such an explicit statement?

 

- '...he was deemed to be a potential danger to the flight...' Really, was he carrying a bomb?  Again, on what basis do you make this explicit statement?" 

 

- '...he could have been a genuine psycho...'  Again, on what basis do you make this explicit statement? Everybody in the world could be a genuine psycho, perhaps everybody in the world should be banned from flying, banned from restaurants, banned from breathing - now there's a solution.

 

[55Jay]

53 minutes ago, ddavidovsky said:

Probably. I don't underestimate the power of faux-outrage. It destroys lives like nothing else.

I get what you're saying.  I still don't disagree with you about the faux-outrage, crusaders, SJWs, etc.,  but on this one, IMO, the airlines need to pause and re-calibrate in a few areas.  And it's not SJW's and moaners, it's the people who were there raising the alarm after what they saw.

 

Airlines have become too cavalier with this expectation of unquestioned compliance, backed by the full force of the law at their fingertips.  And having the automatic benefit of the doubt under the "security" blanket of 9/11.  That's power and power corrupts.

 

Their response thus far seems to bear out an obstinate culture.  Us and them.  This "oh, we might not press charges on him" comment shows how disconnected and cavalier they've become.  They are not infallible, beyond reproach, questioning and accountability; not just to the board and shareholders, but to the flying public they still refer to as "their customers".  86 million of them last year.  They need to wise up and quit being so ham handed.  Quick.  Or the public will do it for them.

Edited April 11, 2017 by 55Jay

[Miaow]

Any thoughts for that security officer who was just doing his job dealing with a fractious idiot on a plane?  Have you wondered whether he has a wife and kids?  People who lose their jobs lose their livelihoods, their reputations - possibly even their marriages. They can be a suicide risk - oh yes. There's a life thoroughly ruined. Anyone who is happy with that is a dangerous and irresponsible member of society.

 

This is faux-outrage because it's a trivial event. Some idiot getting a bloody nose he asked for (by breaking the rules he was contracted to) is not worth campaigning over - certainly not worth a torch-and-pitchfork outrage costing people's jobs and livelihoods. Perspective needed.

Bad judgement call on his part.


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Basil B]

13 hours ago, webfact said:

The airline said it had asked for volunteers to leave because additional flight crew needed to get to Louisville.

They were not even United Air Crew who they were bumping 4 Pax for... 

 

They should have just upped the price until they had 4 volunteers, everybody has their price.

Start with:

• Free upgrade on next available flight
• + lounge passes
• + refund cost of tickets
• + 5 star Hotel and meals
• Then start with real money and just keep upping it until they get the takers.

[55Jay]

11 minutes ago, ddavidovsky said:

Any thoughts for that security officer who was just doing his job dealing with a fractious idiot on a plane?  Have you wondered whether he has a wife and kids?  People who lose their jobs lose their livelihoods, their reputations - possibly even their marriages. They can be a suicide risk - oh yes. There's a life thoroughly ruined. Anyone who is happy with that is a dangerous and irresponsible member of society.

 

This is faux-outrage because it's a trivial event. Some idiot getting a bloody nose he asked for (by breaking the rules he was contracted to) is not worth campaigning over - certainly not worth a torch-and-pitchfork outrage costing people's jobs and livelihoods. Perspective needed.

It's not trivial.  Perhaps all this faux-outrage has hardened you.   Although it's interesting you've suddenly sprouted empathy and compassion for the other guy.   

Edited April 11, 2017 by 55Jay

[55Jay]

2 minutes ago, Basil B said:

They were not even United Air Crew who they were bumping 4 Pax for... 

 

They should have just upped the price until they had 4 volunteers, everybody has their price.

Start with:

• Free upgrade on next available flight
• + lounge passes
• + refund cost of tickets
• + 5 star Hotel and meals
• Then start with real money and just keep upping it until they get the takers.

Nope.  Quit at $800 (company policy/max is $1,350) and called in the bruisers instead.  Gunna teach these pax a lesson they won't soon forget.  Indeed, many pax and potential future pax, could very well remember this for some time to come.

[scorecard]

50 minutes ago, tuktuktuk said:

I hate to say it, but I have take a different view.  When uniformed security personnel instruct you to leave your seat you must comply.  Fighting it endangers everyone surrounding you.  I agree that United handled it badly and I don't fully understand the rule that they invoked.  In spite of the fact that being kicked off the plane would make me really angry, I would never do what this doctor did.  It's just like the way people resist arrest today.  It's futile and puts you at risk.  Get off the plane and fight later.  United should have the right to refuse anyone service and you should have the right to seek redress through the courts, but not with your fists. 

 

Is it fact that the passenger actually got violent with the third police officer?