United passenger launches legal action over forceful removal

[Rob13]

17 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

 It's also not a good idea to argue with someone half your age and more, who is handy with his fists.

 

 

In a biker bar or in neanderthal days maybe. Dr Dao, did the right thing, he stood his ground and placed the responsibility of everything that followed squarely on UA' s and the cops shoulders. Had this incident occurred prior to boarding you'd have a point, once he was seated though the rules changed. 

 

Was he travelling with his wife, and did they ask her to leave too? 

 

 

Edited April 17, 2017 by Rob13

[garyk]

United Airlines, board as a doctor, leave as a patient... :)

[my friend I]

On 4/16/2017 at 1:54 AM, oldcarguy said:

in my younger days I asked to be put on the "bump" list since it did not matter when I got somewhere ,

 

United could have said $2500 cash and there would have been a rush to give up their seat m United just got cheap,

 

But that being said United has screwed all its Frequent flyer passangers the last 5 years ,  I had 300,000 FF plus miles that I just used up and have not flown United since ,

 

This is just how you get treated anymore flying , maybe not beat up , but not treated as a valued customer that they want to keep,

 

They don't offer cash. They give out flights.  They value them at full fare. There are restrictions on when you can fly, no holidays for example.

[ddavidovsky]

4 hours ago, canthai55 said:

On the contrary -

In this case, we have a medical doctor who refused to de-plane, and security was called. He acted immature, for sure, and in the process of forcibly removing him from his seat, his head was slammed against an armrest.

So why is this case different?

Because the man had a legal right to keep his seat.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/04/why-united-is-in-legal-trouble-over-removing-a-passenger/

Lawyers cavil, it's their job, but this situation is adequately covered by both Rule 21.H.2 and 21.H.4.

His selfish, anti-social behaviour was preventing the plane leaving and any such behaviour is de facto disruptive.

 

Number of entitled cry-babies in the world nowadays is amazing. It's a trivial issue. Just get off the damn plane and if you're really so upset by it, take up the legal case thereafter if necessary.

 

 

[USPatriot]

I guess he didn't know he booked the black eye flight instead of the red eye flight

[USPatriot]

1 hour ago, ddavidovsky said:

Lawyers cavil, it's their job, but this situation is adequately covered by both Rule 21.H.2 and 21.H.4.

His selfish, anti-social behaviour was preventing the plane leaving and any such behaviour is de facto disruptive.

 

Number of entitled cry-babies in the world nowadays is amazing. It's a trivial issue. Just get off the damn plane and if you're really so upset by it, take up the legal case thereafter if necessary.

 

 

Say anything and they will say you are being disruptive.  Then they will say your being agressive.

 

People are treated like cattle by the tsa and airlines. I'm glad they lost $250,000,000 from the stock price.  I guarantee if they didn't no one would be in trouble. The officer was put on leave"pending an investigation"

[canthai55]

2 hours ago, ddavidovsky said:

Number of entitled cry-babies in the world nowadays is amazing. It's a trivial issue. Just get off the damn plane and if you're really so upset by it, take up the legal case thereafter if necessary.

Trivial - a Concussion is Trivial ?

First you say - Obey the rules.

When pointed out that the passenger was obeying the Rules - now he is a crybaby.

The Fascist Security - and United - are totally at fault here. Can you not see that - the law has been linked for you to read.

Give your Head a Shake

 

Edited April 17, 2017 by canthai55

[mommysboy]

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/apr/16/united-airlines-changes-crew-flight-policy-forcible-removal

 

The main gist is that seats for airline staff will be allocated at least an hour before departure.

 

I don't suppose this would have happened if the doctor had not made his stand.

[funandsuninbangkok]

On 4/13/2017 at 9:04 AM, Jonmarleesco said:

'... Delta Air Lines Inc CEO Ed Bastian on Wednesday defended overbooking as "a valid business practice"' That suggests it is ethical, an observation that is complete BS! 

Without overbooking, prices will go up significantly. 

[Rob13]

5 hours ago, my friend I said:

They don't offer cash. They give out flights.  

 

 

They're not even flights but coupons you can use against the charges on a UA flight where you'll get the same crap service. 

 

If they were handing out $100 bills no doubt they would have  had some takers. A multi-billion dollar business laying it's future on the line to save a few hundred bucks. Pretty sure they don't teach that at Harvard business school.

Edited April 17, 2017 by Rob13

[mommysboy]

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/17/united-air-removes-couple-traveling-to-wedding-from-plane.html

 

Perhaps we'll be hearing a lot more about incidents like this as people start getting the idea they can do what they like.

[Dumbastheycome]

31 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/17/united-air-removes-couple-traveling-to-wedding-from-plane.html

 

Perhaps we'll be hearing a lot more about incidents like this as people start getting the idea they can do what they like.

Is  it a   matter  of  "  Do what  you  like "  or  a matter  of  "  I  will  refuse  to selectively be  denied  the  service I have paid  for"  ?

[mommysboy]

This is very interesting as it is almost identical to the UA case.  Notice the couple did walk and then still got treated badly.  Non-natives again!

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/easyjet-denied-boarding-luton-catania-manoj-viddha-offloaded-united-airlines-a7686931.html

 

 

 

[Rob13]

7 hours ago, mommysboy said:

This is very interesting as it is almost identical to the UA case.  Notice the couple did walk and then still got treated badly.  Non-natives again!

 

Here's the thing, they were asked to leave the plane in accordance with airline policy and they did. The only reason it's in the news today is because the same thing happened to the old man last week who threw a tantrum and got his nose broken. If he hadn't  done that, the airlines would still be throwing people off planes for whatever reason saying it's policy.  You gotta wonder how many other cases are out there that haven't been newsworthy enough to hear about.

Edited April 18, 2017 by Rob13

[dick dasterdly]

20 hours ago, funandsuninbangkok said:

Without overbooking, prices will go up significantly. 

Can't say I'm particularly bothered about airlines overbooking - as long as any issues are resolved properly.  i.e. Passengers are offered generous financial incentives to take the next flight before boarding.  If the offer is generous enough, they'll find passengers happy to accept the offer.

 

In this case overbooking wasn't the problem - trying to remove already seated passengers for airline staff was the first problem.  Exacerbated by trying to offer as little as possible and then calling in security staff to forcibly remove a passenger.....

[rcoyote]

I just don't get why the airline would offer up to $1000 to the customer when they could easily make a deal with another airline for a hell of a lot less and not risk pissing off their customers. United is definitely missing a gene to what customer service means and will likely be torn apart over their reptilian approach in the age of social media. Did they ever look at why SouthWest Air grew so fast?

[gk10002000]

I don't mind an airline overbooking a flight.  I think they have some right to do that, as they try to keep the plane full and they know that statistically, say 2% or 5% or whatever of booked passengers don't make the flight.  What is completely wrong is removing a passenger once they have boarded the flight.  You let the person on the plane, the person stays on the plane.  In the meantime, I hope this passenger punishes the airline and the managers that on that given day approved his removal.  That means the Pilot, who has ultimate control of the plane, the United operations manager that day at the airport, any supervisors at United that he contacted, etc.

[BEVUP]

On 4/17/2017 at 1:04 PM, canthai55 said:

Trivial - a Concussion is Trivial ?

First you say - Obey the rules.

When pointed out that the passenger was obeying the Rules - now he is a crybaby.

The Fascist Security - and United - are totally at fault here. Can you not see that - the law has been linked for you to read.

Give your Head a Shake

 

Trivial

Well i would like to see you at the check in counter when they refuse you or any of your family & for that fact even if your travelling alone to maybe have to return to work or ect thinking your sitting in your comfortable booked seat knowing that you will get your connecting flight to maybe stay gainfully employed (companies certainly do not like when you miss a chartered flight & pin everything on you ) 

The airlines are full of it & the idiots that think airfares will rise are just supporting the airlines on double dipping

[BEVUP]

On 4/17/2017 at 2:15 PM, funandsuninbangkok said:

Without overbooking, prices will go up significantly. 

They're fulling peoples head with rubbish 

As i stated before you can't get better then every seat paid for & for that fact maybe even twice 

I would love to have a business & be able to renege 

[manarak]

On 17.4.2017 at 2:15 PM, funandsuninbangkok said:

Without overbooking, prices will go up significantly. 

and this case wasn't even overbooking !

 

United needed the seats to fly their own employees !!!

 

but let's place the blame where it belongs: US security agents behaving like brutish apes as usual.

Edited April 19, 2017 by manarak

[thaibeachlovers]

On 4/14/2017 at 1:21 AM, Credo said:

This is a very unfortunate situation for a lot of people and it will probably take some guidance from the courts to sort it all out.   

 

There are two organizations involved, one is the airline and the other is the police.   The airline needed to deboard one person and when selected and he refused, they contacted the police.   The police are not a court and did what they were requested to do, which is remove a passenger.   

 

The police can't easily assess the merits of a situation and they rely on the complainant to have made the request in good faith; the same as when they are called in for a domestic dispute.   With an airline, they have the added burden of running the possibility that someone is a security risk.    

 

So, first there needs to be regulations as to when law enforcement is called because once they are called, they will remove someone.   He didn't appear to be a disruptive passenger or a security risk until he was asked to leave the plane.   There is nothing to indicate he would have become disruptive during the flight, as is sometimes the case with passengers who are intoxicated.   

 

 

 

 

The VDO has been deleted from the OP so I can't check, but the guy that was doing the dragging was not a uniformed cop, so probably NOT a policeman.

Far as I know, real cops don't do the bidding of private companies without evidence of wrongdoing. The passenger was not breaking any laws, so why would a real cop do anything?

[Langsuan Man]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The VDO has been deleted from the OP so I can't check, but the guy that was doing the dragging was not a uniformed cop, so probably NOT a policeman.

Far as I know, real cops don't do the bidding of private companies without evidence of wrongdoing. The passenger was not breaking any laws, so why would a real cop do anything?

No VDO needed :

 

Quote

The officers were unarmed Chicago aviation police, a little-known security force that was the topic of a different controversy earlier this year when the airport cops — who carry radios, but not guns —were notified in an email they wouldn’t be expected to show up at disturbances in unsecured areas of the airports. Protecting unsecured areas is the job of the Chicago Police Department.

source: http://chicago.suntimes.com/opinion/put-all-airport-security-in-hands-of-chicago-police/