United Airlines Roughed Up Passenger to Give Up His Seat

[exnavynuke]

Just an FYI, there could be a good reasons he has his lawyer's number. According to an unnamed source,

The man pulled off the United flight is David Dao, according to a source with direct knowledge of the passenger's identity who asked to remain unnamed because they are not authorized to speak about the incident.

Man claiming to be doctor bloodied, dragged off United Airlines - NY Daily News

Oh, and is their anything about a doctor with that name in the area he was going to? Why yes, here's an article that *may* shed some light on his familiarity with his lawyer:

David A. Dao, 57, of Elizabethtown, faces 98 charges of illegally prescribing and trafficking prescription painkillers. Dao formerly worked at Hardin Memorial Hospital and owned a medical practice.

Elizabethtown Doctor Indicted On 98 Drug Charges - wave3.com-Louisville News, Weather & Sports


For my perspective, last I checked it was a violation of federal law to refuse the instructions of the plane's crew. Refusing to disembark as instructed means he broke the law. The cops should have arrested him imo. The level of force issue is a separate issue between the police and the accused criminal (though not yet convicted of violating above mentioned federal law) that suffered harm while he was being removed from the plane. That'll likely get someone suspended and some extra training before being reinstated in a week or two.

 

[RunningBum]

What the airline is legally allowed to do and what they should have done are two entirely different things. This is a disaster for United. There's the probable lawsuit, which no doubt will be settled out of court to avoid another public spectacle. And there's the bad public perception, almost no matter what the story turns out to be.

 

[bUU]

No stealing here. The guy paid for his airline ticket.

I understand that airlines need to overbook to maximize revenue, maybe break even in some cases. But it stuns me that a company can deny a customer a service that the customer has already paid for.

Then be stunned. And read the terms and conditions before you fly again. And my point wasn't that this passenger was stealing, specifically, but rather this passenger was committing a crime just like the thief, and perhaps an even worse crime since failure to comply with the instructions of airport police inconvenienced a hundred other passengers, on the basis of one person's selfish refusal to be inconvenienced themselves.

The point I was making, which you may have missed, is that the police have an obligation to intervene when someone is on somebody else's airplane and has been asked to leave and doesn't. The passenger getting what they are entitled to is another matter, one that is rightfully handled in the airport at the gate with the gate agent because that is the actual rules that the passenger agreed to. As Marko said:

Seems to me though when the cops come on the plane and say "Get up!" you get up and sort it out later.

There's a whole bunch of bloviating going on about airline passengers Bill of Rights. Involuntary bumping, even once you're aboard the flight, does NOT violate the airline passengers Bill of Rights. If airline passengers want more rights then they have to do the work, they need to incur the sacrifices necessary to bring about those changes, not just complain and whine when their inadequate prior efforts to change the laws that prevail in our consumer Society have not had the effect that they want.

 

[Taxman59]

url=http://www.wave3.com/story/4301599/elizabethtown-doctor-indicted-on-98-drug-charges]Elizabethtown Doctor Indicted On 98 Drug Charges - wave3.com-Louisville News, Weather & Sports[/url]

According to the article, this guy couldn't be seeing patients on the morning since he had his medical license suspended. This proves it is way too early to pass judgement on the situation. Could it have been handled better, no doubt.

I have heard that the 4 UA employees were 1) required to be in Louisville for flights to meet FAA requirements, 2) that they were just late to the plane and 3) that they were last minute call ups to fill in the schedule. Each of those situations would lead to a different answer.

With cell phones and quick editing, we are very quick to come up with a viral video so our name can hit the papers (and cash in ?!?!). Why don't we settle down and wait for the investigation to play out before we get up in arms and [-]riot [/-]protest in the streets.

 

[Ronstar]

...The point I was making, which you may have missed, is that the police have an obligation to intervene when someone is on somebody else's airplane and has been asked to leave and doesn't. The passenger getting what they are entitled to is another matter, one that is rightfully handled in the airport at the gate with the gate agent because that is the actual rules that the passenger agreed to....

I didn't miss your point. I have no problem with the police. They were merely trying to solve the problem. I have a problem with United. They created the problem.

And I have no problem with the terms and conditions of flying. But United should have kept increasing the voucher amount until enough people took the deal.
If they had, they would have avoided a public relations nightmare and a 6% haircut on their stock.

 

[bUU]

With cell phones and quick editing, we are very quick to come up with a viral video so our name can hit the papers (and cash in ?!?!). Why don't we settle down and wait for the investigation to play out before we get up in arms and [-]riot [/-]protest in the streets.

Precisely. I love social media, but it has its dark side and we've seen this manipulation of mob mentality over and over again.

I didn't miss your point. I have no problem with the police. They were merely trying to solve the problem. I have a problem with United. They created the problem.

The passenger who refused to deplane created the problem.

And I have no problem with the terms and conditions of flying. But United should have kept increasing the voucher amount until enough people took the deal.

That's, perhaps unconsciously, self-deceptive: You wouldn't want fares to go up so high to pay for such grandiose awards. The FAA rules for involuntary bumping compensation are four time the fare for good reasons and they set the standard for this situation, not United.

6% haircut on their stock.

Come now. You know a buying opportunity when you see one. Now, if you want to accuse United of spurring this on so that some of them could take advantage of this buying opportunity I would believe that more readily than the rationalizations given by folks in this thread and elsewhere for their blaming of United for the incident.

 

[omni550]

More coverage in the UK Daily Mail...

Name of man hauled off United flight in Chicago revealed | Daily Mail Online



omni

 

[Midpack]

This thread is a sad reminder of how often too many people (not all) jump to conclusions, e.g. boycotts, big settlements, etc., without bothering to hear the whole story. It seems way more common today than it used to be, but who knows. [Reminds me of way too much willfully ignorant political discussion these days.]

I am not saying United or the police handled this in the best possible way, but they were both entirely within their rights. Evidently 3 other passengers complied? I wonder why they didn't board their moving crew first, or at least leave seats open for them since they control boarding. Or I thought they offered increasing value vouchers in the waiting area or on the plane until enough people volunteered? Or (and this is far fetched), I wonder if the doctor could have asked other passengers if they'd take the voucher so he could stay on the flight, I can't imagine United wouldn't have allowed it? And maybe all these options were tried before the passenger was forcibly removed, I am sure they didn't just act thoughtlessly.

We may get the whole story eventually, but most people including media will have moved on to the next "outrage."

 

[easysurfer]

What the airline is legally allowed to do and what they should have done are two entirely different things. This is a disaster for United. There's the probable lawsuit, which no doubt will be settled out of court to avoid another public spectacle. And there's the bad public perception, almost no matter what the story turns out to be.

+1. A disaster for United no matter if what happened was legal or not. On that video, almost just as compelling as the guy dragged out are the shocked passengers.

 

[EastWest Gal]

Sigh...

There were mistakes all over this. The airline making the decision to get the four employees of a different airline on their plane after the plane was boarded. The aiport police, not airline employees, not the Chicago PD, deciding to manhandle an older gentleman in the window seat. The passenger himself. Most of us don't know that we can be kicked off a flight by the airline, even if we have done everything right. This was an education.

We are making mistakes, blaming the airline employees. They didn't physically touch the man. It seems nobody did the right thing here.

I wish one of three things had happened instead: UA could have chartered a comfortable minibus or even a limo to get the employees to Louisville. Or UA could have arranged alternate transportation to Louisville. The four passengers that were kicked off could have taken the $800 they were offered, and rented a party bus gotten some good food and drink and still would have pocketed the rest. They could have a rockin' and rollin' good time, stopped to stretch their legs, and would have gotten home a few hours later but perhaps a little more relaxed.

 

[Taxman59]

We may get the whole story eventually, but most people will have moved on to the next "outrage."

+1000

 

[bUU]

Or I thought they offered increasing value vouchers in the waiting area until enough people volunteered, but maybe they did?

The FAA set a standard by establishing compensation for involuntary bumping. Airlines will keep increasing the amount offered until it equals that standard, and then they'll involuntary bump, invoking onto themselves that rule.

Evidently 3 other passengers complied?

Correct.

 

[audreyh1]

No stealing here. The guy paid for his airline ticket.

I understand that airlines need to overbook to maximize revenue, maybe break even in some cases. But it stuns me that a company can deny a customer a service that the customer has already paid for.

This was not an overbooking situation (and United makes themselves look bad by claiming it is). United needed to move 4 crew members to the destination airport, so they needed to kick off 4 passengers already seated on a full flight.

 

[Midpack]

The FAA set a standard by establishing compensation for involuntary bumping. Airlines will keep increasing the amount offered until it equals that standard, and then they'll involuntary bump, invoking onto themselves that rule.

Maybe it was misreported on CBS News (national) last night, but they reported the passenger was offered $800 and the "standard" was $1350. That's why I was still wondering.

But this was a horrible event, with blame on both sides - contrary to some opinions earlier in this thread.

 

[ivinsfan]

They had already boarded everyone. C of C doesn't have language that covers this incident.

Are you certain, it's my impression the C of C is in force until they close the doors of the plane..it's a C of C not a C of boarding.And the obey all instructions of the crew is from boarding to finish of the flight.

 

[bUU]

Maybe it was misreported on CBS News (national) last night, but they reported the passenger was offered $800 and the "standard" was $1350. That's all I heard.

The standard is four times the fare paid on the flight, with $1350 as a maximum, capping the compensation for more expensive flights (so folks bumped from such flights get less than four times the fare they paid). And there is no question that the passenger would have gotten their full due, vis a vis the FAA regulation, had the passenger complied.

Search on 14 CFR 250.5 for full details.

 

[audreyh1]

This thread is a sad reminder of how often too many people (not all) jump to conclusions, e.g. boycotts, big settlements, etc., without bothering to hear the whole story. It seems way more common today than it used to be, but who knows. [Reminds me of way too much willfully ignorant political discussion these days.]

I am not saying United or the police handled this in the best possible way, but they were both entirely within their rights. Evidently 3 other passengers complied? I wonder why they didn't board their moving crew first, or at least leave seats open for them since they control boarding. Or I thought they offered increasing value vouchers in the waiting area or on the plane until enough people volunteered? Or (and this is far fetched), I wonder if the doctor could have asked other passengers if they'd take the voucher so he could stay on the flight, I can't imagine United wouldn't have allowed it? And maybe all these options were tried before the passenger was forcibly removed, I am sure they didn't just act thoughtlessly.

We may get the whole story eventually, but most people including media will have moved on to the next "outrage."

Apparently the crew that needed to be moved to Louisville arrived late.

So somehow the gate crew didn't know to expect these crew members ahead of time so they could handle it before they arrived.

 

[misanman]

Maybe the doctor had to get home so he could write some prescriptions?

 

[easysurfer]

... Evidently 3 other passengers complied?

My understanding is, a couple complied. The 3rd person is the wife following the guy who got dragged out.

 

[Midpack]

My understanding is, a couple complied. The 3rd person is the wife following the guy who got dragged out.

OK, 2. Others complied, doesn't change my POV.

 

[bUU]

I wouldn't short-change the wife; she may very well have complied. We really don't know if she was refusing so much as was physically blocked by her husband from deplaning.

 

[MichaelB]

Here's UA Contract of Carriage https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriage.aspx#sec21

Does it really say they can remove someone after boarding and occupying their assigned seat, to make space for someone else? It is long and I didn't read the entire agreement, but looking at the applicable sections, this is not so clear cut.

Rule 21, "Refusal to Transport" does not include overbooking or needing a seat for someone else, Rule 5 "Cancellation of Reservations" seems to cover travelers before they board, and United's "reseating" rights mean the traveler gets another seat. Finally, the entire section on denied boarding (rule 25) all describe a situation where the traveler has not yet boarded the aircraft.

It seems that once a passenger has boarded, the airline can move him or her, but as long as they are complying with the contract and federal regulations, it is not clearly spelled out that they can be involuntarily removed from the aircraft. Of course, I am not a lawyer, draw no conclusions from media reports, and offer no judgement on this situation.

 

[exnavynuke]

According to the article, this guy couldn't be seeing patients on the morning since he had his medical license suspended. This proves it is way too early to pass judgement on the situation. Could it have been handled better, no doubt.

I have heard that the 4 UA employees were 1) required to be in Louisville for flights to meet FAA requirements, 2) that they were just late to the plane and 3) that they were last minute call ups to fill in the schedule. Each of those situations would lead to a different answer.

With cell phones and quick editing, we are very quick to come up with a viral video so our name can hit the papers (and cash in ?!?!). Why don't we settle down and wait for the investigation to play out before we get up in arms and [-]riot [/-]protest in the streets.

The article is from 12 years ago, so he could have his medical license currently.

 

[bUU]

I expect to see more cases in the future where airlines simply deplane the aircraft entirely when they have situations like this. It's evidently less costly to do so, and then reboard the flight with x fewer passengers, than doing it in any more efficient manner.

 

[ERD50]

Rosa Parks was arrested for not giving up her seat, too. What is legal is not always what is fair. What she did was illegal at the time.

Not a valid comparison in several ways. First, that sort of racial discrimination is far different from what some may see as a heavy-handed rule, but one that applies w/o prejudice.

And I don't think Rosa Parks resisted arrest, she went peacefully - that's a huge difference in approaches. And it is that resistance, to an evenly applied rule, that was the problem.

Originally Posted by RustyShackleford View Post
Yup. Reasonable cops would have gone back to the airline and said "this guy REALLY does not want to get off the plane, are you sure you want us to remove him at all costs ?"

Your argument fails in two ways. First, if all you had to do to avoid an involuntary bump was say no then who would ever accept an involuntary bump? The rules exist for reasons. They're baked into the pricing model and operational plans for not just the airline but for the industry as a whole. Second, what you're saying would be as if someone runs out of the Best Buy with a $200 television under his arm that he hadn't paid for and when the police try to take it from him he says no. He resists, he refuses. Effectively, you're saying that the police should let him steal it with impunity.

Now here I'm going to go and agree with bUU again - what's this world coming too?

Correct, if anyone could just say "No" to the order to leave the plane, they'd just go to the next person, until they find someone too timid to say "No". That would have been my Mother - and that's not fair!

And this guy inconvenienced all the other passengers, I would have been PO'd if he held up my flight by not following the commands of the crew.

Maybe the crew did a poor job of explaining that these are the rules and the compliance procedure, I haven't read that much on it, as there is so much flack out there. But as someone mentioned a while back, with social media everything is tried before the facts are in.

The stealing analogy is right on. We can't just let people do what they want because we are afraid to forcefully detain them. We must have the rule of law, or everything will break down.

-ERD50