OMG, the lawyer's face. He's already counting the zeros on the check he'll split with Dr. Dao.

Definitely not about United anymore. It's about the industry, The "i think corporate America needs to understand that we want to be treated nice" is worth around 5 mil. Add 5 more to the evacuation of Saigon line.....

frmrCapCadet wrote:

Given Oscarito´s statements today:

"We have apologized and given a 100% refund to EVERY SINGLE passenger on the flight"

Had my family been on that flight we would have been traumatized, not that we would even think of suing, but sick, exhausted, and offended at what happened. I suspect most of the passengers felt as we would have. While I don't boycott generally, I don't like feeling extremely nauseous either, and would avoid United in the future on that basis.

Yes, and I'm wondering, in the Fine Print, of accepting that Refund, if that states you forego entering into any litigation regarding that flight.....

TransGlobalGold wrote:

I've scanned the last couple of pages, I didn't see this mention, The passenger's lawyer is stating he had a concussion and broken nose. True or not, it just muddied this incident:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nat ... 100409492/

And a couple missing teeth.

Flighty wrote:

I just don't think that is realistic. Sorry. What happened was gonna happen.

So find a way to make it not happen. Get the pax rebooked on a same-day flight. Empower the gate crew, regional director, whoever to rebook the "must rides". Empower the gate crew to offer $1600 (or even the $1300). Someone already volunteered at $1600, so there was a way out.

seahawk wrote:

However the question is, if it is a good idea to make crew orders open to debate, Where will this end? Sometimes the weather changes and you need to remove passengers after boarding, as you need extra fuel for a possible diversion, who would believe you and what do you do if the passengers refuse to leave? Cancel the whole flight? Overbooking and gaining other economic advantages from removing passengers should be very costly to the airline, which imho compensation should be much higher and it should be up to the airline to proof it was a purely safety related measure. However this should always be discussed after the flight and not onboard the airplane, there the order of the crew should be followed without questioning.

Some time in the 1990's, I flew on a new AA DC-11 from DFW to BOS. After the full plane pulled away from the gate, there was about a 20 minute delay. The plane was too heavy. No one was asked to get off the plane. The airline however, did remove enough from the cargo bay, to allow the flight to take off. Really Happened.

Armodeen wrote:

The force used by police must be proportional and reasonable. Do you think that was the case here, with a guy who was not actively resisting?

When they overstep the lines they absolutely can face sanction, I don't know why people think cops can do whatever they want.

Mr. Dao did actively resist being moved out of his seat. His resistance caused the security guys to be in a tug of war with Mr. Dao. When the security guys "won" the tug of war, Mr. Dao lost, as his face hit the armrest across the aisle.

I think the security guys could have had a better extraction of Mr. Dao. In the future, passengers in the seats fore and aft the affected seat, on both sides of the aisle, should be asked to temporarily leave their seats, so that security can have access to the passenger (middle, window, or aisle seat), from the front and rear.

It would also make it easier to put a security bag over the non-compliant person's head, for extraction, if necessary.

This is an academic discussion, as I feel Mr. Dao, in this particular case, will get his settlement, regardless of his active resistance...

Flighty wrote:

Let me present this another way. If the gate didn't do this as she did, she might have been disciplined or fired. Refusing a Must Ride is NOT within her power. Nor is it probably within a UAL Hub Director's power to deny boarding to must ride crew!!!! It is simply unheard of AFAIK.

As for the cop, refusing to deboard the passenger would have placed the flight in legal limbo. A noncompliant passenger was on board and refusing to leave. It cops were really on their game, they might have provisionally withdrawn from the aircraft and had a legal meeting to discuss this. Then, UAL's corporate counsel could have participated in the meeting and draft a new policy.

I just don't think that is realistic. Sorry. What happened was gonna happen.

Flighty you sound like you know exactly what gate agent CANNOT absolutely do in a Must Ride situation. My question to you now is, what if anything was within the power/authority of the gate agent in order to accomodate Dr Dao and ask him to give up his comfortable seat? Basically was the $800 offered the best and last offer UA had available that night? Also I have heard report Dr Dao's wife was on the same flight, so was she also offered the same amount money or UA figured it did not matter to separate a married couple?

Flighty wrote:

Let me present this another way. If the gate didn't do this as she did, she might have been disciplined or fired. Refusing a Must Ride is NOT within her power. Nor is it probably within a UAL Hub Director's power to deny boarding to must ride crew!!!! It is simply unheard of AFAIK.
As for the cop, refusing to deboard the passenger would have placed the flight in legal limbo. A noncompliant passenger was on board and refusing to leave. It cops were really on their game, they might have provisionally withdrawn from the aircraft and had a legal meeting to discuss this. Then, UAL's corporate counsel could have participated in the meeting and draft a new policy.
I just don't think that is realistic. Sorry. What happened was gonna happen.

1) This is why the incident is a big deal. UA has established a culture where an employee knows they will risk their job if they do right by a customer.
2) This is also why a small airline from Dallas with this funny culture where "customers are the foundation of business" became the largest domestic carrier despite all the political opposition.

ubeema wrote:

Also I have heard report Dr Dao's wife was on the same flight, so was she also offered the same amount money or UA figured it did not matter to separate a married couple?

According to Wiki - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Ex ... 1_incident - Dr. Dao's wife was one of three passengers who volunteered to deboard for a $800 voucher, and take another flight next day.

Dr. Dao didn't volunteer together with his wife because he had a professional appointment next morning.

To all of you that vehemently support UA and the ORD aviation security and feel that Dr. Dao was a trespasser, belligerent loon and a security threat, please feel free to litigate in court out of public interest. If you feel that UA and the airport security has all the legal foundations on their side while Dr. Dao merely has public sympathy then lets have that case heard in the court of law and settle it. Contact UA's legal counsel right away and tell him to not negotiate any settlement with any passenger and let the courts decide. This will clarify a lot of things for the mere mortals like myself. Seriously....

dlphoenix wrote:

Flighty wrote:

Let me present this another way. If the gate didn't do this as she did, she might have been disciplined or fired. Refusing a Must Ride is NOT within her power. Nor is it probably within a UAL Hub Director's power to deny boarding to must ride crew!!!! It is simply unheard of AFAIK.
As for the cop, refusing to deboard the passenger would have placed the flight in legal limbo. A noncompliant passenger was on board and refusing to leave. It cops were really on their game, they might have provisionally withdrawn from the aircraft and had a legal meeting to discuss this. Then, UAL's corporate counsel could have participated in the meeting and draft a new policy.
I just don't think that is realistic. Sorry. What happened was gonna happen.

1) This is why the incident is a big deal. UA has established a culture where an employee knows they will risk their job if they do right by a customer.
2) This is also why a small airline from Dallas with this funny culture where "customers are the foundation of business" became the largest domestic carrier despite all the political opposition.

Southwest involuntarily denies boarding to more people than United. They do that politely I am sure, but also with guys with guns nearby. It's not a negotiation at Southwest Airlines either.

But, now, thanks to Dr Dao, I believe US airlines WILL have a new procedure and things will be better. If you are buzzed in at the jetway door, the seat is yours until the destination. Inviolable.

Flighty wrote:

dlphoenix wrote:

Flighty wrote:

Let me present this another way. If the gate didn't do this as she did, she might have been disciplined or fired. Refusing a Must Ride is NOT within her power. Nor is it probably within a UAL Hub Director's power to deny boarding to must ride crew!!!! It is simply unheard of AFAIK.
As for the cop, refusing to deboard the passenger would have placed the flight in legal limbo. A noncompliant passenger was on board and refusing to leave. It cops were really on their game, they might have provisionally withdrawn from the aircraft and had a legal meeting to discuss this. Then, UAL's corporate counsel could have participated in the meeting and draft a new policy.
I just don't think that is realistic. Sorry. What happened was gonna happen.

1) This is why the incident is a big deal. UA has established a culture where an employee knows they will risk their job if they do right by a customer.
2) This is also why a small airline from Dallas with this funny culture where "customers are the foundation of business" became the largest domestic carrier despite all the political opposition.

Southwest involuntarily denies boarding to more people than United. They do that politely I am sure, but also with guys with guns nearby. It's not a negotiation at Southwest Airlines either.

But, now, thanks to Dr Dao, I believe US airlines WILL have a new procedure and things will be better. If you are buzzed in at the jetway door, the seat is yours until the destination. Inviolable.

I had posted this earlier, but posting it again here. UA is just plain stingy and has a bad culture with no customer empathy.

Gift cards and more: How Delta beats United in handling overbooked flights

SATexan wrote:

To all of you that vehemently support UA and the ORD aviation security and feel that Dr. Dao was a trespasser, belligerent loon and a security threat,

Yeah...you're talking about me right there. This guy deserves NOTHING.......Allow me to spell that N-O-T-H-I-N-G

"Just kill me, just kill me...just kill me"....yeah, that's a loon

As I stated earlier:

1. Comply, get $800
2. Disobey, get $10 million

PLEASE

And honestly...at the beginning, I had a totally different view.

DIRECTFLT wrote:

It would also make it easier to put a security bag over the non-compliant person's head, for extraction, if necessary.

Are you for real? Please tell me you are joking.

ubeema wrote:

My question to you now is, what if anything was within the power/authority of the gate agent in order to accomodate Dr Dao and ask him to give up his comfortable seat? Basically was the $800 offered the best and last offer UA had available that night?

Under the policy as it existed at the time an individual agent is allowed to offer $500. A supervisor or Manager can authorize higher amounts but must document that they authorized it before the report is sent to corporate accounting. I'm not totally positive, but I imagine no one was authorized to go beyond the required maximum of $1350 for an IDB.

As for why a supervisor on site did not bump the value up to 1200 or 1300 (if they could), I would imagine the logic was that a walk up fare on this flight would have been around $250, give or take a few buck, so they had already offered as much as anyone could get as an IDB. Without foreknowledge that you were going to have a sit-in, the best bet at that stage is to start pulling up the list and working your way through it.

Not clear what the policy will end up being going forward, but I'm hoping for some better enticements available than "Credit for a flight with us within the next 12 months."

Per current IDB law, if the amount that must be offered is 4x the fare-- are vouchers LEGALLY acceptable, or in fact must it LEGALLY be a cash offer? Because I don't see a voucher as being equivalent to cash. Could I refuse a voucher offer and claim that by law I want cash instead?

It seems that offering vouchers is just another example of airlines screwing over the public so that they don't have to part with their precious cash.

727LOVER wrote:

SATexan wrote:

To all of you that vehemently support UA and the ORD aviation security and feel that Dr. Dao was a trespasser, belligerent loon and a security threat,

Yeah...you're talking about me right there. This guy deserves NOTHING.......Allow me to spell that N-O-T-H-I-N-G

"Just kill me, just kill me...just kill me"....yeah, that's a loon

What an asinine thing to say, 727LOVER. I'd love to see how coherent you would be immediately after you regain consciousness from a knock that gives you a concussion, a broken nose, broken teeth, and injuries to your sinus cavities.

Chemist wrote:

Per current IDB law, if the amount that must be offered is 4x the fare-- are vouchers LEGALLY acceptable, or in fact must it LEGALLY be a cash offer? Because I don't see a voucher as being equivalent to cash. Could I refuse a voucher offer and claim that by law I want cash instead?

It seems that offering vouchers is just another example of airlines screwing over the public so that they don't have to part with their precious cash.

Vouchers (or as UA calls them, Electronic Travel Certificates) are offered to solicit volunteers. In an IDB situation you must tell the passenger they are entitled to cash compensation. If the amount offered in vouchers was more than the passenger would get in cash they have the option to take the higher offer.

So, for example, if a passenger paid $110 for their ticket for the flight segment they get IDB'd on and the ETC offer was $600, and the delay in getting them to their destination calls for the 4X compensation, they can then choose whether they want the check for $440 or the ETC for $600.

Given that most of my experience dealing with oversale situations was in a city where management would NOT authorize past the $500 limit EVER and most of the people I had to IDB were going to business markets, usually the IDB comp was well more than the voucher we were offering, so I've never had someone choose the voucher over the cash.

As I said earlier in this post, it is clear that this will become part of the history of aviation.

Living in Europe I have seen this in the cover of many printed papers. I am sure this is the same in Asia, specially being an Asian "grandpa" which makes things very graphical.

This is this kind of thing where 99% of people (to the exception of some airliners.net members) sympathise and want justice. Most people today fly and that same people is tired of the abuses of airlines, no matter income, nationality, race, political views, sex, age or any other personal status. So everybody wants "justice" here.

Not even in their wildest nightmares those UA station managers would have never thought what this was set to become!

transswede wrote:

DIRECTFLT wrote:

It would also make it easier to put a security bag over the non-compliant person's head, for extraction, if necessary.

Are you for real? Please tell me you are joking.

Well... maybe not like the ones they use at Guantanamo Bay, but the "Anti-Spit Mask" type, that Police Departments use....



Simple and fast to deploy
Developed through intensive field testing
Disposable
Compact
Individually packed and labelled
Allows you to observe your suspect's face
Excellent visibility
Safe, secure and lightweight

Bet you would love to see your father, grandfather and brother wearing that mask.

727LOVER wrote:

SATexan wrote:

To all of you that vehemently support UA and the ORD aviation security and feel that Dr. Dao was a trespasser, belligerent loon and a security threat,

"Just kill me, just kill me...just kill me"....yeah, that's a loon.

Really? I have personally seen the sanest people react with such comments, spouses fighting for example.

prebennorholm wrote:

ubeema wrote:

Also I have heard report Dr Dao's wife was on the same flight, so was she also offered the same amount money or UA figured it did not matter to separate a married couple?

According to Wiki - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Ex ... 1_incident - Dr. Dao's wife was one of three passengers who volunteered to deboard for a $800 voucher, and take another flight next day.

Dr. Dao didn't volunteer together with his wife because he had a professional appointment next morning.

Wikipedia is incorrect in in this instance.

Nobody accepted either the initial offer of $400, nor the increased offer of $800, to disembark. This is what lead to the random selection of 4 PAX to be ordered off the flight (much as I feel the airline acted in an appalling manner, both at the time and during the initial publicity storm, I don't believe there to have been any evidence of an element of racism in their selection process).

It has been stated that Mrs. Dao, complied with the instruction but her husband decided; quite rightly it would appear, from OM most recent volte face, and statements by various lawyers and law professors, that there were no valid grounds for him to be kicked off the flight and that United should deliver their part of the contract they entered into with him at the time he purchased his ticket.

It's increasingly clear that United has trained its staff poorly in IDB management.

1. United wrongly thought that you can remove a passenger involuntarily without having made a cash - as opposed to perishable voucher - offer to voluntarily deboard.

2. United wrongly thought that IDB rules apply to passengers who have already been seated in the cabin.

3. United wrongly thought that they can call Law Enforcement to remove non-threatening passengers from the cabin in any arbitrary situation of their choosing. In fact, the Law only permits this if a boarded passenger has made a threat to the safety of the flight.

Clearly one of the consequences of 9/11 is that cabin and ground crew feel at liberty to use Law Enforcement to resolve commercial disputes. But the law permits no such action.

dlphoenix wrote:

1) The CEO admitting wrongdoing does not set a legal precedence, a settlement approved by the court does.

I don't think it matters, because I don't see it getting to court.

727LOVER wrote:

Yeah...you're talking about me right there. This guy deserves NOTHING.......Allow me to spell that N-O-T-H-I-N-G

"Just kill me, just kill me...just kill me"....yeah, that's a loon

Yes, a "loon" with concussion, a broken nose and teeth knocked out.

Enjoy swimming against the tide...

I still have some things to learn about this issue:
1) Was the Gate agent aware that he had to keep 4 seats for the deadheading crew before the boarding process started, and if yes he just forgot ?
2) Or he knew but theses 4 crew members came so late that he was thinking they were not coming ?

Can we call this debacle Gategate?

antoniemey wrote:

Chemist wrote:

Per current IDB law, if the amount that must be offered is 4x the fare-- are vouchers LEGALLY acceptable, or in fact must it LEGALLY be a cash offer? Because I don't see a voucher as being equivalent to cash. Could I refuse a voucher offer and claim that by law I want cash instead?

It seems that offering vouchers is just another example of airlines screwing over the public so that they don't have to part with their precious cash.

Vouchers (or as UA calls them, Electronic Travel Certificates) are offered to solicit volunteers. In an IDB situation you must tell the passenger they are entitled to cash compensation. If the amount offered in vouchers was more than the passenger would get in cash they have the option to take the higher offer.

So, for example, if a passenger paid $110 for their ticket for the flight segment they get IDB'd on and the ETC offer was $600, and the delay in getting them to their destination calls for the 4X compensation, they can then choose whether they want the check for $440 or the ETC for $600.

Given that most of my experience dealing with oversale situations was in a city where management would NOT authorize past the $500 limit EVER and most of the people I had to IDB were going to business markets, usually the IDB comp was well more than the voucher we were offering, so I've never had someone choose the voucher over the cash.

That is one of the problems, with more and more bare fare deals, 4x the ticket fare is just too little to hurt the airline and change the operational process. I think 200$ in cash for every hour delay should be the minimum with add ons for having to spent the night in a hotel or not having your luggage. So I think in the UA case something like 300$ per hour would sound about right, which means about 6300$ compensation, I am sure they would have found volunteers for that. The compensation must hurt the airline, which is imho better than having passengers discussing the lawfulness of orders made by the crew.

Olddog wrote:

I still have some things to learn about this issue:
1) Was the Gate agent aware that he had to keep 4 seats for the deadheading crew before the boarding process started, and if yes he just forgot ?
2) Or he knew but theses 4 crew members came so late that he was thinking they were not coming ?

Number 2, the flight was unofficially overbooked with the four crew.

dc9northwest wrote:

Can we call this debacle Gategate?

Unitedgate or Unigate would sound better.
Next in line: Daogate or Davidgate.
Bronze prize: draggate.

I might be comparing apples to tomatoes, but in regards to whether law enforcement can remove you by force or not, I would like to chime in my 2 cents.
I worked as a railroad conductor on a passenger train for several years, and during that time, I have witnessed several occasions where passengers were removed by law enforcement, and at times, by force. While most were due to disorderly conduct or non payment issues, there were some who were removed for other reasons AND also had paid their ticket. There is no such thing as bumping passengers off the train as there is no such thing as overbooking, but there are various reasons why a passenger can be removed. That being said, I don't buy the concept that the cops will come when summoned and remove someone without any questions asked, as I personally was always questioned of the details and why the person needed to be removed. My opinion in this instance is that the gate agent or whomever it was, claimed that the passenger was "uncooperative" or posed as a threat and needed to be removed from the aircraft. But, back to my story, my point is that while I'm sure the rules are completely different from what you have on a train compared to an aircraft, there seems to be rules in place that do allow for law enforcement to physically remove a person, in this case, a paying customer, off of the premises. While Conductors don't have the same authority that a captain has on an airplane, the conductor can make a request to remove someone from the train if he or she has a viable reason to provide to law enforcement when they arrive. I bet that United gave a good reason to the cops when they got there.

From my experience, I honestly would not choose to refuse an order given from an officer, unless it is considered to be unethical. If my rights are violated, I would then choose the proper avenues in a legal manner and sue the airline. As I will note, most of the passengers that were removed from the trains DID pursue legal action against the Railroad that might or might not have gotten results. However, It also does not hide the fact that this was very unnecessary, and that yes, law enforcement did go a little too far in the Doctor's removal. Which is why I question what was told to law enforcement by the airline employees when they arrived? I remembered a few years back where a flight that I as on was deemed too heavy. they began to ask for volunteers and offered some nice incentives to take. After I convinced my defiant wife to agree to it, we got booked on a later flight, upgraded to business class, and money in our pockets. Needles to say, it was much more than what United was giving to the doctor. Another question, did United offer his wife anything to volunteer as well? maybe the reason for his refusal was due to the fact that his wife wouldn't receive the same compensation and would be forced to fly separate from each other? Like I said, I know that the good doc is a lot richer now, but I personally would have simply preferred a nice compensation to volunteer and the ability to keep all of my teeth.

ROSWELL41 wrote:

When you're instructed to get off the plane by airline staff, you need to comply. Failure to do so results in the police being called and removing you. Failure to comply with the police and you will be forcibly removed. This man failed to comply with instructions from airline employees and the police and what you saw was the result. I'm not shocked in the least and quite frankly has himself to blame.

He GOT OFF and then ran back ON !! What the security team did wasn't right BUT there was shared Blame, By the WAY? WAS he a Licensed Doctor? REALLY??
I've heard he was "Defrocked". Hmmm! This bears close Scrutiny! Something Isn't smelling right..

strfyr51 wrote:

ROSWELL41 wrote:

When you're instructed to get off the plane by airline staff, you need to comply. Failure to do so results in the police being called and removing you. Failure to comply with the police and you will be forcibly removed. This man failed to comply with instructions from airline employees and the police and what you saw was the result. I'm not shocked in the least and quite frankly has himself to blame.

He GOT OFF and then ran back ON !! What the security team did wasn't right BUT there was shared Blame, By the WAY? WAS he a Licensed Doctor? REALLY??
I've heard he was "Defrocked". Hmmm! This bears close Scrutiny! Something Isn't smelling right..

If you would have followed the news or the thread, than the "Defrocked" one had just a similar name, start of a smear campaign, with you eating it all up.

strfyr51 wrote:

ROSWELL41 wrote:

When you're instructed to get off the plane by airline staff, you need to comply. Failure to do so results in the police being called and removing you. Failure to comply with the police and you will be forcibly removed. This man failed to comply with instructions from airline employees and the police and what you saw was the result. I'm not shocked in the least and quite frankly has himself to blame.

He GOT OFF and then ran back ON !! What the security team did wasn't right BUT there was shared Blame, By the WAY? WAS he a Licensed Doctor? REALLY??
I've heard he was "Defrocked". Hmmm! This bears close Scrutiny! Something Isn't smelling right..

You seem to be rather ill informed as to what happened, possibly due to the extremely long thread, however, a passenger who was actually on the flight posted what they saw, a couple of days ago.

He didn't get off the flight, he was dragged off by airport security / police; there is a debate within the thread as to who those enforcing the airline's decision were, and only then ran back on, after being assaulted.

You really are on a hiding to nothing trying to portray this as being in any way, shape or form the passenger's fault, when the airline has publicly admitted that he did nothing wrong.

BTW. You do not need to get off the plane when the instructions from airline staff are illegal and in breach of their own conditions of carriage - again, if the airline had a leg to stand on in that respect, OM wouldn't have conceded that the passenger was innocent of any wrong doing.

(Edited after hitting the submit rather than the preview button).

BTW. Now the lawyers are involved, one really does need to be careful about repeating any of the refuted allegations against the passenger's character.

As has been proved several times in recent years, it is possible to liable someone via Internet discussion boards and social media. By repeating these unfounded allegations you risk the equivalent of giving those who have already dug themselves into a deep hole a bigger spade.

seahawk wrote:

That is one of the problems, with more and more bare fare deals, 4x the ticket fare is just too little to hurt the airline and change the operational process. I think 200$ in cash for every hour delay should be the minimum with add ons for having to spent the night in a hotel or not having your luggage. So I think in the UA case something like 300$ per hour would sound about right, which means about 6300$ compensation, I am sure they would have found volunteers for that. The compensation must hurt the airline, which is imho better than having passengers discussing the lawfulness of orders made by the crew.

Also I think part of the issue that maybe people don't appreciate, is that with load factors running as high as they do on many routes, a bump doesn't just cost you a few hours like it might have in years past. Now, if you get bumped, it's entirely possible that there won't be an open seat for days. Nearly all my travel is for my business, and I can't afford to schedule 3 or 4 idle days just to make sure that I make it to an important meeting. As someone else said, I expect to buy a seat, not a lottery ticket. That's the expectation, and airlines are going to have to change the way they operate if they can't meet it.

GlenP wrote:

[

BTW. Now the lawyers are involved, one really does need to be careful about repeating any of the refuted allegations against the passenger's character.

As has been proved several times in recent years, it is possible to liable someone via Internet discussion boards and social media. By repeating these unfounded allegations you risk the equivalent of giving those who have already dug themselves into a deep hole a bigger spade.

The Doctor's character has been cleared, he is not the same Dr. Dao who has a past and also happens to be in Kentuky.

neutrino wrote:

dc9northwest wrote:

Can we call this debacle Gategate?

Unitedgate or Unigate would sound better.
Next in line: Daogate or Davidgate.
Bronze prize: draggate.

Or IDB'd after the-gate.

CanadaFair wrote:

GlenP wrote:

[

BTW. Now the lawyers are involved, one really does need to be careful about repeating any of the refuted allegations against the passenger's character.

As has been proved several times in recent years, it is possible to liable someone via Internet discussion boards and social media. By repeating these unfounded allegations you risk the equivalent of giving those who have already dug themselves into a deep hole a bigger spade.

The Doctor's character has been cleared, he is not the same Dr. Dao who has a past and also happens to be in Kentuky.

Exactly, so the attempt in the quoted post to claim otherwise, and disparage the Doctor's good name, is basically pouring oil on the fire of an already badly botched handling of the incident, by the airline and its PR Department.

Delta just upped their denied boarding compensation to $9,950

http://onemileatatime.boardingarea.com/2017/04/14/delta-denied-boarding-compensation/

UA should have beat them to this...I suppose this will be part of April 30th announcements.
AA will probably have to match too

They can overbook me for $9,950

strfyr51 wrote:

By the WAY? WAS he a Licensed Doctor? REALLY??
I've heard he was "Defrocked". Hmmm! This bears close Scrutiny! Something Isn't smelling right..

By the WAY, ARE YOU humanr? REALLY??
I've heard you were sodomized and traumatized. Hmmm! This bears close Scrutiny! Something Isn't smelling right..

Seriously, the doctor's past criminal records - whether it is the correct or wrong Dr David Dao as reported elsewhere - has nothing whatsoever to do with this "drag and drop" case.
Lets take my earlier deliberately re-purposed (which is non-personal, btw) sentences of yours and carrying it further hypothetically, say someone dig out the info that the sodomized person was gay. Does it have any bearing to the crime? As said, this is hypothetical and is not mean to offend anyone.Just trying to make the point that a person's past history has no bearing to the current case.

Edited to delete double words.

Its getting more complicated. According to the two links below, it looks this United Dr David Dao is the same as the Dr David Dao with a record after all. If so, he has paid his dues and has been re-instated. Please read the articles if you want to know more and form your own conclusions. It might not be the final word yet. Whatever, let me say it once again that his past doesn't has anything to do with the present case. Let it go!

https://www.romper.com/p/are-david-anh- ... sion-50667
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-uni ... story.html

A quote from the first one: "Digging into a victim's legal history is both problematic and risky. Though it's a reporter's job to be diligent, the breakneck speed of breaking news forces many to become sloppy in their work."

It was reported on NBC's Today Show this morning that the the LEO's that dragged the Dr off the plane were in fact NOT LEOs, but in fact were security employees. It was also reported that back in January the security employees were told to stop wearing jackeds identifying them as Police. They were wearing the jackets when they boarded the plane. The report ended with a video of yesterday's Chicago City Council meeting in which an alderman lamented the millions of dollars the city will have to pay as a result of the actions of the three.

scbriml wrote:

dlphoenix wrote:

1) The CEO admitting wrongdoing does not set a legal precedence, a settlement approved by the court does.

I don't think it matters, because I don't see it getting to court.

I concur, mainly because when it comes to corporate liability (unlike customer inconvenience ) companies tend to offer generous compensation.
I don't see Dr. Dao walking away from the extra $$, but one can always hope.

DLP

Chemist wrote:

Per current IDB law, if the amount that must be offered is 4x the fare-- are vouchers LEGALLY acceptable, or in fact must it LEGALLY be a cash offer? Because I don't see a voucher as being equivalent to cash. Could I refuse a voucher offer and claim that by law I want cash instead?

It seems that offering vouchers is just another example of airlines screwing over the public so that they don't have to part with their precious cash.

DOT flight rights says "Airlines may offer free tickets or dollar-amount vouchers for future flights in place of a check for denied boarding compensation. However, if you are bumped involuntarily you have the right to insist on a check if that is your preference. Once you cash the check (or accept the free flight), you will probably lose the ability to pursue more money from the airline later on."

This was definitely a lose-lose situation for the passenger.

Source: https://www.transportation.gov/airconsu ... verbooking

bob75013 wrote:

It was reported on NBC's Today Show this morning that the the LEO's that dragged the Dr off the plane were in fact NOT LEOs, but in fact were security employees. It was also reported that back in January the security employees were told to stop wearing jackeds identifying them as Police. They were wearing the jackets when they boarded the plane. The report ended with a video of yesterday's Chicago City Council meeting in which an alderman lamented the millions of dollars the city will have to pay as a result of the actions of the three.

Chicago Department of Aviation security are unarmed LEOs. It's an odd situation without a peer anywhere else AFAIK, but it's not correct to say that they "were in fact NOT LEOs."

Cubsrule wrote:

bob75013 wrote:

It was reported on NBC's Today Show this morning that the the LEO's that dragged the Dr off the plane were in fact NOT LEOs, but in fact were security employees. It was also reported that back in January the security employees were told to stop wearing jackeds identifying them as Police. They were wearing the jackets when they boarded the plane. The report ended with a video of yesterday's Chicago City Council meeting in which an alderman lamented the millions of dollars the city will have to pay as a result of the actions of the three.

Chicago Department of Aviation security are unarmed LEOs. It's an odd situation without a peer anywhere else AFAIK, but it's not correct to say that they "were in fact NOT LEOs."

And yet they were told to STOP WEARING JACKETS IDENTIFYING THEM AS POLICE. Why would you tell a LEO to stop wearing a LEO jacket -- that is unless, as was reported, they were not LEO's ?

bob75013 wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

bob75013 wrote:

It was reported on NBC's Today Show this morning that the the LEO's that dragged the Dr off the plane were in fact NOT LEOs, but in fact were security employees. It was also reported that back in January the security employees were told to stop wearing jackeds identifying them as Police. They were wearing the jackets when they boarded the plane. The report ended with a video of yesterday's Chicago City Council meeting in which an alderman lamented the millions of dollars the city will have to pay as a result of the actions of the three.

Chicago Department of Aviation security are unarmed LEOs. It's an odd situation without a peer anywhere else AFAIK, but it's not correct to say that they "were in fact NOT LEOs."

And yet they were told to STOP WEARING JACKETS IDENTIFYING THEM AS POLICE. Why would you tell a LEO to stop wearing a LEO jacket -- that is unless, as was reported, they were not LEO's ?

"It was reported" does not really help me find a source, but perhaps you are conflating the private security guards - who are not LEOs - with CDOA security, who are.

Cubsrule wrote:

bob75013 wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

Chicago Department of Aviation security are unarmed LEOs. It's an odd situation without a peer anywhere else AFAIK, but it's not correct to say that they "were in fact NOT LEOs."

And yet they were told to STOP WEARING JACKETS IDENTIFYING THEM AS POLICE. Why would you tell a LEO to stop wearing a LEO jacket -- that is unless, as was reported, they were not LEO's ?

"It was reported" does not really help me find a source, but perhaps you are conflating the private security guards - who are not LEOs - with CDOA security, who are.

The point of the story is that they were private security guards, and not CODA LEOs

bob75013 wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

bob75013 wrote:

And yet they were told to STOP WEARING JACKETS IDENTIFYING THEM AS POLICE. Why would you tell a LEO to stop wearing a LEO jacket -- that is unless, as was reported, they were not LEO's ?

"It was reported" does not really help me find a source, but perhaps you are conflating the private security guards - who are not LEOs - with CDOA security, who are.

The point of the story is that they were private security guards, and not CODA LEOs

No, they were CDOA. There's a good Q&A on CDOA security here: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-u ... story.html Note the Q&A where the CDOA spokesperson acknowledges that the officers involved were CDOA.

United are now unleashing scorpions upon their passengers

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39599859

I think the media may well have reached the bottom of the barrel!

aerolimani wrote:

727LOVER wrote:

SATexan wrote:

To all of you that vehemently support UA and the ORD aviation security and feel that Dr. Dao was a trespasser, belligerent loon and a security threat,

Yeah...you're talking about me right there. This guy deserves NOTHING.......Allow me to spell that N-O-T-H-I-N-G

"Just kill me, just kill me...just kill me"....yeah, that's a loon

What an asinine thing to say, 727LOVER. I'd love to see how coherent you would be immediately after you regain consciousness from a knock that gives you a concussion, a broken nose, broken teeth, and injuries to your sinus cavities.

Fair point....but I would have NEVER been in that situation, because I would have complied. What do you THINK is going to happen when you resist police?