OSUK1D

Well, you have narrowed the problem, which is the Contract of Carriage did NOT have grounds to remove boarded passengers, oversold or not. Everyone, including the doc, had seats and were boarded. Sorry, but Part 250 and the CoC has no provisions to put company people on in a higher priority than ticketed and boarded passengers. The company could have raised the compensation or left the crew behind. UA had NO legal grounds, under 250 and the CoC, to remove any of the four passengers. Read the rules before posting.

The court can rule the passenger injured was well within his rights under contract, as written. Even UA says they were wrong.

OSUk1d wrote:

ytz wrote:

BravoOne wrote:

UA should pray and pay to stop this from going to court, lest the whole industry gets upended when a judge decides that whole parts of that CoC are invalid.

How can a judge decide their CoC is invalid? Is a company not entitled to set their policies that are agreed to upon purchase of a ticket?

There are grounds where judges have ruled signed contracts invalid:
http://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/busine ... e-law.html

For example, prenups take a beating in court too:
http://family.findlaw.com/marriage/top- ... valid.html


Airline CoCs are so lopsided and anti-consumer that I would bet money that a good lawyer and a fair judge can find parts to invalidate. It's why I'd love to see Dr. Dao's case get to court. Not that United would ever risk that. They'll pay $20 million if they have to keep this out of court. The risk of the CoC being invalidated is far too great.

I wish his lawyers would also charge the security officers who roughed his up, especially now that the Chicago Airport PD has confirmed that those officers acted outside of their prescribed authorities. That should, in theory, mean they are both civilly and criminally liable.

You never answered my last question. If police officers showed up at your home and demanded to search it, would you let them walk in or demand a warrant first?

OSUk1d wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

OSUk1d wrote:

Go on. Do tell us you're actually in the running for the biggest drama queen of the thread award. Nobody beat anyone up. He injured himself by resisting when they did what they told him they were going to, and what he told them they were going to have to do.

You would tell a guy newly mugged and beaten up, that he was not fast enough to hand his wallet to the mugger. What do you not understand with that it is against the law to use violence to sort a civil disagreement? How thick is your brain? Is violence your usual mode of operation?

Don't tell me what I would tell anyone, you don't know me. But I would tell anybody that if the airline insists you must leave the plane, then you leave the plane. When authorities ask you to leave and you leave, you are much less likely to get injured. I have no sympathy for him. You apparently prefer to have a Mexican standoff and delay everybody indefinitely and cancel flights.

And if the mugger tells you to give him your wallet you give it to him. An airline is not an authority but an corporation that wants to earn money. If somebody says no you do not go and beat him up. And the muggers, you can call them cops or LEOs, had no authority. Authority has to be based on laws and not only the ability to rough you up and wear an uniform.
You are promoting violence, that is all I have to know about you and your mindset.

mjoelnir wrote:

OSUk1d wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

You are promoting violence, that is all I have to know about you and your mindset.

He's still not answered my question. Would he allow the police to search his house without a warrant?

OSUk1d wrote:

For everyone suggesting they should have booked him on AA or given ground transportation... how do you suggest they do this when he refuses to disembark and acts like a child? You can't look up options or discuss anything on the plane. I bet if he would have just cooperated they would have had several options. But they didn't have all night to have an auction on the plane or run back and forth to the gate to look up flights.

He was offered a voucher and a ride next day on UA and he said no. If they wanted to offer him something else they could have done so., if they were prepared to offer other options, they could have told him that they would get him to Louisville that evening. Anything else but the solution , the one they choose, the one you seem to relish and prefer over anything else, beating him up.

ytz wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

OSUk1d wrote:

He's still not answered my question. Would he allow the police to search his house without a warrant?

Especially if those police officers were acting outside of their lawful jurisdiction, for instance you live in Chicago and the cops are from Detroit (Different in England and Wales, where a warrant card of valid nationwide, regardless of the fact that you're in Northumberland and the cop comes from Cornwall; though they still might not have jurisdiction on Crown Land - hence the fact there's a separate MOD Police force)

OSUk1d wrote:

ytz wrote:

BravoOne wrote:

UA should pray and pay to stop this from going to court, lest the whole industry gets upended when a judge decides that whole parts of that CoC are invalid.

How can a judge decide their CoC is invalid? Is a company not entitled to set their policies that are agreed to upon purchase of a ticket?

A court of law can decide that sections in a CoC are unlawful and or unethical. Has happened before. The court can also clarify what reading of articles the CoC is right. The point is the uneven power between a corporation and a consumer.

Some facts here.....they weren't United Crew members who were deadheading....they were United Express Crew Members who work for an airline called Republic Airlines. Not United. They fly for under contract for United as United Express. Another thing.....United employees didn't beat the Dr. up. It was goons who work for the city of Chicago who were tough, rough and out of hand. United employees would never do that. United employees in general , are polite and professional people who take great pride in providing solid customer service. Don't label the ENTIRE airline bad when it might have been two United employees who may have made bad mistakes...such as the gate agent and his or her supervisor. People do make mistakes and United never intended for the DR. to be harmed physically. This flight was operated by Republic Airlines dba United Express. The company did a poor job distinguishing these facts and the national media, especially CNN has been highly unfair and biased in its coverage.

spacecadet wrote:

So given all that, I'd have to say that the vast majority of no-shows are non-refundable, as most tickets in general are. Which does mean the airline gets to double dip. And I've always thought this was flat-out wrong - no other industry that I can think of does this. If a bakery makes 500 loaves of bread, they sell 500 loaves of bread, not 520 and then hope that 20 people never show up to pick up what they've paid for so they can keep those 20 extra sales for something they never made. If you have a product, you don't get to sell it twice and keep the money from the person who didn't get it, regardless of why they didn't get it.

So if an airline's going to be allowed to overbook, then *every* ticket should really be refundable. If you're a no-show, your ticket gets refunded; that's it. Either that, or airlines aren't allowed to overbook, and they keep the money of everybody who doesn't show up. Those seats go empty, but they're paid for so why should the airline care? That bakery doesn't care if somebody pays for their loaf of bread and then throws it in the garbage. Once you pay for something, it's up to you how you use it. Those seats are no longer the airline's to sell.

Anyway, it's probably been pointed out many times (I haven't gone through the whole thread), but this flight wasn't really overbooked. They weren't making room for other passengers, but for employees. And that's arguably worse.

Well again, where I used to work (non-airline but similar situations), if someone no-showed they could reschedule for a 50% fee. We would sometimes be able to resell those seats to someone else. In my opinion, it's none of anyone's business if we sell them to someone else - it's a new transaction based on the first person no-showing. Occasionally we would waive the reschedule fee - quite often, actually, based on sob stories or unique circumstances - but they really were two separate transactions. Our main issue was that many people would cancel based on weather, traffic, etc. and it'd hard to remain in business when your customers look at prepaid ticketed reservations as optional.

As far as refundable vs nonrefundable, I'm not clear on why it's one way or the other. Plenty of people enjoy the lower, nonrefundable fare in exchange for the greater risk and lack of flexibility, while people who want less risk and more flexibility purchase a refundable ticket. I'm not sure why it matters if they resell the seat - you bought the ticket that fit your needs, and if your needs changed that's not the airline's fault. Because so many people miss their flights for the various reasons already mentioned, if they didn't overbook then they'd have more empty seats and there would be no revenue associated with them since many of those people had misconnects or refundable tickets that allowed them to move the associated revenue to a future flight.

Anyhow, whatever happens, happens, but I don't think the airlines are out of line or being unreasonable in overbooking flights. Again, only .000061% of flyers are IDB'd each year, so the system works almost always.

Dear coairman, I understand that you differentiate between United Airlines and Republic Airways. That's reasonable when looking at internal management of United.

But from a customer point of view it is irrelevant. The customer buys a flight from United with a UA flight number and has no control who is going to deliver. Only United Airlines controls that.

Airlines all over the world are these days outsourcing all sorts of services. Even call centres. Soon airline companies will be just owners of a web site. Everything else outsourced.

Outsourcing has been a trend in many industries during the later decades. Many industries have learned the hard way that outsourcing puts a whole new strain on overall quality control of their final products. United is in that learning process right now.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

Again, only .000061% of flyers are IDB'd each year, so the system works almost always.

Don't know where you get that figure. The latest data from U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics is from 2015 and says 46,000 IDB's or approximately 0.0075% or over 120 times more than your figure.

https://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita ... 01_64.html

It must be roughly something like one IDB per every one hundred flights.

I'm not saying whether it is little or much, I'm just forwarding government data.

OSUk1d wrote:

For everyone suggesting they should have booked him on AA or given ground transportation... how do you suggest they do this when he refuses to disembark and acts like a child? You can't look up options or discuss anything on the plane. I bet if he would have just cooperated they would have had several options. But they didn't have all night to have an auction on the plane or run back and forth to the gate to look up flights.

No, you are wrong. As per reports, he initially thought it was flight on same day, and when they said it was for next day, he said he can't take it as he has appointments to see patients next morning. At that point at least UA gate agent could have assured him they will try to find flight the same day. But instead the gate agent decided to use strong arm tactics.

They ultimately did leave 2 hours late as there was blood on the aircraft and everyone had to be deboarded and boarded again. I bet if the agent had taken time (if UA had given her authority to do so) to look up other flights leaving the same day, it would have taken much less time. Or if she had called up her manager to authorize more compensation. Instead she derisively laughed when someone told her he will deboard if compensation is $1600.

prebennorholm wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

Again, only .000061% of flyers are IDB'd each year, so the system works almost always.

Don't know where you get that figure. The latest data from U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics is from 2015 and says 46,000 IDB's or approximately 0.0075% or over 120 times more than your figure.

https://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita ... 01_64.html

It must be roughly something like one IDB per every one hundred flights.

I'm not saying whether it is little or much, I'm just forwarding government data.

I might be doing the math wrong, or I might be using erroneous data. 40,000 IDBs against 660,000,000 passengers. I think I forgot to move the decimal point to reflect it being a percentage, and my number might include international passenger totals.

I'm happy to use your number as for all intents and purposes it proves my point.

blrsea wrote:

Instead she derisively laughed when someone told her he will deboard if compensation is $1600.

We don't know how she laughed. She could have laughed nervously. She could have thought they were kidding. She could have been the meanest person in the world. We don't know. I don't think it really matters, so I don't see the point in making it up. It's already all bad enough.

OSUk1d wrote:

Don't tell me what I would tell anyone, you don't know me. But I would tell anybody that if the airline insists you must leave the plane, then you leave the plane. When authorities ask you to leave and you leave, you are much less likely to get injured. I have no sympathy for him. You apparently prefer to have a Mexican standoff and delay everybody indefinitely and cancel flights.

OSUkid, you are so passionate about repeatedly saying

But I would tell anybody that if the airline insists you must leave the plane, then you leave the plane. When authorities ask you to leave and you leave, you are much less likely to get injured.

I wonder why you don't just start a topic with that, so all that visit the Civil Aviation Forum, that believe like you do, can chime in with their support, or otherwise. No point in limiting such an important topic to only just something inside another thread....

It sounds funny, but perhaps your point of view deserves more...

PlanesNTrains wrote:

4. RE: Keeping all the revenue. If you think UA is unique in preferring to minimize their costs and maximize their revenues versus helping out a competitor, I would probably say you are wrong. Who knows.

UA is not alone in doing that. Some airlines (for example KLM) will give you the regulatory cash amount but offer more (sometimes double the amount) when you take the vouchers. Other airlines are notorious for not following the EU regulation which clearly states that a passenger has the right to be on the next available flight, even if that's on another airline. However, this kind of behaviour is exactly the reason why the EU parliament stepped in the first place (the regulation in the EU wouldn't be there if the airline industry solved it themselves). Moreover, the non-compliance of this part of the regulation has already attracted the attention of the regulator and I wouldn't be surpirsed if we'll see an airline actually getting fined for non-compliance (up to now no airline has been fined as far as I know) Thus, I sincerely hope that UA (and other US airlines) solve this problem soon as from the EU exerience we know that when politicians get involved, you'll get an even worse situation (which you really don't want as an airline).

coairman wrote:

Some facts here.....they weren't United Crew members who were deadheading....they were United Express Crew Members who work for an airline called Republic Airlines. Not United. They fly for under contract for United as United Express. Another thing.....United employees didn't beat the Dr. up. It was goons who work for the city of Chicago who were tough, rough and out of hand. United employees would never do that. United employees in general , are polite and professional people who take great pride in providing solid customer service. Don't label the ENTIRE airline bad when it might have been two United employees who may have made bad mistakes...such as the gate agent and his or her supervisor. People do make mistakes and United never intended for the DR. to be harmed physically. This flight was operated by Republic Airlines dba United Express. The company did a poor job distinguishing these facts and the national media, especially CNN has been highly unfair and biased in its coverage.

It really doesn't matter and smacks of excuses, frankly.

On the outside of the plane, in big letters, it says "United". The flight number was "UA3411". The crew were wearing UA uniforms. Most importantly, United's CEO eventually said it was all United's fault. You can't contract out flights as being "United" and then not take responsibility for what happens on that flight. If the issue is with Republic, then it's an internal issue between United and Republic that needs to be resolved, but as far as the public at large is concerned, it's all "United".

There's simply no escaping that.

scbriml wrote:

coairman wrote:

Some facts here.....they weren't United Crew members who were deadheading....they were United Express Crew Members who work for an airline called Republic Airlines. Not United. They fly for under contract for United as United Express. Another thing.....United employees didn't beat the Dr. up. It was goons who work for the city of Chicago who were tough, rough and out of hand. United employees would never do that. United employees in general , are polite and professional people who take great pride in providing solid customer service. Don't label the ENTIRE airline bad when it might have been two United employees who may have made bad mistakes...such as the gate agent and his or her supervisor. People do make mistakes and United never intended for the DR. to be harmed physically. This flight was operated by Republic Airlines dba United Express. The company did a poor job distinguishing these facts and the national media, especially CNN has been highly unfair and biased in its coverage.

It really doesn't matter and smacks of excuses, frankly.

On the outside of the plane, in big letters, it says "United". The flight number was "UA3411". The crew were wearing UA uniforms. Most importantly, United's CEO eventually said it was all United's fault. You can't contract out flights as being "United" and then not take responsibility for what happens on that flight. If the issue is with Republic, then it's an internal issue between United and Republic that needs to be resolved, but as far as the public at large is concerned, it's all "United".

There's simply no escaping that.

Why waste time dragging the horse to the water when the animal stubbornly refused to drink? Let it be!

GlenP wrote:

OSUk1d wrote:

GlenP wrote:

Go on. Do tell us you're actually in the running for daftest comment of the thread award, or at you so caught up in trying to shift the blame to the victim that you genuinely believe the tripe you're posting.

Can you really be unable to see that, given the fact that litigation would have been guaranteed, United's lawyers would have permitted the company's CEO to go on television, state that the passenger did nothing wrong and admit that they screwed up without having gone through the COC with a fine toothed comb, looking for anything which would have permitted OM to state that the airline acted within the terms of the contract between them and the passenger?

In effect, even if they don't settle out of court, by saying this OM has handed Dr Dao's lawyers their case on a plate. It is inconceivable that any CEO would do such a thing if there was even enough of a chance that they could claim they acted lawfully, even if it the arguments were reduced to the level of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

If he'd done such a thing OM would currently be on the unemployed list, after the board and shareholders had hung him out to dry by his privates, yet, he is still in the role of CEO and has stated that he's going nowhere.

It doesn't say anything about being onboard or off. He admitted it was handled poorly, not that anyone from United assaulted him. It was well within their rights to deny him boarding in an oversold situation. I guess they should just sit there all night next time so you won't need to use so many tissues.

You are willfully choosing to ignore statements from the airline that do not support your positon on this issue.

It has been publicly stated by the airline that the flight was not overbooked, or as you choose to phrase it, oversold. It was, however, fully booked, which created a situation in which they decided to, after enticements failed to get any volunteers, select 4 passengers for removal from the flight. Again, United have stated this should never have happened.

Are you really claiming that your opinions should carry more weight than public statements by the airline, who's senior management and legal teams will have been fully briefed as to what happened on the aircraft that night, regardless of any social or news media coverage?

No point in discussing any of this with you, since you are clearly just getting dramatic and making no sense.
Sure, the flight wasn't oversold. They were just looking for volunteers and removing people from the flight because it was fun. Maybe what he meant is that it was not originally oversold, however in order to get the crew on they needed the seats, which means there are more passengers than seats.
Either way, I'm done with you because you clearly don't understand how it works and are only interested in being a social justice warrior against United and on behalf of this innocent old man who does whatever he wants and does not comply with instructions.

And you are simply refusing to accept that the airline and the airport security / police have both admitted to being in the wrong, inventing new terminology along the way, in order to avoid having to admit that it is possible for airline staff to royally screw things up, or that you are under no obligation to comply with an unlawful order.

The airline did not overbook or oversell the flight; or any other terminology you invent in an attempt to muddy the waters. They have stated this.

The passenger in question did not fail to comply with any of the terms of the COC's. Again, the airline has publicly confirmed this.

The passenger didn't break any laws, nor was he disruptive and he constituted no threat to flight safety. All of which have been publicly confirmed by United Airlines.

The airport security staff should not have been involved. They should not have intervened in the manner they did, in fact they should never have even gone onboard the aircraft. They have no jurisdiction nor do they have the authority to remove passengers. All of which have been confirmed by the Chicago Airport PD, who have placed the staff involved on leave, pending an inquiry into their actions.

In light of the above, you still appear to be claiming to know both the airline's COC's and the SOPs of the airport police better than either of these two organisations.

BTW. I don't have any sort of axe to grind with United Airlines, the chances of me ever needing to fly with them, or any other US carrier, are virtually nil. However, what I do object to is the notion that one must obey an order from those with even the smallest amount of authority, regardless of whether said order has a legal basis or not. It is a truly dangerous idea and is exactly the reason why even the army doesn't expect blind obedience; you cannot be charged or court martialled for refusing to carry out an order which breaches military, civilian or the laws of conflict. Demanding blind obedience of civilians is therefore equally wrong.

I can restrain myself no longer after 500 replies...My own experience at the gates has taught me a few things: First of all,once you get into a crowd you become part of it.Passengers are like a flock of sheep;and in that flock there are also hiding bad wolves and sly foxes. I don't think it is necessary to point out what category he falls into...standing like Jesus Christ superstar with his pubic hair out in common view...what a show! Now as for the compensation part, this is trickier. You think that United will be willing to pay him millions in an out-of-court settlement? I don't think so. Republic is at fault as you have said, not United.

OSUk1d wrote:

How can a judge decide their CoC is invalid? Is a company not entitled to set their policies that are agreed to upon purchase of a ticket?

Just because two parties signed, not every contract is valid. There are unconscionable and unilateral agreements, judges void or ask parties to rewrite time-to-time.

BTW here airline is in violation of several laws, not the passenger. Passengers were brain-washed into believing everything airline employees say is law, until this guy decided to hang on to his seat.

Airline employees don't want to let go the undue powers they got since 9/11.

gzm wrote:

I can restrain myself no longer after 500 replies...My own experience at the gates has taught me a few things: First of all,once you get into a crowd you become part of it.Passengers are like a flock of sheep;and in that flock there are also hiding bad wolves and sly foxes. I don't think it is necessary to point out what category he falls into...standing like Jesus Christ superstar with his pubic hair out in common view...what a show! Now as for the compensation part, this is trickier. You think that United will be willing to pay him millions in an out-of-court settlement? I don't think so. Republic is at fault as you have said, not United.

After 40 pages people are still saying United is not at fault?

The CEO of United has publicly said otherwise

Republic is a United contractor, ultimately United hired them and bares responsibility, and has publicly accepted it multiple times
Yes others were also at fault (ie. Officers that removed him, and Mr. Dao himself on a level though Oscar says he isn't at all)

Based on the quality of Mr. Dao's representation, and the fact the CEO has already said Dao did nothing wrong, I would argue he will be getting millions in a settlement, in or out of court; United wants this to GO AWAY, and it is much more cost effective to pay Dao than litigate a case already lost in the court of public opinion which affects their bottom line more than actual court.

gzm wrote:

I can restrain myself no longer after 500 replies...My own experience at the gates has taught me a few things: First of all,once you get into a crowd you become part of it.Passengers are like a flock of sheep;and in that flock there are also hiding bad wolves and sly foxes. I don't think it is necessary to point out what category he falls into...standing like Jesus Christ superstar with his pubic hair out in common view...what a show! Now as for the compensation part, this is trickier. You think that United will be willing to pay him millions in an out-of-court settlement? I don't think so. Republic is at fault as you have said, not United.

Are you an attorney? If not, all your points are moot at best. UAL biggest risk are potential punitive damages, as these are typically not covered by insurance. I wouldn't give the Dr. a dime, but that's just me.

BravoOne wrote:

Are you an attorney?

If he is, it begets the question of whether he is a better one than Thomas Demetrio who is reportedly known as “the everyman’s lawyer.”?
If so, then United better throw away all of their present legal counsels and deploy him against Demetrio .

The problem here is there is the court of law and the court of public opinion as witnessed on this website.

OSUk1d wrote:

GlenP wrote:

OSUk1d wrote:

It doesn't say anything about being onboard or off. He admitted it was handled poorly, not that anyone from United assaulted him. It was well within their rights to deny him boarding in an oversold situation. I guess they should just sit there all night next time so you won't need to use so many tissues.

You are willfully choosing to ignore statements from the airline that do not support your positon on this issue.

It has been publicly stated by the airline that the flight was not overbooked, or as you choose to phrase it, oversold. It was, however, fully booked, which created a situation in which they decided to, after enticements failed to get any volunteers, select 4 passengers for removal from the flight. Again, United have stated this should never have happened.

Are you really claiming that your opinions should carry more weight than public statements by the airline, who's senior management and legal teams will have been fully briefed as to what happened on the aircraft that night, regardless of any social or news media coverage?

No point in discussing any of this with you, since you are clearly just getting dramatic and making no sense.
Sure, the flight wasn't oversold. They were just looking for volunteers and removing people from the flight because it was fun. Maybe what he meant is that it was not originally oversold, however in order to get the crew on they needed the seats, which means there are more passengers than seats.
Either way, I'm done with you because you clearly don't understand how it works and are only interested in being a social justice warrior against United and on behalf of this innocent old man who does whatever he wants and does not comply with instructions.

t

Have you actually read anything UA has published? Give it a break until you do so, as you seem to live in an alternate world.

In addition to UA's admission of blame; read this legal analysis

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/united-cites-wrong-rule-for-illegally-de-boarding-passenger/

GF

BravoOne wrote:

The problem here is there is the court of law and the court of public opinion as witnessed on this website.

It's a customer service problem if your threshold for customer service is "whatever we can legally get away with."

ssteve wrote:

BravoOne wrote:

The problem here is there is the court of law and the court of public opinion as witnessed on this website.

It's a customer service problem if your threshold for customer service is "whatever we can legally get away with."

I believe you may have made a typo on your statement. Did you not mean to say: It's a customer service problem if your threshold for customer service is "whatever you can illegally get away with"

At least that is what it looks like to me...

Have a great day,

Us will settle, and they can't do it soon enough.
1) The incident and the associated PR challenge will keep surfacing until the case is closed.
2) They don't want the CoC, in particular the unbalanced sections to be reviewed by the court (and potentially identified as illegal).
3) Their insurance company will force them to settle.

Happy travels
DLP

Us will settle, and they can't do it soon enough.
1) The incident and the associated PR challenge will keep surfacing until the case is closed.
2) They don't want the CoC, in particular the unbalanced sections to be reviewed by the court (and potentially identified as illegal).
3) Their insurance company will force them to settle.

Happy travels
DLP

BravoOne wrote:

The problem here is there is the court of law and the court of public opinion as witnessed on this website.

The court of public opinion is what fuels the PR nightmare and it will continue until this is settled and out of the media.

The court of law (if it comes to that) is what will examine the CoC and the procedures of the airport security personnel.

It sounds to me that, in both this and earlier posts, you are inferring that the latter is in favour of UA. If this is the case, would you care to justify this with something other than rhetoric?

OSUk1d wrote:

No point in discussing any of this with you, since you are clearly just getting dramatic and making no sense.
Sure, the flight wasn't oversold. They were just looking for volunteers and removing people from the flight because it was fun. Maybe what he meant is that it was not originally oversold, however in order to get the crew on they needed the seats, which means there are more passengers than seats.
Either way, I'm done with you because you clearly don't understand how it works and are only interested in being a social justice warrior against United and on behalf of this innocent old man who does whatever he wants and does not comply with instructions.

In my career I have worked for AF and SK before moving on to other parts of the industry, in which I spent almost two decades of my life. I may not work in that field anymore, but I do understand exactly how it works, and my own opinions are far closer aligned with GlenP's than they are yours.

Your apologist attitude and willingness to prostrate yourself before anyone with a name badge, even after the airline has decided it is in an indefensible position, is apparently not one that can be reasoned with. As for social justice, it doesn't come into this. The airline cocked up by boarding passengers that they did not have room for (so limiting their options contractually) and instead of handling that in a reasonable manner (which their policy apparently does not give them scope to do) they called in a security team that were seemingly trained for dealing with aggressive passengers, resulting in the grossly disproportionate use of force that we have seen.

Your safety argument is invalid. The passengers refusal to accept the remedy being offered to him is not justification to decide that he is a safety risk to the aircraft, and that is the acid test for an unsafe passenger.

I am pretty certain this won't go to court, which is a shame, as I would be quite entertained coming back here to listen to you argue that the judge was only bowing to public pressure.

North Terminal is right.

Pre getting on the plane, yes a passenger can be refused travel involuntarily.

That all changes after a passenger has boarded. Once someone is onboard you can only remove them for a set of predetermined reasons, such as medical or security. You can't remove them because of needing the seat for someone else.

In terms of following crew instructions, yes you have to follow any "lawful" crew instruction and unless you are being removed for reasons such as medical or security (or other lawful instruction) then you have no obligation to follow a crew instruction.

In other words once boarded, you are perfectly entitled to refuse to be bumped.

To me this stinks of staff on a power trip and leadership with no idea of how an airline practically operates.

gzm wrote:

You think that United will be willing to pay him millions in an out-of-court settlement? I don't think so. Republic is at fault as you have said, not United.

Another UA apologist? If it's Republic's fault, why is the CEO of United issuing the apologies and mea culpas?

Are you swimming with OSUk1d? You must be getting tired now.

coairman wrote:

Some facts here.....they weren't United Crew members who were deadheading....they were United Express Crew Members who work for an airline called Republic Airlines. Not United. They fly for under contract for United as United Express. Another thing.....United employees didn't beat the Dr. up. It was goons who work for the city of Chicago who were tough, rough and out of hand. United employees would never do that. United employees in general , are polite and professional people who take great pride in providing solid customer service. Don't label the ENTIRE airline bad when it might have been two United employees who may have made bad mistakes...such as the gate agent and his or her supervisor. People do make mistakes and United never intended for the DR. to be harmed physically. This flight was operated by Republic Airlines dba United Express. The company did a poor job distinguishing these facts and the national media, especially CNN has been highly unfair and biased in its coverage.

Given that basically every media link in the world has been running this story, singling out CNN is disingenuous. At the end of the day, people hear and remember United Airlines. Tickets are sold as United Airlines. Does Republic announce every flight the are operating the flight on behalf of UA? I've flown lots of commuters under the larger company umbrella, no one cares as long as they get to their destination. Blaming Republic doesn't cut it.

coairman wrote:

Some facts here.....they weren't United Crew members who were deadheading....they were United Express Crew Members who work for an airline called Republic Airlines. Not United. They fly for under contract for United as United Express. Another thing.....United employees didn't beat the Dr. up. It was goons who work for the city of Chicago who were tough, rough and out of hand. United employees would never do that. United employees in general , are polite and professional people who take great pride in providing solid customer service. Don't label the ENTIRE airline bad when it might have been two United employees who may have made bad mistakes...such as the gate agent and his or her supervisor. People do make mistakes and United never intended for the DR. to be harmed physically. This flight was operated by Republic Airlines dba United Express. The company did a poor job distinguishing these facts and the national media, especially CNN has been highly unfair and biased in its coverage.

Sorry, the entire airline is bad if this is how they allow their contractors to act, when flying THEIR brand and issuing THEIR tickets to ride said contractor.
United is 100% responsible for Republic in this instance.
Or they should be found to be.
If you're selling a service with your policies and your branding, and taking customers' money, you can't just wash your hands and say "ohhh well WE didn't actually fly this flight. We're exempt."
Sorry, that's unethical AT LEAST.

OSUk1d wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

OSUk1d wrote:

It doesn't say anything about being onboard or off. He admitted it was handled poorly, not that anyone from United assaulted him. It was well within their rights to deny him boarding in an oversold situation. I guess they should just sit there all night next time so you won't need to use so many tissues.

If you ask some thugs to beat up a person, you have the same responsibility for what happened, as the thugs.

Go on. Do tell us you're actually in the running for the biggest drama queen of the thread award. Nobody beat anyone up. He injured himself by resisting when they did what they told him they were going to, and what he told them they were going to have to do.

Wow, you must be proud of your lack of intelligence. Easy to sit behind a computer and spout stupidity; I wonder if you're a Chicago cop; because you talk like a thug cop.

Sorry about the Chicago P.D. comment. After reading more of your "stuff" it's obvious that I sold CPD short. I believe you may be a follower of Joe Goebbles; he convinced many that his political group would be good for the public, and some of us know how that turned out. Carry on.

glbltrvlr wrote:

Exactly. Regardless of the merits of this particular individual, let's see...

- Failure to follow flight crew instructions - federal felony
- Failure to follow law enforcement instructions - state misdemeanor
- Resisting arrest - state felony

And there's probably an assault charge or two in there as well. I hope this guy has a large bank account, a good lawyer and enjoys his new friends at the Cook County hotel.

Do you ever find yourself doing dinner for one and staring longingly at pictures of Kim Jung-un or Recip Erdogan, and then in the mounting excitement just skipping desert and going right to bed?

I'll say this, you'd make an excellent aide de camp to Oscar. Standing on his right shoulder in your little red costume, pitchfork in hand, whispering in his ear "eff 'em Oscar, he deserved it! Give him another beating! Shit man, send his ass down to Terre Haute, let him ride the lightning baby, man dared say no to a gate agent..a united Airlines GATE AGENT???!!!

What complete and total buffoons inhabit this society, it is absolutely remarkable.

wingman wrote:

glbltrvlr wrote:

Exactly. Regardless of the merits of this particular individual, let's see...

- Failure to follow flight crew instructions - federal felony
- Failure to follow law enforcement instructions - state misdemeanor
- Resisting arrest - state felony

And there's probably an assault charge or two in there as well. I hope this guy has a large bank account, a good lawyer and enjoys his new friends at the Cook County hotel.

Do you ever find yourself doing dinner for one and staring longingly at pictures of Kim Jung-un or Recip Erdogan, and then in the mounting excitement just skipping desert and going right to bed?

I'll say this, you'd make an excellent aide de camp to Oscar. Standing on his right shoulder in your little red costume, pitchfork in hand, whispering in his ear "eff 'em Oscar, he deserved it! Give him another beating! Shit man, send his ass down to Terre Haute, let him ride the lightning baby, man dared say no to a gate agent..a united Airlines GATE AGENT???!!!

What complete and total buffoons inhabit this society, it is absolutely remarkable.

NorthTerminal wrote:

OSUk1d wrote:

No point in discussing any of this with you, since you are clearly just getting dramatic and making no sense.
Sure, the flight wasn't oversold. They were just looking for volunteers and removing people from the flight because it was fun. Maybe what he meant is that it was not originally oversold, however in order to get the crew on they needed the seats, which means there are more passengers than seats.
Either way, I'm done with you because you clearly don't understand how it works and are only interested in being a social justice warrior against United and on behalf of this innocent old man who does whatever he wants and does not comply with instructions.

In my career I have worked for AF and SK before moving on to other parts of the industry, in which I spent almost two decades of my life. I may not work in that field anymore, but I do understand exactly how it works, and my own opinions are far closer aligned with GlenP's than they are yours.

Your apologist attitude and willingness to prostrate yourself before anyone with a name badge, even after the airline has decided it is in an indefensible position, is apparently not one that can be reasoned with. As for social justice, it doesn't come into this. The airline cocked up by boarding passengers that they did not have room for (so limiting their options contractually) and instead of handling that in a reasonable manner (which their policy apparently does not give them scope to do) they called in a security team that were seemingly trained for dealing with aggressive passengers, resulting in the grossly disproportionate use of force that we have seen.

Your safety argument is invalid. The passengers refusal to accept the remedy being offered to him is not justification to decide that he is a safety risk to the aircraft, and that is the acid test for an unsafe passenger.

I am pretty certain this won't go to court, which is a shame, as I would be quite entertained coming back here to listen to you argue that the judge was only bowing to public pressure.

It absolutely is reasonable to IDB. Airlines do it all the time.
And when did I say anything about a safety argument. I simply said the airline asked him to leave their plane because he was being denied boarding and they have that right. Reasonable people leave when security asks them to, not say "you're going to have to drag me out" and then act surprised when they do.

Braniff1 wrote:

OSUk1d wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

If you ask some thugs to beat up a person, you have the same responsibility for what happened, as the thugs.

Go on. Do tell us you're actually in the running for the biggest drama queen of the thread award. Nobody beat anyone up. He injured himself by resisting when they did what they told him they were going to, and what he told them they were going to have to do.

Wow, you must be proud of your lack of intelligence. Easy to sit behind a computer and spout stupidity; I wonder if you're a Chicago cop; because you talk like a thug cop.

Sorry about the Chicago P.D. comment. After reading more of your "stuff" it's obvious that I sold CPD short. I believe you may be a follower of Joe Goebbles; he convinced many that his political group would be good for the public, and some of us know how that turned out. Carry on.

You can believe all you want, but you're the one spouting stupidity. Easy to judge someone you don't know from "behind a computer," but you know nothing of my intellect.

OSUk1d wrote:

Braniff1 wrote:

OSUk1d wrote:

Go on. Do tell us you're actually in the running for the biggest drama queen of the thread award. Nobody beat anyone up. He injured himself by resisting when they did what they told him they were going to, and what he told them they were going to have to do.

Wow, you must be proud of your lack of intelligence. Easy to sit behind a computer and spout stupidity; I wonder if you're a Chicago cop; because you talk like a thug cop.

Sorry about the Chicago P.D. comment. After reading more of your "stuff" it's obvious that I sold CPD short. I believe you may be a follower of Joe Goebbles; he convinced many that his political group would be good for the public, and some of us know how that turned out. Carry on.

You can believe all you want, but you're the one spouting stupidity. Easy to judge someone you don't know from "behind a computer," but you know nothing of my intellect.

A brilliant man once noted: "It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt." Your non-intellectual spin on society allows the intelligent posters here to see you for what you are. I pray that OSU is not a place that granted you a degree; if so, it was waste of someones money and a black mark on such institution. No, I do not know you or that fat crazy kid in North Korea, but I know enough about you both to know that you're both way off center in the mentality dept. I also know, that any further talk with you, is a waste of time.

This has reached the point of complete absurdity. The airlines are to blame for, cramped seating, bad food, surly employees, stale nuts, planes that break, the weather, people not being seated together, crying babies, mechanical problems, high fares (B.S!), inflexible rules, not holding flights, being mean to disabled people, serving a glass of flat Coke, dirty lavatories, entertainment system malfunction, seat malfunction, crews that go illegal for reasons no one even cares to try and understand, no gate available, pets in the cabin, discrimination against disabled people, obnoxious seat mates, people who don't put their seat up, mishandling luggage, deceptive information, lying, not getting their choice of meal, cabin being too cold or hot, no overhead space, requiring a bag to be checked, overbooking which in itself is absolutely wrong (no matter if people consistently don't show up), offering only $1000 travel voucher (the nerve!). Sitting on the runway for an hour! The horror! Drink service took too long, Landing was awful. There was no one around to explain when thousands of Delta flights were diverted or delayed in Atlanta. No one! No one had a personal travel assistant who is supposed to know, up to the minute, what is happening. When the airlines find out what is happening, you don't believe them anyway so why bother? They are all just awful awful awful. Even though only a few people out of 100,000 bother to complain to the DOT about them. Why is that? If you hate them so much, why are all categories in airline operation improving? Oh, it must be fake news, that's right. Why should any airline employee try to be nice anymore since no matter what they do, you hate them anyway? I am truly blown away by the hate, the venom, the complete lack of objective knowledge that so many have regarding this industry. As the New York Times calls them, they are "Abusive Cartels", so they too, must not believe or understand the outstanding track record airlines have in many areas (such as safety....but that's not important in all of this mud slinging is it?). So be sure you have your cellphones ready to capture the latest incident of perceived abuse. You have absolutely NO background knowledge of what caused the incident, but who cares? Airlines are "cartels". Throw all their employees in jail. Execute them. Re create your own air travel system. Once you've perfected it, ensure that millions and millions of people get flawless treatment, no matter what the circumstances. If it's storming, just fly though it so they can get to their destination. If the plane is broken, just put some tape on it and takeoff. Don't, for any reason, overbook. You will have to explain to your shareholders why the plane left with open seats..which affects the bottom line. But who cares? Anything is better than the mean, gouging, impersonal, irresponsible, industry that it is now. The fact that your bag got lost far out ways the fact you were carried, along with millions of others, for years, in complete safety. But big deal. Roll you eyes at the flight attendant who has to demand your attention for the exit row briefing. Treat them poorly because the industry is awful and somehow they must be out to get you. Yes folks, it's a cold cruel world out there....and the airlines are responsible for it all.

ozark1 wrote:

This has reached the point of complete absurdity. .......... Yes folks, it's a cold cruel world out there....and the airlines are responsible for it all.

Well, this was all quite entertaining. Much better than reading all the nonsense from OSUk1d.

Thanks.

OSUk1d wrote:

It absolutely is reasonable to IDB. Airlines do it all the time.
And when did I say anything about a safety argument. I simply said the airline asked him to leave their plane because he was being denied boarding and they have that right. Reasonable people leave when security asks them to, not say "you're going to have to drag me out" and then act surprised when they do.

Apologies if I have misrepresented you, I (wrongly) inferred that yours was a safety argument because these are the only grounds that UA had to remove the passenger from the flight without breaching their own terms of service. You are deliberately ignoring the fact that the airline lost the right to deny boarding when they boarded the passenger, probably because it does not suit your point of view. UA made a set of rules, then abandoned them on the day (and many times before by the sounds of things), either because the staff were unaware that they were in fact the rules, or simply because it suited them and they had been backed up by management in the past.

FYI, I am well aware that an airline has the right to deny boarding. I am well aware that airlines do it all of the time, it is standard practice and I have absolutely no issue with it if it is done in accordance with the conditions of carriage. In this case, they did not bump the passenger in accordance with their own CoC. Where it is ambiguous... and really, I do not see much ambiguity, it will favour the passenger. Correct procedure used to be sort out loads before admitting passengers onto the aircraft, does this not happen anymore? Is it just thinly veiled chaos until the crew shut the doors?

I have repeated my position many times and you keep coming back to the point that it is OK for the ground crew to IDB. The passenger had a boarding pass and was physically boarded. In my mind, just having the boarding pass would consider him a boarded passenger, but he was actually on the bloody aircraft. You have said '[The CoC] says nothing about being on board already' and you are incorrect. Involuntary Denied Boarding implies that the passenger is being denied the right to board the aircraft. In this case he had already been issued a boarding pass for and had boarded (yes, I said it again). You may choose to stick to a tortuous definition of boarded because it suits your argument, but it does not make you correct.

As far as complying with the security personnel are concerned, I probably would have, but if I HAD to be somewhere then I may not have been so willing given the circumstances and would have felt that airline security had no place in this situation. I cannot say really, as I find it bizarre that policy/procedure/attitudes resulted in this mexican stand off.

It is very likely that either the CoC will change to reflect this situation and permit the removal of passengers after they have boarded for whatever reason the carrier gives, or policy will change so that the situation will not be allowed to happen again. However, this situation did arise and UA handled it poorly and have paid, and are going to pay, very heavily because they are culpable for triggering the chain of events that ended up with a fairly serious injury to a passenger that was supposed to be under its care.

If you disagree with me, that's fine, but you cannot dismiss me as not knowing what I am talking about. I am now quite tired of repeating myself and reading your own repetitious comments, which I feel that I have offered conclusive rebuttals for that you have not satisfactorily addressed. So, unless you have anything new to add, I am done.

Bon chance

I asked a friend this question:

What if the headline read:

"Professional poker player/convicted drug dealer dragged from plane."

Would people have a different opinion?

I mean, that's also an accurate description of the man.

ikramerica wrote:

I asked a friend this question:

What if the headline read:

"Professional poker player/convicted drug dealer dragged from plane."

At least he isn't a cop.

ikramerica wrote:

I asked a friend this question:

What if the headline read:

"Professional poker player/convicted drug dealer dragged from plane."

Would people have a different opinion?

I mean, that's also an accurate description of the man.

IIRC this was discredited.

The person that you are talking about is a different individual with the same name but not this person.

StarAC17 wrote:

ikramerica wrote:

I asked a friend this question:

What if the headline read:

"Professional poker player/convicted drug dealer dragged from plane."

Would people have a different opinion?

I mean, that's also an accurate description of the man.

IIRC this was discredited.

The person that you are talking about is a different individual with the same name but not this person.

The journos, who released the story which, possibly but apparently more likely didn't, reveal the Dr's past are claiming they checked it out, by making a phone call.

Surely the repetition of such allegations, without being 100% sure that it's the correct Dr Dao under discussion could be construed as libellous and only add to the airline's and the Airport Police's problems?

Talk about handing a burning man a can of AVGAS to put out the flames with.