Man Dragged off United Airlines/Flight Overbooked, April 2017

[gitana1]

:gaah: There is nothing mature about me, I assure you ............:banghead:. I stated my experience, my actions and the outcome.

What is right for me, isn't right for you and others. So what?

Am I to be condemned because I chose to behave in a way that didn't hurt anyone (or myself) or cause anyone else (or myself) distress?
I guess so.

Oh, well. :shrug:

As I stated before, I probably would have gotten off the plane too when faced with a bunch of cops.

There's no condemnation about anyone's decisions as to how they would react. But smug inferences that to react otherwise was immature, reckless, and wrong, that the right thing to do would be to conform his behavior with what someone else might do and that his failure to obey a greedy corporation means he is the problem and thus gets what he deserved, that's the issue.

The suggestion that to resist is what "hurts" oneself or others and is what causes "distress", is to side totally with the billion dollar company and to fail totally to understand that some are not merely "inconvenienced" by being forced to deplane, but are extremely distressed, in a variety of possible ways depending on the situation. Again, it's language used to subtly blame the man for what happened, absolve the impossibly wealthy corporate entity and put its quest for profit over human needs. I don't agree with that.

On another topic, for those who cited a supposed federal cap to what can be paid out, as yet another of a litany of excuses as to why United wasn't at fault, here's this (note that it doesn't change the federal regulations, just Delta's policies):

Meanwhile, Delta Airlines will offer up to nearly $10,000 to passengers to give up their seats on overbooked flights, Fortune reports. The airline raised its compensation limit by thousands of dollars, according to the Associated Press.

https://www.yahoo.com/celebrity/united-airlines-changes-policy-displacing-034446847.html

 

[gitana1]

You couldn't pay me enough money to go through the humiliation of being dragged down the aisle of an aircraft by security with multiple people recording the incident on their phones. Once security arrived, he knew he was getting off, so why not walk down the aisle, voicing his objections, and then file his law suit. The only difference in getting dragged out is a little more drama and a little more money in court, I suppose.

In the end, no one has said UA or security was correct in what they did, including UA, but it seems like we HAVE to agree that this man did absolutely nothing wrong---or else.

I'm with you.

Oh yes. Many posts expressed precisely that, over and over again- that United and security were within their rights to do what they did and that the passenger was the one in the wrong for not obeying.

People argued vehemently that United could do this due to it's clear contract. That security had a right to forcibly remove someone from the plane, that he hadn't even boarded so it was all legal, that they aren't responsible for his injuries because they were "working" in a "tight space". That he's a criminal so he must have been in the wrong. Etc. Etc.

This incident of physically forcing a paying customer from his seat after he boarded and settled in, using officers to effectuate the removal, is stunning in its repulsiveness. It is one of the most violent examples of corporate
profit over customer rights that I have seen.

For me it is bizarre and sad to see such vehement and steadfast defense of the billion dollar corporation.

 

[jadejazzkayla]

The employees responsible for asking for volunteers to deplane caused this incident which then was escalated by their decision to call airport security.

Had the employees offered an increasing amount of compensation until they had enough volunteers- the assault would never have happened.

Why? Why did these employees responsible decide to stop their offer at $800?

They have no limit on the amount of money they can offer customers to voluntarily take a later flight.

There is no excuse for the failure of these employees to do their job.

 

[1&2&3]

I remember when I saw this it fascinated me! Old also but neat to think about !

[video=youtube;cMgarcFkXz4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMgarcFkXz4[/video]

Interesting, thank you.

I like to sit as close to the front as possible. My gripe is those people sitting in the back putting their luggage in the front as they board! Then when we get on, the flight attendant has to take my suitcase further back from our seats.

When it's time to deplane, passengers are looking for our luggage and passing it down the aisle as other passengers are trying to go around us to get off.

I wish the flight attendants would stop this practice! It has gotten much worse over the years. Some brazen people will try storing it in first class, but usually they get stopped by a flight attendant.

 

[Rocco]

Oh yes. Many posts expressed precisely that, over and over again- that United and security were within their rights to do what they did and that the passenger was the one in the wrong for not obeying.

People argued vehemently that United could do this due to it's clear contract. That security had a right to forcibly remove someone from the plane, that he hadn't even boarded so it was all legal, that they aren't responsible for his injuries because they were "working" in a "tight space". That he's a criminal so he must have been in the wrong. Etc. Etc.

This incident of physically forcing a paying customer from his seat after he boarded and settled in, using officers to effectuate the removal, is stunning in its repulsiveness. It is one of the most violent examples of corporate
profit over customer rights that I have seen.

For me it is bizarre and sad to see such vehement and steadfast defense of the billion dollar corporation.

The key words were 'In the end'. After all the information was gathered regarding the rights of the airline and the rights of passengers, no one argued that UA had the right to bump him from his seat once he was seated.

There were people who initially thought that once you bought a confirmed seat, you could not be bumped before boarding. Everyone who has been following along, now knows that that's not the case. Maybe some people didn't learn anything from this thread because they already knew everything, but it seems most people learned a little more than they knew before as more information came out and clarification was made. So once again, as I said, "In the end, no one has said UA or security was correct in what they did, including UA."

Maybe you could respond to the posts of people who are currently defending what the airline did----- I must have missed those posts and I'd be interested in reading them.

 

[FelicityLemon]

Who said he's a "bad" person? Who said he's "harming" others by not submitting? United began the inconvenience by choosing to deplane already paid-for and seated customers. One passenger extended the inconvenience by balking. Inconvenience is not harm or bad. Facts are facts, those are facts, they aren't judgments. Some people insist on making judgments and further putting those judgments into other people's words where no judgment existed.

Why is it scary that some people have said they wouldn't have complained? Why would anyone complain if they don't find something objectionable? On the other hand, there are people who like to complain just because they can even when it's of no import to them.

Conspiracy theorists and anti-government rhetoric scares me as does anything taken to the extreme. I don't agree, but what's right for others may not be right for me and what's right for me obviously isn't right for others. We're thinking, feeling human beings. Many of us have fears.

Many people understand that people are different. Different doesn't automatically equal good, bad, better, stupid or fill-in-the-blank.

If we all thought the same way, there would be no need for lawyers.

 

[human]

Interesting, thank you.

I like to sit as close to the front as possible. My gripe is those people sitting in the back putting their luggage in the front as they board! Then when we get on, the flight attendant has to take my suitcase further back from our seats.

When it's time to deplane, passengers are looking for our luggage and passing it down the aisle as other passengers are trying to go around us to get off.

I wish the flight attendants would stop this practice! It has gotten much worse over the years. Some brazen people will try storing it in first class, but usually they get stopped by a flight attendant.

Really? Never have seen this in flying all over. Maybe on the super cheap airlines?

 

[Morag]

Some have wondered why Dr. Dao didn't just comply with the 'polite' request, so as to save himself the aftermath of his refusal. Why? Because he quite reasonably assumed that the pilot (who was in charge) would just up the ante for other 'volunteers' when they saw that Dr. Dao had no intention of leaving his seat.

He probably reasonably assumed that the pilot (who was in charge) would call HQ to ask how to proceed, and that ultimately some other person would be offered $1000 or more and accept the offer. No one on that plane, nor any of us who have ever flown, nor anyone who is posting on this board has ever seen or heard of a pack of goons coming on board and roughly (roughly enough to cause serious injuries) drag a passenger who was doing nothing wrong off the airplane.

Why didn't the pilot (who is always in charge) review the options for dealing with this? I don't believe I have seen the pilot mentioned in any of this (I could have missed it).

There was another option for this flight to proceed. There were apparently four crew members who needed seats, and the involuntary (but compliant) flyers had surrendered three seats. Why not leave one crew member behind and let Louisville deal with the absence? Surely they can deal with the occasional absence- people do get sick, etc. I don't think it's been made plain that all of the four employees were scheduled for the same flight the next day, anyway.

But the pilot decided that the best thing to do was to manhandle an elderly and unwilling person in order to accommodate that crew. Chicago Airport Security has put one of their employees on suspension pending further investigation. IMO, the pilot should certainly be suspended if not fired.

 

[Rocco]

Some have wondered why Dr. Dao didn't just comply with the 'polite' request, so as to save himself the aftermath of his refusal. Why? Because he quite reasonably assumed that the pilot (who was in charge) would just up the ante for other 'volunteers' when they saw that Dr. Dao had no intention of leaving his seat.

He probably reasonably assumed that the pilot (who was in charge) would call HQ to ask how to proceed, and that ultimately some other person would be offered $1000 or more and accept the offer. No one on that plane, nor any of us who have ever flown, nor anyone who is posting on this board has ever seen or heard of a pack of goons coming on board and roughly (roughly enough to cause serious injuries) drag a passenger who was doing nothing wrong off the airplane.

Why didn't the pilot (who is always in charge) review the options for dealing with this? I don't believe I have seen the pilot mentioned in any of this (I could have missed it).

There was another option for this flight to proceed. There were apparently four crew members who needed seats, and the involuntary (but compliant) flyers had surrendered three seats. Why not leave one crew member behind and let Louisville deal with the absence? Surely they can deal with the occasional absence- people do get sick, etc. I don't think it's been made plain that all of the four employees were scheduled for the same flight the next day, anyway.

But the pilot decided that the best thing to do was to manhandle an elderly and unwilling person in order to accommodate that crew. Chicago Airport Security has put one of their employees on suspension pending further investigation. IMO, the pilot should certainly be suspended if not fired.

Here's what the United pilots had to say (I posted it previously but maybe you missed it):

http://www.cosmopolitan.com/lifestyle/a9274393/united-pilots-respond-david-dao-incident-statement/

 

[Morag]

PS- I have been involuntarily deboarded in 1982, in the Dominican Republic. And I went quietly, because I was a travel professional, flying on a complementary ticket.

And it was a nightmare for us for 48 hours because we were deemed to have entered the Dominican without a tourist card!

We were detained at the second airport we were transported to for our flight home and were unable to get help from the US Embassy because "it's the weekend ma'am, and I'm just a Marine guard." And we were almost denied boarding in Ft. Lauderdale (free ticket, once again). Finally got home at 4AM. two days late, and got up at 7AM to go to work.

 

[CARIIS]

Its maddening. Most of us here are fact seeking people by nature. Media - days after - continues to WRONGLY report a United Airlines cabin crew

This is a simple fact - it's wrong. This is not investigative reporting.

First paragraph of any news story IMO, all , should provide who what when where and how

It is that simple

This was not a United Airlines cabin crew. I am not loyal to United at all,never flown them, but as an aviation enthusiast, they have not had (past) good on-time performance, lost baggage issues, the number of c complaints per seat mile , etc etc.

The FAA issues reports on this data every three months.

Report it right - after days, it was a codeshare.

That is huge .

Huge aviation person, at least to me it is interesting. They do like all kinds of variables.

Codeshare wise.

Sometimes one provides the aircraft while the other provides the crew.

Sometimes they split the landing fees the fuel etc

But in this story this was not United crews and or does it reflect on training things

They pick up stuff when demand is high and can get out of it when it is less - all kinds of stuff

Gate agent personal, baggage folks etc etc .

Catering gate fees on and on

Fact is this was not a United crew - how on earth that is not the core of the story befuddles me

 

[CARIIS]

Here's what the United pilots had to say (I posted it previously but maybe you missed it):

http://www.cosmopolitan.com/lifestyle/a9274393/united-pilots-respond-david-dao-incident-statement/

And your post IMO changed the whole story TY! Its facts

 

[Morag]

Here's what the United pilots had to say (I posted it previously but maybe you missed it):

http://www.cosmopolitan.com/lifestyle/a9274393/united-pilots-respond-david-dao-incident-statement/

I did see this, but I have yet to see anything from or about the pilot who was in charge of the flight in question. Was he/she just sitting in his/her seat and leaving all the problems with the flight attendants and the gate agents? He/she should really make a statement, but perhaps United/Republic legal has told him/her to remain schtum.

 

[FelicityLemon]

Interesting, thank you.

I like to sit as close to the front as possible. My gripe is those people sitting in the back putting their luggage in the front as they board! Then when we get on, the flight attendant has to take my suitcase further back from our seats.

When it's time to deplane, passengers are looking for our luggage and passing it down the aisle as other passengers are trying to go around us to get off.

I wish the flight attendants would stop this practice! It has gotten much worse over the years. Some brazen people will try storing it in first class, but usually they get stopped by a flight attendant.

OMG that would drive me nuts! I like, I neeeeed to have my belongings as close to me as possible during a trip. I know you're trapped on a plane, but someone could still access or make off with something of mine. I'm territorial that way I neeeeed my stuff where I can easily access it.

 

[Rocco]

Its maddening. Most of us here are fact seeking people by nature. Media - days after - continues to WRONGLY report a United Airlines cabin crew

This is a simple fact - it's wrong. This is not investigative reporting.

First paragraph of any news story IMO, all , should provide who what when where and how

It is that simple

This was not a United Airlines cabin crew. I am not loyal to United at all,never flown them, but as an aviation enthusiast, they have not had (past) good on-time performance, lost baggage issues, the number of c complaints per seat mile , etc etc.

The FAA issues reports on this data every three months.

Report it right - after days, it was a codeshare.

That is huge .

Huge aviation person, at least to me it is interesting. They do like all kinds of variables.

Codeshare wise.

Sometimes one provides the aircraft while the other provides the crew.

Sometimes they split the landing fees the fuel etc

But in this story this was not United crews and or does it reflect on training things

They pick up stuff when demand is high and can get out of it when it is less - all kinds of stuff

Gate agent personal, baggage folks etc etc .

Catering gate fees on and on

Fact is this was not a United crew - how on earth that is not the core of the story befuddles me

Republic is an express carrier for United so the buck stops with United.

Here's a list of their partner carriers. If you click on United express aircraft information, you'll see that all the planes say 'United Express'

https://www.united.com/CMS/en-US/AboutUnited/Pages/UnitedExpressPartners.aspx

 

[Rocco]

I did see this, but I have yet to see anything from or about the pilot who was in charge of the flight in question. Was he/she just sitting in his/her seat and leaving all the problems with the flight attendants and the gate agents? He/she should really make a statement, but perhaps United/Republic legal has told him/her to remain schtum.

I bet you're right. All the crew has been probably told to zip their lips because of the litigation.

 

[gitana1]

The key words were 'In the end'. After all the information was gathered regarding the rights of the airline and the rights of passengers, no one argued that UA had the right to bump him from his seat once he was seated.

There were people who initially thought that once you bought a confirmed seat, you could not be bumped before boarding. Everyone who has been following along, now knows that that's not the case. Maybe some people didn't learn anything from this thread because they already knew everything, but it seems most people learned a little more than they knew before as more information came out and clarification was made. So once again, as I said, "In the end, no one has said UA or security was correct in what they did, including UA."

Maybe you could respond to the posts of people who are currently defending what the airline did----- I must have missed those posts and I'd be interested in reading them.

Most people understood immediately that UA was in the wrong. A few made as many convoluted arguments as possible as they could to defend the airline, trying to change the English language, suggesting that lawyers couldn't understand the complexity of the issue, coming up with all sorts of other excuses, all along, from the beginning until "the end".

At this point, in the last day or so, after multiple posts citing multiple experts and United itself, confirmed that what happened was wrong and in violation of the law, there aren't posts outwardly saying that United was allowed
to do what it did, anymore. But now there's a shift to the inference that he threw a tantrum, was outrageous in his behavior, thus caused the entire thing and is, therefore, to blame for what happened.

This is another attempt to absolve United and shift the blame to the customer, IMO. And IMO it is part of an overall attitude among a not small portion of our American population that corporations and the powerful should be obeyed and that there's something entitled or greedy or crazy about those who refuse.

 

[gitana1]

Here's what the United pilots had to say (I posted it previously but maybe you missed it):

http://www.cosmopolitan.com/lifestyle/a9274393/united-pilots-respond-david-dao-incident-statement/

Yeah. They try to blame everyone but themselves. They explain why everyone except United is at fault. It's not going to work. United is responsible.

 

[Rocco]

Yeah. They try to blame everyone but themselves. They explain why everyone except United is at fault. It's not going to work. United is responsible.

United has publicly admitted they were wrong and they're going to change their policies so this doesn't happen again. They can't change what happened.

I guess you missed my post #615.

 

[relay]

Apparently, the above is not an isolated incident, and I wonder if more passengers of United will come forward in the future.

http://www.latimes.com/business/laz...ed-low-priority-passenger-20170412-story.html

"I understand you might bump people because a flight is full,” Fearns said. “But they didn’t say anything at the gate. I was already in the seat. And now they were telling me I had no choice. They said they’d put me in cuffs if they had to.”