Man Dragged off United Airlines/Flight Overbooked, April 2017

[GinaSeikwa]

Only if they assault you. Law enforcement/security personnel receive training in how to remove people from these types of situation without causing them to have injuries like those sustained by Dr Dao.

This was an Embraer without much room to maneuver. Extremely narrow aisle, very low ceiling. It was a very difficult space to work in.

 

[GinaSeikwa]

Yes he was denied boarding. The plane was boarding. Boarding is not simply the process of walking from the gate , down the jetway, onto the airplane. The boarding process includes all aspects of aircraft on ground with aircraft attached to air stairs or gate with main cabin door open. The aircraft was absolutely "boarding"

 

[JerseyGirl]

a similar incident on Sunday night:

United passenger threatened with handcuffs to make room for 'higher-priority' traveler

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

 

[shadowdancer]

This was an Embraer without much room to maneuver. Extremely narrow aisle, very low ceiling. It was a very difficult space to work in.

That does not constitute an excuse for assault. You can't tell the judge "But, but your honour, it was a very narrow space so it was just easier to subdue him by bashing his head against the arm rest.". You would be laughed out of court.

 

[shadowdancer]

a similar incident on Sunday night:

United passenger threatened with handcuffs to make room for 'higher-priority' traveler

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

There does seem to be an awful lot of incidents of this kind of thing with this company, and the only common denominator in these incidents is United Airlines themselves.

If any good can come from all this, its that they will finally have to confront the issues that they have as a company and make fundamental changes to their procedures that will help them ensure a better and safer experience for their customers.

 

[GinaSeikwa]

Except that is not what happened. His head was not bashed against the armrest in the goal of subduing him, his head did hit the armrest as they attempted to lift him out of a very tight and constrained space as he was resisting.

 

[Cryptic]

I choose a human life over rules and regulations as long as the situation isn't causing harm or danger. But thats me. I'd have your back silly me.

The man was not killed. That aside, I appreciate your willingness to stand up for me. Rest assured, I would also stand up for you in other situations. For example, I would never say:

- Johunt is rich and owns many restaraunts. Therefore, people can ignore his / her dress code
- I personally think Johunt's dress code is silly or that he / she is a bad manager- so that means people can ignore it.
- People have a right to wear whatever they want- so Johunt's rules on his / her property are voided.

Rather, I would firmly support your right to tell people violating your dress code to leave your restaurant. If they refuse, I support your right to call the police and evict them. If they resist or still refuse to leave, come back in violation of your rules, they risk being injured by the police in the course of being removed.

You are not responsible for these injuries. Likewise, having a dress code that I personally disagree with does not make you a bad person of some sort.

So.... you can see we support each other- just in very different ways.

 

[shadowdancer]

Except that is not what happened. His head was not bashed against the armrest in the goal of subduing him, his head did hit the armrest as they attempted to lift him out of a very tight and constrained space as he was resisting.

It might not have been with the intent of subduing him, I admit that, but his head very clearly gets bashed against the armrest purposely. Anyone with the gift of sight can see that.

 

[gitana1]

Sigh, he purchased a ticket subject to conditions that he agreed to. Airlines do have the ability bump people and have done so for generations.

They will also be bumping people today, tomorrow and next year. If you think that you cannot be bumped, you are mistaken. Likewise, trying to enter a commerical plane after being told not to is risking injury.

Those conditions do not include being forcibly removed from a plane just because they want your seat.

What you are not understanding is that a contract doesn't allow a business to assault you or falsely imprison you. I'm trying to explain the law to you as best as I can. There is a difference between being able to recover damages because they caused you to miss your flight by bumping you (not recoverable) and being able to recover damages because they asked you to be physically ejected and assaulted. (Likely recoverable). I'm sorry you don't understand. Perhaps the words of the United CEO may be more convincing than a
couple of attorneys on Websleuths:

United‏Verified account @united Follow

​

United CEO Oscar Munoz: I’m sorry. We will fix this. http://uafly.co/XuR1Bs

ETA text of statement issued in the tweet


Dear Team,

The truly horrific event that occurred on this flight has elicited many responses from all of us: outrage, anger, disappointment. I share all of those sentiments, and one above all: my deepest apologies for what happened. Like you, I continue to be disturbed by what happened on this flight and I deeply apologize to the customer forcibly removed and to all the customers aboard. No one should ever be mistreated this way.


I want you to know that we take full responsibility and we will work to make it right.


It's never too late to do the right thing. I have committed to our customers and our employees that we are going to fix what's broken so this never happens again. This will include a thorough review of crew movement, our policies for incentivizing volunteers in these situations, how we handle oversoldsituations and an examination of how we partner with airport authorities and local law enforcement. We'll communicate the results of our review by April 30th.


I promise you we will do better.


Sincerely,


Oscar

https://hub.united.com/united-expre...8629.html?utm_source=t.co&utm_medium=referral

Emphasis by me.

He voided that right through his own actions. Likewise, my constitutional rights are limited on private property. For starters, I must comply with the limitations of the owner. If you are the owner, then I must comply with your rules- not mine.

It's true that constitutional rights can be limited on private property. Its not true that he voided his rights by his actions or that you must comply with an owner's rules carte Blanche. You may think that. It's untrue.

Businesses are involved in interstate commerce so they have to adhere to certain portions of the constitution. For that reason, they cannot discriminate against a protected class.

Further, they can't instruct someone to assault or restrain you unless you are stealing, harming others or yourself or doing something like harassing or upsetting other customers or employees, destroying property, etc.

And LE must use reasonable force and adhere to due process rights per the constitution.

Businesses are not gods.

 

[LaneGirl]

The man was not killed. That aside, I appreciate your willingness to stand up for me. Rest assured, I would also stand up for you in other situations. For example, I would never say:

- Johunt is rich and owns many restaraunts, therefore, people can ignore his / her dress code
- I personally think Johunt's dress code is silly or that she is a bad manager- so that means people can ignore it.
- People have a right to wear whatever they want- so Johunt's rules on his / her property are voided.

Rather, I would firmly support your right to tell people violating your dress code to leave your restaurant. If they refuse, I support your right to call the police and evict them. If they resist or still refuse to leave, they risk being injured by the police. You are not responsible for these injuries.

So.... you can see we support each other- just in very different ways.

But I'd be outraged if you were injured being dragged out of a restaurant because of the way you were dressed (your example). Just as you would support the management.

Problem is you take a corporate stance and I take a human individual stance on its own merit individually considering no harm would be created to others. I wouldn't choose (I hope) a rule or regulation over a human individuals safety.

Had I been on board that plane I would have jumped up and said I'll stay, stop, leave him alone, I'll get off! I know me and my family knows this is true of me.

Just know whatever the circumstance you want to create, I'd have your back if you or your family were being dragged out like the video of this man was. I have no shame!

I'll take a human over any rule.

 

[shadowdancer]

But I'd be outraged if you were injured being dragged out of a restaurant because of the way you were dressed (your example). Just as you would support the management.

Problem is you take a corporate stance and I take a human individual stance on its own merit individually considering no harm would be created to others. I wouldn't choose (I hope) a rule or regulation over a human individuals safety.

Had I been on board that plane I would have jumped up and said I'll stay, stop, leave him alone, I'll get off! I know me and my family knows this is true of me.

Just know whatever the circumstance you want to create, I'd have your back if you or your family were being dragged out like the video of this man was. I have no shame!

I'll take a human over any rule.

You are a good person Johunt. There is a growing lack of basic human kindness and decency in the modern world. So many people would rather see another human suffer than lift a finger to help or at least feel sympathy for their plight.

 

[LaneGirl]

You are a good person Johunt. There is a growing lack of basic human kindness and decency in the modern world. So many people would rather see another human suffer than lift a finger to help or at least feel sympathy for their plight.

I have my faults for sure, but thank you.

 

[kanzz]

First of all, this mans occupation, income, past, and family are all completely irrelevant to the situation at hand,

Second of all, I don't know what all the fuss is about, it's all right there in this mans UA ticket agreement....he is agreeing to these terms when he purchases his ticket....


Boarding Priorities - If a flight is Oversold, no one may be denied boarding against his/her will until UA or other carrier personnel first ask for volunteers who will give up their reservations willingly in exchange for compensation as determined by UA. If there are not enough volunteers, other Passengers may be denied boarding involuntarily in accordance with UA’s boarding priority:

• Passengers who are Qualified Individuals with Disabilities, unaccompanied minors under the age of 18 years, or minors between the ages of 5 to 15 years who use the unaccompanied minor service, will be the last to be involuntarily denied boarding if it is determined by UA that such denial would constitute a hardship.
• The priority of all other confirmed passengers may be determined based on a passenger’s fare class, itinerary, status of frequent flyer program membership, and the time in which the passenger presents him/herself for check-in without advanced seat assignment.

Get up and get off the damn plane when your told to do so....people are booted off flights every day at every airport in the entire world



.

The airline did not "involuntary deny boarding" to this passenger. They allowed him to board.

It is irrelevant that they were still boarding the plane.

 

[gitana1]

Yes he was denied boarding. The plane was boarding. Boarding is not simply the process of walking from the gate , down the jetway, onto the airplane. The boarding process includes all aspects of aircraft on ground with aircraft attached to air stairs or gate with main cabin door open. The aircraft was absolutely "boarding"

With respect, every human being that is literate and every airline employee knows what it means to board a plane. It is a verb. It's not complicated. Yes the plane was still boarding. No, the man was not. He had already boarded. That's super clear. And no amount of clever double talk will change that. Even the CEO knows the passengers on the plane were boarded as he used the term "aboard".

At a certain point we have to be logical.
.

 

[Cryptic]

He forced his way back on the plane after he had already been assaulted and knocked unconscious by airport security. I wouldn't begin to defend his getting back on the plane because it makes no sense at all and puts him at risk for being arrested, or worse. However, having just suffered a head injury may explain why he forced his way back on the plane and was behaving so strange and erratic.

As witnesses have said he seemed confused, I think there is a possibility of this being so. At the same time, he has evidently shown poor judgement in the past, so I would not completely rule out a temper tantrum followed by impulsive behavior on his part.

In either case, United Airlines is not responsible for his injuries. Though I might support a monetary award for excessive force by the police, given that it was an aircraft and the man repeatedly refused to follow instruction, my award would be relatively minimal.

 

[shadowdancer]

As witnesses have said he seemed confused, I think there is a possibility of this being so.

He is clearly confused in the video. No evidence of a tantrum.

 

[GinaSeikwa]

Denied boarding with passengers already onboard happens all the time. On Vegas flights on the Embraer it is often an everyday occurrence as the aircraft simply won't achieve proper lift due to the heat. If you can't displace passengers throughout the aircraft to fulfill proper weight and balance then you must offload passengers. Same with seat duplications, aircraft downgauges, crew displacement with AOG. It happens. Sometimes it is not caught at the gate and the issue is only discovered onboard.

 

[LaneGirl]

As witnesses have said he seemed confused, I think there is a possibility of this being so. At the same time, he has evidently shown poor judgement in the past, so I would not completely rule out a temper tantrum followed by impulsive behavior on his part.

In either case, United Airlines is not responsible for his injuries. Though I might support a monetary award for excessive force by the police, given that it was an aircraft and the man repeatedly refused to follow instruction, my award would be relatively minimal.

UA denied anyone the legal limit of 400% up to $1350 to get off the flight when they hit the ceiling of $800 voucher before calling security, did you know of this legal amount? I sure didn't. In my opinion they absolutely are responsible. As does their CEO after his latest apology.

I will agree with you that the police used excessive force.

Hey we agreed.

 

[Mercedes]

He has had quite the troubled past. O.O

"The father of five, who has won sympathy globally over the incident, was given a suspended jail sentence for illegally obtaining and trafficking controlled substances by fraud and deceit....... He was also found to have in engaged in sex with a male patient- Brian Case, who he knew from the church they both attended - and then supplied him with drugs, including Oxycontin, in exchange for sexual favors.

The sexual liaisons, which happened motel rooms, were recorded by undercover agents. He paid $200 in cash each time he met Case.

The secret sex and drugs life of the doctor first came to light in in July 2003 when police alerted the Kentucky Board of Medical Licensure of the allegations against him.

In October 2003 he was indicted by a Jefferson County Grand Jury for 'criminal acts of trafficking in a controlled substance, obtaining drugs by fraud and deceit, and unauthorized prescribing, dispensing or administering of controlled substances'.

His medical license was suspended later that month."


Much more including excerpts from the court mandated psychiatrist's findings at the link.



https://www.google.com/amp/www.dail...gged-United-swapped-drugs-secret-gay-sex.html




What does this have to do with United forcibly removing the doctor from his flight? Irrelevant in my opinion. United's PR people are now attacking him personally to justify their inappropriate management of this situation.
:scale:

 

[Hraefn]

What does this have to do with United forcibly removing the doctor from his flight? Irrelevant in my opinion. United's PR people are now attacking him personally to justify their inappropriate management of this situation.
:scale:

To be fair to United, a media outlet in Louisville, KY had previously done a story on the doctor and decided to publish the information again yesterday. They received a LOT of heat from their readers for dredging the past stories up. MSM picked it up from there.