Man Dragged off United Airlines/Flight Overbooked, April 2017

[Hraefn]

BBM: Dr. Dao is taking this a bit too far :dramaqueen:

I get what you're saying, but think about it as a whole experience, not just what he went through in the two minutes we saw recorded.
Every news outlet, social media outlet, every person he knows, every person he doesn't even know saw his naked chest as his limp body was dragged down an aisle with his glasses askew and blood dripping from his mouth, filmed from multiple angles. His coworkers, his superiors, his staff, his family, his friends, his mentors, his clients, his neighbors, etc...everyone has seen this embarrassing experience from multiple angles. Everyone has seen him rambling all bloodied when he ran back onto the plane in confusion. People are commenting on his ability to be a physician. People are attacking his character. He may lose clients and also be unable to obtain new clients. Not to mention all of the comments, the delving into and massive publishing of his past situations and mental health issues. This is all so traumatizing to experience. Certain cultures would take even more shame from something like this occurring. We have no idea what all it has entailed for him but it seems truly horrifying IMO.

 

[Hapworth]

At the very least this addresses the issue of transparency and non-transparency on how people get kicked off Airline flights.(and others). More than once, I volunteered to deplane due to perks offered (on another airline).

Offering compensation to justify somebody to get out of their seat and leave, should be, and is in their budgeting; a specific line item associated with cost of doing business.

It is analogous to companies putting aside money for warranties, it is within their budget. A cost of failure/cost of business which is budgeted for.

Yes, they have the legal right to do such, but what cost does it have if the understanding of general public and expectation are vastly different from the airline performance. As we now know, it cost Millions. I get the contact..but is not congruent with how the general public expects if it happens .

I don't care who got drug off and their background... it seems they should have offered more compensation to all... and their seated customers have the opportunity to take the offer and make the decision to leave.

How many seats were on this plane? And it appears it wasn't enough compensation to deplane for ANY of them..

Again :moo: it is a cost of doing business to pay for a customer to deplane. Obviously they needed to get compensation to where it will get people off the plane and get the standby flight attendants and pilots that they want to get on the plane.

Its a monetary business *algorithim*.. Imho

This whole situation is loudacrious.
I hope all airlines are watching and do research on which offerings are most accepted to deplane.

Mine that I accepted at least three times was a voucher to go ANYWHERE the airline went round trip. It seemed a great value to me, but nowhere was near the cost to the airline.

Stingy imho their last offer

You were incorrect in your wording/understanding.They were not "standby" crew. They were confirmed crew holding space onto the flight. The flight became overbooked at some point. I'm still curious to know when the crew was confirmed onto to the flight (before or during the boarding process).Either way, its an event that happens throughout the industry. Crews are rerouted to recover other potential cancelled flights that you yourself may have been booked on due to weather events, mechanicals, ground stops/atc, curfews, etc. As I mentioned above in previous posts, its happened to me during the boarding process. I handled it differently however. Experience counts for something in this industry.



Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk

 

[Cryptic]

You absolutely, positively, can not be trespassing on an aircraft, if you have a ticket, and are in your assigned seat, and causing no problems.

Though I am not an attorney, it appears that airlines have very broad abilities to remove people from aircraft for good reasons, bad reasons, or for no stated reason. Here is a link from the American Bar Association on the matter.

http://www.americanbar.org/publicat...ligations_airlines_and_rights_passengers.html

It opens with: "When problems arise, your rights as a passenger do not come from consumer-friendly state laws. Instead, they are dictated by international treaties, federal statutes, and other regulations "

In short, absolutely, positively does not seem to accurate. Though I don't know the qualifications of the person giving you this information, I would take it with a few grains of salt.

 

[bluesneakers]

Though I am not an attorney, it appears that airlines have very broad abilities to remove people from aircraft for good reasons, bad reasons, or for no stated reason.

Here is a link from the American Bar Association on the matter.

http://www.americanbar.org/publicat...ligations_airlines_and_rights_passengers.html

In short, absolutely, positively does not seem to accurate. Though I don't know the qualifications of the person giving you this information, I would take it heavily salted.

We are fortunate to have verified attorneys posting on the thread.

 

[sorrell skye]

According to Dr. Dao's attorney, his client sustained a concussion, a broken nose requiring future reconstruction surgery to repair, and two front teeth getting knocked out (which will also need to be replaced). Not to mention the emotional/psychological trauma he undoubtedly experienced.

Because he refused to relinquish his seat on a flight that he had not only paid for, but that he had already taken possession of after being allowed to board???!!!

Question: In what universe does anyone with even a tiny sliver of compassion believe that a human being deserves to be treated in such an inhumane manner?

The above is a rhetorical question, as I have complete confidence that anyone
who respects human rights is not defending the brutal assault upon this man.

Make no mistake - legally, this WAS a brutal assault, despite a post or two upthread mocking such a characterization, as well as comments trying to minimize the actions of the airport wannabe-cops by suggesting that "it was an accident" - all the while blaming the victim for the heinous manner in which he was literally dragged off the plane, but also for the horrible injuries he has suffered.

Those who defend and justify such violence, even though they may not participate in it, are just as guilty of that same violence as those who carry it out.

I couldn't care less if someone else may say "I'd give up my seat" for whatever reason. Just because someone else may be willing to do so, doesn't mean that anyone & everyone should acquiesce. It CERTAINLY shouldn't mean that because someone refuses, that person should be subjected to the gross mistreatment & injuries that Dr. Dao experienced.

As for me, I'm grateful to everyone here and around the world who has spoken out about this travesty. When we stand together and make our voices be heard, I believe we can make a difference.

It's beyond time that we stand up to corporatocracy. I'm sick of corporations controlling our governments, and I'm sick of being referred to as a "consumer".

I'm not a "consumer".

I'm a human being.

 

[flourish]

I'm wondering if, HYPOTHETICALLY, if it was discovered that the person who dragged him off had a previous conviction for assault... Would that be considered relevant? Just thinking...

 

[drjones]

I'm wondering if, HYPOTHETICALLY, if it was discovered that the person who dragged him off had a previous conviction for assault... Would that be considered relevant? Just thinking...

not likely, it would possibly be relevant if he had been reprimanded/fired for previously using force beyond what was allowed on the job tho.

 

[Cryptic]

We are fortunate to have verified attorneys posting on the thread.

Ok, here is the full quote from the link:

"When problems arise, your rights as a passenger do not come from consumer-friendly state laws. Instead, they are dictated by international treaties, federal statutes, and other regulations that sole practitioners are not used to dealing with".
http://www.americanbar.org/publicat...ligations_airlines_and_rights_passengers.html

The subject seems complex based on the link from the ABA. As a result, "Absolutely, positively" might not reflect the actuality. Though I wont dispute the attorneys on this board, I"ll still take the information with a few grains of salt.

As aside note, I am willing to bet the attorneys here did not use the "absolutely positively" type language. Attorneys rarely use absolute terms.

 

[Hraefn]

I'm wondering if, HYPOTHETICALLY, if it was discovered that the person who dragged him off had a previous conviction for assault... Would that be considered relevant? Just thinking...

If Dr. Dao and his counsel are naming the security agent's employer (which is likely IMO, because they have the deeper pockets than an individual), and if it could be proven that the employer knew or should have known the employee had issues with prior assaults/batteries, that would tend to show the employer knew or should have known this type of incident may occur and would potentially affect the employer's liability (they have a duty to ensure their employees are fit for the position). The employer's first defense is usually "they acted outside the scope of their employment / that's against our policy / therefore we should not be liable for the employee's actions." Then the plaintiff's will try to show that the employer knew or should have known this may happen with this employee due to info they had or should have had under their duty of hiring / maintaining proper and fit employees. But again, law is so nuanced, it ultimately would come to the jury to decide what's reasonable given all the admissible facts.

As an example hypothetical, if a nanny company hired someone with a documented history of pedophilia, and an incident occurred with that employee while they were working, the company would be liable for their employee because under their duty during hiring they should have discovered this. So even though pedophilia is outside the scope of their employment, they were negligent in hiring and therefore liable for what occurred.

Not legal advice at all JMO

ETA: But as far as whether that would be admissible against the security agent himself to show he acted unreasonably, it depends on the interpretation of the rules of evidence for character that I posted a few pages ago. I don't think it would be admissible IMO for that purpose.

 

[Bently]

You were incorrect in your wording/understanding.They were not "standby" crew. They were confirmed crew holding space onto the flight. The flight became overbooked at some point. I'm still curious to know when the crew was confirmed onto to the flight (before or during the boarding process).Either way, its an event that happens throughout the industry. Crews are rerouted to recover other potential cancelled flights that you yourself may have been booked on due to weather events, mechanicals, ground stops/atc, curfews, etc. As I mentioned above in previous posts, its happened to me during the boarding process. I handled it differently however. Experience counts for something in this industry.



Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk

I understand what you are saying and do not disagree.

But imo the post missed my point totally and went on a tangent from the point I was making.

 

[Hapworth]

According to Dr. Dao's attorney, his client sustained a concussion, a broken nose requiring future reconstruction surgery to repair, and two front teeth getting knocked out (which will also need to be replaced). Not to mention the emotional/psychological trauma he undoubtedly experienced.

Because he refused to relinquish his seat on a flight that he had not only paid for, but that he had already taken possession of after being allowed to board???!!!

Question: In what universe does anyone with even a tiny sliver of compassion believe that a human being deserves to be treated in such an inhumane manner?

The above is a rhetorical question, as I have complete confidence that anyone
who respects human rights is not defending the brutal assault upon this man.

Make no mistake - legally, this WAS a brutal assault, despite a post or two upthread mocking such a characterization, as well as comments trying to minimize the actions of the airport wannabe-cops by suggesting that "it was an accident" - all the while blaming the victim for the heinous manner in which he was literally dragged off the plane, but also for the horrible injuries he has suffered.

Those who defend and justify such violence, even though they may not participate in it, are just as guilty of that same violence as those who carry it out.

I couldn't care less if someone else may say "I'd give up my seat" for whatever reason. Just because someone else may be willing to do so, doesn't mean that anyone & everyone should acquiesce. It CERTAINLY shouldn't mean that because someone refuses, that person should be subjected to the gross mistreatment & injuries that Dr. Dao experienced.

As for me, I'm grateful to everyone here and around the world who has spoken out about this travesty. When we stand together and make our voices be heard, I believe we can make a difference.

It's beyond time that we stand up to corporatocracy. I'm sick of corporations controlling our governments, and I'm sick of being referred to as a "consumer".

I'm not a "consumer".

I'm a human being.

O/T Sorrell..our paths haven't crossed since Pistorius/Steenkamp. I enjoyed your posts in those threads. Good to see you again.

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk

 

[Hraefn]

Though I am not an attorney, it appears that airlines have very broad abilities to remove people from aircraft for good reasons, bad reasons, or for no stated reason. Here is a link from the American Bar Association on the matter.

http://www.americanbar.org/publicat...ligations_airlines_and_rights_passengers.html

It opens with: "When problems arise, your rights as a passenger do not come from consumer-friendly state laws. Instead, they are dictated by international treaties, federal statutes, and other regulations "

In short, absolutely, positively does not seem to accurate. Though I don't know the qualifications of the person giving you this information, I would take it with a few grains of salt.

This was a very interesting read, thanks for posting. There are mistakes on the cases they cited (Nader actually won as far as his principal argument [that the airline must give notice] but his monetary award was reversed to lower court, I can't find how the lower court decided it when it was sent back down, possibly out of court settlement at that point) (Morales dealt with advertised fares rather than injuries, but it was a state versus federal law situation, and federal law pre-empted). I'm much more familiar with state tort actions than federal regulations I will fully admit. But again in this article it discusses preventing or denying boarding, rather than ejecting a person who has presented their ticket and been allowed to board. It'll be very interesting to see how this legal battle plays out.

 

[Jax49]

You were incorrect in your wording/understanding.They were not "standby" crew. They were confirmed crew holding space onto the flight. The flight became overbooked at some point. I'm still curious to know when the crew was confirmed onto to the flight (before or during the boarding process).Either way, its an event that happens throughout the industry. Crews are rerouted to recover other potential cancelled flights that you yourself may have been booked on due to weather events, mechanicals, ground stops/atc, curfews, etc. As I mentioned above in previous posts, its happened to me during the boarding process. I handled it differently however. Experience counts for something in this industry.



Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk

In an internal memo, CEO Oscar Munoz said the crew members approached the gate agents after the flight was fully boarded and said they needed to board the flight.

[video=cnn;cnnmoney/2017/04/10/united-airlines-passenger-dragged-off-flight-orig.cnn]http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/10/travel/passenger-removed-united-flight-trnd/index.html[/video]

 

[Bently]

I'm wondering if, HYPOTHETICALLY, if it was discovered that the person who dragged him off had a previous conviction for assault... Would that be considered relevant? Just thinking...

Nope. The initiating issue was he was removed from the plane and did not want to be removed.

Legally yeah, they can do per contract. But it does not meet customer expectations as to how folks are bumped. Customers expect compensation and to have it done voluntarily .

Therein lies th primary issue. Imo.


Anything else is white noise as far as I see in this matter.

 

[Bently]

If Dr. Dao and his counsel are naming the security agent's employer (which is likely IMO, because they have the deeper pockets than an individual), and if it could be proven that the employer knew or should have known the employee had issues with prior assaults/batteries, that would tend to show the employer knew or should have known this type of incident may occur and would potentially affect the employer's liability (they have a duty to ensure their employees are fit for the position). The employer's first defense is usually "they acted outside the scope of their employment / that's against our policy / therefore we should not be liable for the employee's actions." Then the plaintiff's will try to show that the employer knew or should have known this may happen with this employee due to info they had or should have had under their duty of hiring / maintaining proper and fit employees. But again, law is so nuanced, it ultimately would come to the jury to decide what's reasonable given all the admissible facts.

As an example hypothetical, if a nanny company hired someone with a documented history of pedophilia, and an incident occurred with that employee while they were working, the company would be liable for their employee because under their duty during hiring they should have discovered this. So even though pedophilia is outside the scope of their employment, they were negligent in hiring and therefore liable for what occurred.

Not legal advice at all JMO

ETA: But as far as whether that would be admissible against the security agent himself to show he acted unreasonably, it depends on the interpretation of the rules of evidence for character that I posted a few pages ago. I don't think it would be admissible IMO for that purpose.

Ummmm..but the CEO announcement right after this happened negates this train of thought, does it not

 

[Hraefn]

Ummmm..but the CEO announcement right after this happened negates this train of thought, does it not

I may be misunderstanding, but I was referring to the security company, not UA. If we are talking about the security guard's past then it would implicate his employer's liability. UA wouldn't be involved in this part of the dispute IMO.

 

[Hapworth]

[video=cnn;cnnmoney/2017/04/10/united-airlines-passenger-dragged-off-flight-orig.cnn]http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/10/travel/passenger-removed-united-flight-trnd/index.html[/video]

Unfortunately there is a difference of when they were booked onto to the flight and when they showed up at the gate. Two different issues for me as a gate agent. Geez...what a nightmare.

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk

 

[Hapworth]

Nope. The initiating issue was he was removed from the plane and did not want to be removed.

Legally yeah, they can do per contract. But it does not meet customer expectations as to how folks are bumped. Customers expect compensation and to have it done voluntarily .

Therein lies th primary issue. Imo.


Anything else is white noise as far as I see in this matter.

Actually customers can be deemed volunteers or invols. Two different criteria with two different forms of compensation.
And so it goes.

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk

 

[Cryptic]

This was a very interesting read, thanks for posting.

But again in this article it discusses preventing or denying boarding, rather than ejecting a person who has presented their ticket and been allowed to board. It'll be very interesting to see how this legal battle plays out.

Though I have seen different definitions of boarding, my layman's bet regarding the answer to:

- Was removing the passenger from his seat a legal action? Is going to be "yes".

United seems to have several sources of airline friendly treaties, laws and regulations going back generations supporting them. Likewise, after 9-11, I think any interpretations of those sources is going err on the side of: "A passenger can be removed from a flight at any time for any reason- good, bad or unstated".

 

[Hapworth]

[video=cnn;cnnmoney/2017/04/10/united-airlines-passenger-dragged-off-flight-orig.cnn]http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/10/travel/passenger-removed-united-flight-trnd/index.html[/video]

Jax..thanks for the link. From the outside looking in....it was a series of events that snowballed into chaos. I've never had to resort to a removal list to go onboard and deplane a customer in my years at the gate.

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk