Incompetent United Air Lines Physically Drags Passenger Off Plane For Their (Airline) Mistake

[rightwinger]

I'm no lawyer.....but I do watch Judge Judy every day....

Let's not forget there are two to three things going on here: A possible Pro Bono lawsuit by Dao against United, the Illinois and/or Chicago Attorney General's office filing charges against Dao and the Federal Attorney General filing charges against Dao. Even if United settled with Dao to avoid bad publicity, he could easily still end up on jail or spend that settlement money defending himself against Federal and State criminal charges.

Even Judge Judy would agree that Dao's failure to deplane was a crime compounded by another crime when he ran back onto the plane.

Nobody is going to jail for fighting to protect their patients

Lawsuit against the airline..... slam dunk
That is why united will settle

 

[Divine Wind]

I'm no lawyer.....but I do watch Judge Judy every day....

Let's not forget there are two to three things going on here: A possible Pro Bono lawsuit by Dao against United, the Illinois and/or Chicago Attorney General's office filing charges against Dao and the Federal Attorney General filing charges against Dao. Even if United settled with Dao to avoid bad publicity, he could easily still end up on jail or spend that settlement money defending himself against Federal and State criminal charges.

Even Judge Judy would agree that Dao's failure to deplane was a crime compounded by another crime when he ran back onto the plane.

Nobody is going to jail for fighting to protect their patients

Lawsuit against the airline..... slam dunk
That is why united will settle

Correct; Dao won't be going to jail for fighting to protect his patients. He'll go to jail (or be fined) for violating multiple Federal and State laws.

That's up to United. It doesn't matter to me what they do.

OTOH, if the law isn't enforced on this issue, more people will pull the same shit and flights will simply be canceled...which they could have done with this one, then ferried the airplane with the replacement flight crew but sans passengers. Since it was a Force Majeure situation caused by a civil disturbance, the airline would only have to refund the tickets.

 

[Faun]

>>
“We followed the right procedures,” Hobart told the Associated Press in a phone interview. “That plane had to depart. We wanted to get our customers to their destinations, and when one gentleman refused to get off the aircraft, we had to call the Chicago Police Department.”

Bridges said passengers were told a computer selected four people to leave the flight. One couple was selected and left the plane before the man was confronted.<<

It wasn't overbooked. That's just the lame excuse the airline is using for their irreprehensible behavior. In reality, United just wanted those 4 seats to reshuffle their own employees, who were not booked on that flight to begin with, to another city where they were needed.

All of which every passenger agrees to in United's Contract of Carriage:

Contract Of Carriage | United Airlines

Yeah, I'm not seeing anything in there giving United the right to physically drag a compliant, non-combative, non-threatening passenger off of one of their flights so that s United Airlines employee can have that seat.

1) United airlines didn't do that.

2) Dao wasn't compliant.

3) Dao ran back onto the airplane thus committing another crime.

Security did that as a service for United. He was compliant in that he legally and rightfully purchased his ticket, boarded the flight, took his seat, and rejected United's offer to purchase his seat back from him.

 

[Divine Wind]

>>
“We followed the right procedures,” Hobart told the Associated Press in a phone interview. “That plane had to depart. We wanted to get our customers to their destinations, and when one gentleman refused to get off the aircraft, we had to call the Chicago Police Department.”

Bridges said passengers were told a computer selected four people to leave the flight. One couple was selected and left the plane before the man was confronted.<<

It wasn't overbooked. That's just the lame excuse the airline is using for their irreprehensible behavior. In reality, United just wanted those 4 seats to reshuffle their own employees, who were not booked on that flight to begin with, to another city where they were needed.

All of which every passenger agrees to in United's Contract of Carriage:

Contract Of Carriage | United Airlines

Yeah, I'm not seeing anything in there giving United the right to physically drag a compliant, non-combative, non-threatening passenger off of one of their flights so that s United Airlines employee can have that seat.

1) United airlines didn't do that.

2) Dao wasn't compliant.

3) Dao ran back onto the airplane thus committing another crime.

Security did that as a service for United. He was compliant in that he legally and rightfully purchased his ticket, boarded the flight, took his seat, and rejected United's offer to purchase his seat back from him.

He refused to deplane thus committing the dual Federal crime of interfering with a crew member and an airliner operation. He refused to follow lawful orders of Chicago police officers, another crime. He violated security by running back onto the aircraft, a violation of Federal law.

 

[Faun]

It wasn't overbooked. That's just the lame excuse the airline is using for their irreprehensible behavior. In reality, United just wanted those 4 seats to reshuffle their own employees, who were not booked on that flight to begin with, to another city where they were needed.

All of which every passenger agrees to in United's Contract of Carriage:

Contract Of Carriage | United Airlines

Yeah, I'm not seeing anything in there giving United the right to physically drag a compliant, non-combative, non-threatening passenger off of one of their flights so that s United Airlines employee can have that seat.

1) United airlines didn't do that.

2) Dao wasn't compliant.

3) Dao ran back onto the airplane thus committing another crime.

Security did that as a service for United. He was compliant in that he legally and rightfully purchased his ticket, boarded the flight, took his seat, and rejected United's offer to purchase his seat back from him.

He refused to deplane thus committing the dual Federal crime of interfering with a crew member and an airliner operation. He refused to follow lawful orders of Chicago police officers, another crime. He violated security by running back onto the aircraft, a violation of Federal law.

There was no legitimate reason for him to deplane.

 

[Divine Wind]

All of which every passenger agrees to in United's Contract of Carriage:

Contract Of Carriage | United Airlines

Yeah, I'm not seeing anything in there giving United the right to physically drag a compliant, non-combative, non-threatening passenger off of one of their flights so that s United Airlines employee can have that seat.

1) United airlines didn't do that.

2) Dao wasn't compliant.

3) Dao ran back onto the airplane thus committing another crime.

Security did that as a service for United. He was compliant in that he legally and rightfully purchased his ticket, boarded the flight, took his seat, and rejected United's offer to purchase his seat back from him.

He refused to deplane thus committing the dual Federal crime of interfering with a crew member and an airliner operation. He refused to follow lawful orders of Chicago police officers, another crime. He violated security by running back onto the aircraft, a violation of Federal law.

There was no legitimate reason for him to deplane.

Yes, there was, but I'm content to wait for the Federal and State charges to be filed as proof.

FYI, if you are ever asked to get off an airliner, it's a crime for you to refuse.

 

[Faun]

Yeah, I'm not seeing anything in there giving United the right to physically drag a compliant, non-combative, non-threatening passenger off of one of their flights so that s United Airlines employee can have that seat.

1) United airlines didn't do that.

2) Dao wasn't compliant.

3) Dao ran back onto the airplane thus committing another crime.

Security did that as a service for United. He was compliant in that he legally and rightfully purchased his ticket, boarded the flight, took his seat, and rejected United's offer to purchase his seat back from him.

He refused to deplane thus committing the dual Federal crime of interfering with a crew member and an airliner operation. He refused to follow lawful orders of Chicago police officers, another crime. He violated security by running back onto the aircraft, a violation of Federal law.

There was no legitimate reason for him to deplane.

Yes, there was, but I'm content to wait for the Federal and State charges to be filed as proof.

FYI, if you are ever asked to get off an airliner, it's a crime for you to refuse.

Then show me specifically where their contract states a paid, non-belligerent, non-abusive, non- threatenening, compliant passanger has to give up his seat that he's already in; for a United employee...

 

[Faun]

Yeah, I'm not seeing anything in there giving United the right to physically drag a compliant, non-combative, non-threatening passenger off of one of their flights so that s United Airlines employee can have that seat.

1) United airlines didn't do that.

2) Dao wasn't compliant.

3) Dao ran back onto the airplane thus committing another crime.

Security did that as a service for United. He was compliant in that he legally and rightfully purchased his ticket, boarded the flight, took his seat, and rejected United's offer to purchase his seat back from him.

He refused to deplane thus committing the dual Federal crime of interfering with a crew member and an airliner operation. He refused to follow lawful orders of Chicago police officers, another crime. He violated security by running back onto the aircraft, a violation of Federal law.

There was no legitimate reason for him to deplane.

Yes, there was, but I'm content to wait for the Federal and State charges to be filed as proof.

FYI, if you are ever asked to get off an airliner, it's a crime for you to refuse.

I suppose this is just like our argument over that tragic hot air balloon accident in that we'll have to let the results speak towards who was right. My position is that Dao will receive compensation for United's horrid handling of this and that that Dao will not be charged with any crimes in connection with his refusal to deplane.

 

[danielpalos]

With Computers these days, how hard is it to REALLY keep track of the fact that you have 150 seats on an airplane to fill and count down the number remaining as you sell the seats? It's MATH...and computer applications can even do THAT for you there days...

United Airlines, however, over-sold, over-booked their flight. When they figured that out at the gate (because evidently they could not figure out they had done so before that), they offered passengers $400 if they would take the next flight in an attempt to 'un-F*' the situation.

After quite a few people took them up on their offer, United allowed people to board the plane. Once on the plane United discovered there were still 4 passengers too many onboard the plane. At that point United asked 4 people to give up their seats, picking 4 people at random - one of them was 'THIS' guy:

United ASKED a man who had bought a ticket in advance and was told he was on this flight to give up his seat. He said, 'NO'. At that point United offered him $800 to give up his seat. He said, 'No'.

Even though the man told United that he was a doctor and had to be at his destination the next morning, United told the gentleman that he had NO CHOICE but to give up his seat:

"The manager told him that security would be called if he did not leave willingly, Bridges said, and the man said he was calling his lawyer. One security official came and spoke with him, and then another security officer came when he still refused. Then, she said, a third security official came on the plane and threw the passenger against the armrest before dragging him out of the plane."

Because United was too incompetent to count the number of seats on a plane versus how many they sold (or just being greedy and making it a policy to do so to ensure all seats are sold), United Airlines physically dragged a doctor off a plane.

I smell a major lawsuit! GOOD!

I have faced a similar situation with them, was forced to take the next flight....which was in the morning (though I did not make them drag my arse off the plane).

Over-booking is either incompetence or bad policy...or both. Physically dragging someone off the plane is also NOT an option. I don't care if United had to offer someone $2,000 or more before someone finally took their offer and gave up their seat voluntarily - it was their screw up. They should have had to keep raising the amount of the money until someone volunteered.

I have a feeling the doctor's lawyers are going to make United pay way more than $800.


Video: Security drags screaming United Airlines passenger off overbooked flight — literally - Hot Air

/---- That's not how the airlines work you big dope. They over book intentionally because there are always last minute cancellations and no airline wants to fly empty seats. If it been any other sane passenger it would have been a non story

Isn't that why they should bump people with discount fares, that state that is the case, in the fine print. it could even include a bonus, in case of immediate need.

The airline has to offer compensation. However, since it's a $220 ticket, offering $800 seems fair.

Overbooked Flight? How (Not) to Get Bumped
....How to Avoid Getting Bumped from a Flight
If you have obligations in your destination city and absolutely cannot afford to be bumped from a flight, arrive as early as possible at the airport, especially if you're taking a popular route. Better yet, check in online before you even leave for the airport. The last passengers to check in for the flight are typically the ones who find themselves bumped involuntarily. If you're at the gate before the majority of the passengers have checked in, your chances of retaining your original reservation are favorable....

United's overbooking policy: The reason they can kick you off your flight
The often-overlooked reason United can kick you off your flight
wave of consternation centered on one question: How can they do that?

Part of the problem, at least, comes from the often-overlooked policy that allows airlines to stop passengers from boarding a plane if it's overbooked. You agree to it when you book your tickets.

It's standard practice for airlines to sell more tickets than there are seats. Carriers calculate how much wiggle room they have based on past stats that track no-shows and offer passengers vouchers if flights end up too full, and no two airlines have the same approach.

"Airlines overbook because people don't show up for flights and they don't want to go with empty seats," said George Hobica, founder of Airfarewatchdog.com.

There are also scenarios in which the plane may be too heavy, an air marshal needs to board or flight staff have to get to work.

But in the case of the United flight, four crew members needed to board the United flight, operated by regional partner Republic Airlines, in order to work another flight in Louisville the following day or else that flight would be canceled, airline spokeswoman Maddie King said Monday.

Experts agree that what United is dealing with is not par for the course. For one, the back-and-forth usually happens at the gate -- not once passengers board the plane.

"This is pretty unusual, what happened," Hobica said.

When a flight is overbooked, federal rules require that airlines first check to see if anyone will give up his or her seat voluntarily, according to the Department of Transportation. Airlines dictate what the compensation looks like, but it's usually a travel voucher toward a future flight or a gift card.

These voluntary swaps occur "probably thousands of time every day on a national scale," said Robert Mann, the head of airline consulting firm R.W. Mann & Company.

If airlines can't get passengers to switch of their own volition, they're allowed to bump fliers involuntarily.

In 2015, 46,000 travelers were involuntarily bumped from flights, according to data from the Department of Transportation.

Airlines set their own policies when it comes to the order in which passengers are bumped. The terms are sketched out in "contracts of carriage" that passengers agree to when they buy their tickets.

On United flights, people with disabilities and unaccompanied minors should be the last to be kicked off, according to the company's carriage contract.

American Airlines says it denies boarding based on order of check-in, but will also consider "severe hardships," ticket cost and status within the carrier's loyalty program.

Delta Air Lines also takes check-in order and loyalty status into account, as well as which cabin a passenger is slated to sit in. The carrier also says it makes exceptions for people with disabilities, unaccompanied minors and members of the military.

JetBlue Airways advertises that it does not overbook flights, but the airline still reserves the right in its contract.

When airlines must involuntarily bump, there are rules to follow.

Passengers must get to their final destination within one hour -- or carriers have to start coughing up money.

If fliers get to their final destination one to two hours late (or one to four hours late if they're flying internationally), airlines are required to pay double the original one-way fare, with a $675 limit. If fliers get in more than two hours late (or four internationally), airlines have to pay 400% of the one-way fare, up to a $1,350 limit.

Passengers have the right to insist on a check in lieu of a free flight or a voucher when they're kicked off a flight involuntary, according to the DOT.

"Usually [airlines will] just up the compensation amount, and they'll find somebody at some price," Hobica said.

United offered passengers up to $1,000 to de-board the Sunday flight, according to an internal e-mail from CEO Oscar Munoz.

There should be no limits on compensation. They overbook for the bottom line.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

United stock took a huge dive today
I've long thought their service sucked.

1.1%. How much do you want to bet it'll be back up this time next week?

Shakedown Cruise

The usual sucker play at the Wall Street casino. House money creates a panic to drive down the price, buys low, and smirks as the price goes back up to a natural value.

 

[rightwinger]

>>
“We followed the right procedures,” Hobart told the Associated Press in a phone interview. “That plane had to depart. We wanted to get our customers to their destinations, and when one gentleman refused to get off the aircraft, we had to call the Chicago Police Department.”

Bridges said passengers were told a computer selected four people to leave the flight. One couple was selected and left the plane before the man was confronted.<<

It wasn't overbooked. That's just the lame excuse the airline is using for their irreprehensible behavior. In reality, United just wanted those 4 seats to reshuffle their own employees, who were not booked on that flight to begin with, to another city where they were needed.

They should have provided another form of transportation for those employees. Put them on another flight, paid for tickets through another airline or something else besides kicking passengers off of the plane. That is just not right.

My understanding of the situation is that the crew was a last-minute replacement for a flight out the next morning. Federal crew rest rules dictate the requirements, specifically 10 hours of rest from the airport to their hotel. Now, if you want flight crews to only have 3-4 hours of sleep, not be drug tested on a regular basis or others free them from all those nasty Federal regulations, I suggest you Tweet President Trump about it.

This is the point on which we most differ

You seem to claim that not having a crew where you need them is something out of United's control....I claim it demonstrates management ineptness

But "stuff happens" United did not have a crew where they needed them. So, what should United have done?

Having a crew show up at a gate of an already loaded aircraft and demanding seats should have set off alarms within United's management that they had a potential situation. Asking for volunteers and offering compensation seems a reasonable course of action

But United fucked up when they decided to invoke their right to eject passengers. They should have realized it would create extreme distress among their passengers. When a passenger refused to give up his seat, United should have backed off rather than create a scene. Instead they chose to send in a brute squad to forcibly remove a passenger

As soon as they had no volunteers to leave the plane, United should have upped the compensation or backed off. I find it hard to believe that a major airline like United at a major hub like O'Hare does not have access to a small aircraft or helicopter that could have flown a crew 300 miles to Louisville

But United wanted to go on the cheap and use their power to eject passengers at will....They will pay a price

 

[Divine Wind]

There should be no limits on compensation. They overbook for the bottom line.

The flight wasn't overbooked. The four passengers needed to be deplaned when, apparently, a flight crew needed to be moved to SDF. It's simple math: Better to inconvenience 4 passengers rather than inconveniencing up to 75 passengers the next morning.

 

[Divine Wind]

This is the point on which we most differ...

Awesome. Let the court solve that one. Same goes for Dao's violations of Federal and State laws.

 

[Divine Wind]

Then show me specifically where their contract states a paid, non-belligerent, non-abusive, non- threatenening, compliant passanger has to give up his seat that he's already in; for a United employee...

Let the law sort it out. Do you at least agree that Dao committed a crime when he refused to obey a lawful order from a Chicago police officer?

 

[Divine Wind]

I suppose this is just like our argument over that tragic hot air balloon accident in that we'll have to let the results speak towards who was right. My position is that Dao will receive compensation for United's horrid handling of this and that that Dao will not be charged with any crimes in connection with his refusal to deplane.

I remember several balloon accidents. Which conversations are you referencing?

 

[bodecea]

I understand and basically have no problem overbooking... as long as the airlines understand that one they do that and they run into a situation like 'this' they will be forced to pay whatever the customer wants / will accept to give up their seat....not what THEY are willing to pay....and they sure as hell have no fight to physically remove a passenger from the plane in such a situation as this.

I have no doubt that had they explained to the people on board the plane that he was a doctor who had to be at his destination AND offered MORE money someone would have ended up volunteering.

This also should have been done prior to letting people board. Once you are in your seat I can just imagine the indignation one would feel being told "get off to let someone else on"

Plus...what about luggage? Did they only "randomly pick" from passengers with no checked luggage? If not, what about his luggage that went on without him? Or did they plan on delaying until his luggage was dug out from the hold?

 

[rightwinger]

This is the point on which we most differ...

Awesome. Let the court solve that one. Same goes for Dao's violations of Federal and State laws.

Dao will have the sympathy of any court because he was in the right

Charges may be filed to further bully the poor man into dropping his lawsuit against United and the Chicago Police. But any DA would understand the political volatility of filing such charges and will decide against it

United is now in full fledged damage control. They should have entered damage control mode as soon as they had a crew show up demanding that passengers give up their seats. But it took two days for them to even realize they did something wrong

 

[rightwinger]

There should be no limits on compensation. They overbook for the bottom line.

The flight wasn't overbooked. The four passengers needed to be deplaned when, apparently, a flight crew needed to be moved to SDF. It's simple math: Better to inconvenience 4 passengers rather than inconveniencing up to 75 passengers the next morning.

United did not have to eject passengers to get their crew from Chicago to Louisville

Chicago O'Hare is a major hub and United must either have small aircraft or the ability to charter one on short notice. They decided ejecting passengers was cheaper

 

[Divine Wind]

Dao will have the sympathy of any court because he was in the right...

Disagreed, but time will tell. In the end, I suspect United will throw some money at him to shut him up and put this behind them and Dao will take plea deals from both the Feds and the State to avoid jail time.

 

[Pogo]

>>
“We followed the right procedures,” Hobart told the Associated Press in a phone interview. “That plane had to depart. We wanted to get our customers to their destinations, and when one gentleman refused to get off the aircraft, we had to call the Chicago Police Department.”

Bridges said passengers were told a computer selected four people to leave the flight. One couple was selected and left the plane before the man was confronted.<<

It wasn't overbooked. That's just the lame excuse the airline is using for their irreprehensible behavior. In reality, United just wanted those 4 seats to reshuffle their own employees, who were not booked on that flight to begin with, to another city where they were needed.

They should have provided another form of transportation for those employees. Put them on another flight, paid for tickets through another airline or something else besides kicking passengers off of the plane. That is just not right.

My understanding of the situation is that the crew was a last-minute replacement for a flight out the next morning. Federal crew rest rules dictate the requirements, specifically 10 hours of rest from the airport to their hotel. Now, if you want flight crews to only have 3-4 hours of sleep, not be drug tested on a regular basis or others free them from all those nasty Federal regulations, I suggest you Tweet President Trump about it.

This is the point on which we most differ

You seem to claim that not having a crew where you need them is something out of United's control....I claim it demonstrates management ineptness

But "stuff happens" United did not have a crew where they needed them. So, what should United have done?

Having a crew show up at a gate of an already loaded aircraft and demanding seats should have set off alarms within United's management that they had a potential situation. Asking for volunteers and offering compensation seems a reasonable course of action

But United fucked up when they decided to invoke their right to eject passengers. They should have realized it would create extreme distress among their passengers. When a passenger refused to give up his seat, United should have backed off rather than create a scene. Instead they chose to send in a brute squad to forcibly remove a passenger

As soon as they had no volunteers to leave the plane, United should have upped the compensation or backed off. I find it hard to believe that a major airline like United at a major hub like O'Hare does not have access to a small aircraft or helicopter that could have flown a crew 300 miles to Louisville

But United wanted to go on the cheap and use their power to eject passengers at will....They will pay a price

Hell they could have shuttled them to Louisville in a car -- it's not even three hundred miles. Would have been a lot cheaper too. I could drive that distance for twenty bucks, and they're offering four passengers 800 each? That's just plain stupid.