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

[MikeK]

Exactly correct. The crew addition was last minute, not regularly scheduled. Obviously they were trying to fix a problem. The lawsuit will reveal the facts. In the meantime, that doesn't absolve Dao from breaking multiple Federal and State laws.

A lawsuit will indeed reveal many facts, the most important and relevant of which is that bad judgment is the primary punishable offense in this example. While that fact will not absolve United from its civil liability for the damages suffered by Dr. Dao, the behavior of the airline cops who callously and deliberately inflicted those damages on behalf of United Airlines is the result of something I refer to as donut-shop legislation.

Donut-shop legislation is the practice by which many (most?) American cops have managed to find
loopholes, curvatures, rhetorical devices and devious interpretations of SOP by which they are able to circumvent various restraints on their actions and official conduct and to flagrantly commit serious felonies while seeming to enforce relevant laws.

The various police unions, along with the universal FOP (Fraternal Order of Police) have increasingly managed over recent years to successfully defend cops against charges of first-degree murder and unnecessary use of force by applying the principles put forth in donut-shop legislation. But these airline cops, like mall cops, are not real cops so it is not likely they belong to powerful unions and therefore are not eligible for the defensive benefits of donut-shop legislation.

But time will tell.

 

[Weatherman2020]

You're arguing semantics. It doesn't matter when the overbooking occurred and by what circumstance it occurred. When you have more bodies than seats, you're overbooked.

On the contrary, sir, you are the one playing semantics. The plane was booked even. People were loaded up and ready to go but then a situation arose where the airline had to choose between cancelling an entire flight in the morning at SDF or inconveniencing 4 passengers in ORD.

Which would you have done given those choices?

Why couldn't they have made other arrangements. Why is this the passengers' problem?

Force Majeure.

What other arrangements? It was an E170 with 71 passengers paying about $220 for their ORD-SDF ticket. Total gross revenue ~$15,620. Losing the morning flight would have cost them about the same plus misconnections.

If it was my call, I'd have depland everyone first, then reboarded minus 4 passengers. If that didn't work, then cancel the flight, refund the $15K+ and ferry the aircraft to SDF with the second crew onboard.

Force majeure belongs to Government, not the private sector. Capital is what the private sector should always be about; especially in public accommodations.

Awesome that you actually believe this. Fine, let's see how it plays out between the lawyers.

Contract of Carriage Document | United Airlines
RULE 21 REFUSAL OF TRANSPORT
UA shall have the right to refuse to transport or shall have the right to remove from the aircraft at any point, any Passenger for the following reasons:

1. Breach of Contract of Carriage – Failure by Passenger to comply with the Rules of the Contract of Carriage.
2. Government Request, Regulations or Security Directives – Whenever such action is necessary to comply with any government regulation, Customs and Border Protection, government or airport security directive of any sort, or any governmental request for emergency transportation in connection with the national defense.
3. Force Majeure and Other Unforeseeable Conditions – Whenever such action is necessary or advisable by reason of weather or other conditions beyond UA’s control including, but not limited to, acts of God, force majeure, strikes, civil commotions, embargoes, wars, hostilities, terrorist activities, or disturbances, whether actual, threatened, or reported.

--------------------
RULE 24 FLIGHT DELAYS/CANCELLATIONS/AIRCRAFT CHANGES

1. 
   
   
   • General
     1. S.A. Origin Flights - Where the UA flights originate in the U.S.A., the provisions of this Rule apply to a Passenger who has a Ticket and a confirmed reservation on a flight that incurs a Schedule Change, Force Majeure Event or Irregular Operations.
     2. Non-U.S.A. Origin Flights - Where the UA flight originates outside the U.S.A., the following provisions apply to a Passenger who has a Ticket and a confirmed reservation on a flight:
        1. If local or international laws regulate a Schedule Change, Force Majeure or Irregular Operations, then the procedures in Rule 24 will not be applied.
        2. If no local law otherwise regulates a Schedule Change, Force Majeure or Irregular Operations, then the procedures in Rule 24 will be applied.

-----------------------
Definitions - For the purpose of this Rule, the following terms have the meanings below:

1. 
   
   
   • Schedule Change – an advance change in UA’s schedule (including a change in operating carrier or itinerary) that is not a unique event such as Irregular Operations or Force Majeure Event as defined below.
   • Connecting Point – a point to which a Passenger holds or held confirmed space on a flight of one carrier and out of which the Passenger holds or held confirmed space on a flight of the same or another carrier. All airports through which a city is served by any carrier will be deemed to be a single Connecting Point when the receiving carrier has confirmed reservations to the Delivering Carrier.
   • Delivering Carrier – a carrier on whose flight a Passenger holds or held confirmed space to a Connecting Point.
   • Force Majeure Event – any of the following situations:
     1. Any condition beyond UA’s control including, but not limited to, meteorological or geological conditions, acts of God, riots, terrorist activities, civil commotions, embargoes, wars, hostilities, disturbances, or unsettled international conditions, either actual, anticipated, threatened or reported, or any delay, demand, circumstances, or requirement due directly or indirectly to such condition;
     2. Any strike, work stoppage, slowdown, lockout, or any other labor-related dispute involving or affecting UA’s services;
     3. Any governmental regulation, demand or requirement;
     4. Any shortage of labor, fuel, or facilities of UA or others;
     5. Damage to UA’s Aircraft or equipment caused by another party;
     6. Any emergency situation requiring immediate care or protection for a person or property; or
     7. Any event not reasonably foreseen, anticipated or predicted by UA.

So you would accept a movie theater tossing you and your family out just as the movie was about to start just because somewhere in some obscure web link that is not given to you it says they can? What about if it was the 7th game of the World Series? Security shows up as the pitcher is warming up and says sorry, we overbooked your seats, you gotta go.

Damn right they would have to carry me out too.

The man fulfilled all of his obligations and was entitled to fly, his schedule was built around that agreement he had with United.

Ever buy a plane ticket? Yeah, those lawyer words may exist, but you never are made aware of them.

 

[Weatherman2020]

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.

A Cessna couldn't have done the job? Paying customers are, always right.

United's original response was...We followed the rules and the guy did not accept our request...even though we asked real nice

As of yesterday, their CEO is groveling, throwing money around and claiming the customer is always right

That is how capitalism works; especially when promptness needs to be insured.

Yes

United has shown us the underside of capitalism

Yes, United has shown us capitalism.
Watch other airlines get all of their business now.

 

[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.

In Basketball, It's Called "Flopping"

If United pays off this nasty pervert, others will try the same scam.

Agreed. United wants to avoid a PR nightmare for something they didn't do, but if they pay off Dao, thousands of passengers will start "flopping" every time they are asked to move or deplane. Thousands more will be inconvenienced when flights are cancelled rather than airlines risk a similar PR nightmare.

Again, the solution here should have been deplaning the entire flight once a belligerent and non-compliant passenger was identified.

What if people don't want to deplane?

You mean hijack it? Sit there in the dark waiting as it's towed to the hangar and their bags are offloaded and put into storage?

 

[Divine Wind]

There should be no recourse, to Force Majeure for the private sector, but for actual emergencies.

Capital should work fine in the private sector in public accommodation.

There should be no limits on compensation due to airlines routinely overbooking, simply for the bottom line.

So if you're flying to Miami and there's a hurricane there, you expect the airline to continue to fly as scheduled or pay 1000% compensation? Interesting.

The next time you fly, pay the extra $15 or so for an exit row seat for the extra legroom. When the flight attendant briefs you and asks if you are willing to operate the exit in an emergency and assist others, say "No, I won't". When you asks you to move say "No, I won't. I paid for this seat and the customer is always right". Let me know how that works out for you.

Agreed. No overbooking ever. I'm good with that. That's not the problem on this flight, but I'm still good with it.

Agreed. No overbooking ever. I'm good with that. That's not the problem on this flight, but I'm still good with it.

Overbooking equates to tens of millions for the airlines. It's NOT going away.

UAL had more bodies than seats, so the plane was overbooked.

If Congress passes a law, the airlines will have to stop overbooking. OTOH, what they'll all end up doing is making passengers pay "no show" fees and other penalties. They kind of do that now with "low cost but non-refundable tickets".

A Republican Congress is going to pass a law reducing tens of millions in revenue from companies that support ($$$$) them?

It depends upon how big of a circus this bullshit becomes. Like the Healthcare bill, every Senator and Representative have to respond to their constituents or face failing to reelect. Still, they can pass laws that don't mean anything.

For the airlines, as long as it's a level playing field, it's all par for them. Want to mandate that four empty seats go on every flight just in case a crew shows up? Fine. Want to fine airlines millions of dollars for bumping someone? Fine, they'll just cancel the flight and refund everyone's ticket. In this case, about $16,000.

 

[Divine Wind]

On the contrary, sir, you are the one playing semantics. The plane was booked even. People were loaded up and ready to go but then a situation arose where the airline had to choose between cancelling an entire flight in the morning at SDF or inconveniencing 4 passengers in ORD.

Which would you have done given those choices?

Why couldn't they have made other arrangements. Why is this the passengers' problem?

Force Majeure.

What other arrangements? It was an E170 with 71 passengers paying about $220 for their ORD-SDF ticket. Total gross revenue ~$15,620. Losing the morning flight would have cost them about the same plus misconnections.

If it was my call, I'd have depland everyone first, then reboarded minus 4 passengers. If that didn't work, then cancel the flight, refund the $15K+ and ferry the aircraft to SDF with the second crew onboard.

Force majeure belongs to Government, not the private sector. Capital is what the private sector should always be about; especially in public accommodations.

Awesome that you actually believe this. Fine, let's see how it plays out between the lawyers.

Contract of Carriage Document | United Airlines
RULE 21 REFUSAL OF TRANSPORT
UA shall have the right to refuse to transport or shall have the right to remove from the aircraft at any point, any Passenger for the following reasons:

1. Breach of Contract of Carriage – Failure by Passenger to comply with the Rules of the Contract of Carriage.
2. Government Request, Regulations or Security Directives – Whenever such action is necessary to comply with any government regulation, Customs and Border Protection, government or airport security directive of any sort, or any governmental request for emergency transportation in connection with the national defense.
3. Force Majeure and Other Unforeseeable Conditions – Whenever such action is necessary or advisable by reason of weather or other conditions beyond UA’s control including, but not limited to, acts of God, force majeure, strikes, civil commotions, embargoes, wars, hostilities, terrorist activities, or disturbances, whether actual, threatened, or reported.

--------------------
RULE 24 FLIGHT DELAYS/CANCELLATIONS/AIRCRAFT CHANGES

1. 
   
   
   • General
     1. S.A. Origin Flights - Where the UA flights originate in the U.S.A., the provisions of this Rule apply to a Passenger who has a Ticket and a confirmed reservation on a flight that incurs a Schedule Change, Force Majeure Event or Irregular Operations.
     2. Non-U.S.A. Origin Flights - Where the UA flight originates outside the U.S.A., the following provisions apply to a Passenger who has a Ticket and a confirmed reservation on a flight:
        1. If local or international laws regulate a Schedule Change, Force Majeure or Irregular Operations, then the procedures in Rule 24 will not be applied.
        2. If no local law otherwise regulates a Schedule Change, Force Majeure or Irregular Operations, then the procedures in Rule 24 will be applied.

-----------------------
Definitions - For the purpose of this Rule, the following terms have the meanings below:

1. 
   
   
   • Schedule Change – an advance change in UA’s schedule (including a change in operating carrier or itinerary) that is not a unique event such as Irregular Operations or Force Majeure Event as defined below.
   • Connecting Point – a point to which a Passenger holds or held confirmed space on a flight of one carrier and out of which the Passenger holds or held confirmed space on a flight of the same or another carrier. All airports through which a city is served by any carrier will be deemed to be a single Connecting Point when the receiving carrier has confirmed reservations to the Delivering Carrier.
   • Delivering Carrier – a carrier on whose flight a Passenger holds or held confirmed space to a Connecting Point.
   • Force Majeure Event – any of the following situations:
     1. Any condition beyond UA’s control including, but not limited to, meteorological or geological conditions, acts of God, riots, terrorist activities, civil commotions, embargoes, wars, hostilities, disturbances, or unsettled international conditions, either actual, anticipated, threatened or reported, or any delay, demand, circumstances, or requirement due directly or indirectly to such condition;
     2. Any strike, work stoppage, slowdown, lockout, or any other labor-related dispute involving or affecting UA’s services;
     3. Any governmental regulation, demand or requirement;
     4. Any shortage of labor, fuel, or facilities of UA or others;
     5. Damage to UA’s Aircraft or equipment caused by another party;
     6. Any emergency situation requiring immediate care or protection for a person or property; or
     7. Any event not reasonably foreseen, anticipated or predicted by UA.

So you would accept a movie theater tossing you and your family out just as the movie was about to start just because somewhere in some obscure web link that is not given to you it says they can? What about if it was the 7th game of the World Series? Security shows up as the pitcher is warming up and says sorry, we overbooked your seats, you gotta go.

Damn right they would have to carry me out too.

The man fulfilled all of his obligations and was entitled to fly, his schedule was built around that agreement he had with United.

Ever buy a plane ticket? Yeah, those lawyer words may exist, but you never are made aware of them.

Why do liberals always want to compare guns to driving a car? In this case, it's not a movie theater, it's not an Uber and it's not Burger King. It's an airliner and the same international laws of the seas that apply to ships apply to airliners. Don't take my word for it. The next time you fly, call the flight attendant a ****. Then, when they ask you to leave, tell them "Go fuck yourselves *****!". Please write down what happens. Take video if you can.

 

[ChrisL]

Those were not paying passengers. They were employees that United wanted to shuffle around at the cost of passengers' convenience.

Why do you think they were shuffling around those employees? Why do you think they'd inconvenience passengers if it wasn't necessary to do so?

Because they are assholes, obviously. Demanding a paying passenger leave his seat and the plane? Put yourself in his shoes. I would have been like, "Eff you. Make me." Lol.

 

[Divine Wind]

Force Majeure.

What other arrangements? It was an E170 with 71 passengers paying about $220 for their ORD-SDF ticket. Total gross revenue ~$15,620. Losing the morning flight would have cost them about the same plus misconnections.

If it was my call, I'd have depland everyone first, then reboarded minus 4 passengers. If that didn't work, then cancel the flight, refund the $15K+ and ferry the aircraft to SDF with the second crew onboard.

Force majeure belongs to Government, not the private sector. Capital is what the private sector should always be about; especially in public accommodations.

Awesome that you actually believe this. Fine, let's see how it plays out between the lawyers.

Contract of Carriage Document | United Airlines
RULE 21 REFUSAL OF TRANSPORT
UA shall have the right to refuse to transport or shall have the right to remove from the aircraft at any point, any Passenger for the following reasons:

1. Breach of Contract of Carriage – Failure by Passenger to comply with the Rules of the Contract of Carriage.
2. Government Request, Regulations or Security Directives – Whenever such action is necessary to comply with any government regulation, Customs and Border Protection, government or airport security directive of any sort, or any governmental request for emergency transportation in connection with the national defense.
3. Force Majeure and Other Unforeseeable Conditions – Whenever such action is necessary or advisable by reason of weather or other conditions beyond UA’s control including, but not limited to, acts of God, force majeure, strikes, civil commotions, embargoes, wars, hostilities, terrorist activities, or disturbances, whether actual, threatened, or reported.

--------------------
RULE 24 FLIGHT DELAYS/CANCELLATIONS/AIRCRAFT CHANGES

1. 
   
   
   • General
     1. S.A. Origin Flights - Where the UA flights originate in the U.S.A., the provisions of this Rule apply to a Passenger who has a Ticket and a confirmed reservation on a flight that incurs a Schedule Change, Force Majeure Event or Irregular Operations.
     2. Non-U.S.A. Origin Flights - Where the UA flight originates outside the U.S.A., the following provisions apply to a Passenger who has a Ticket and a confirmed reservation on a flight:
        1. If local or international laws regulate a Schedule Change, Force Majeure or Irregular Operations, then the procedures in Rule 24 will not be applied.
        2. If no local law otherwise regulates a Schedule Change, Force Majeure or Irregular Operations, then the procedures in Rule 24 will be applied.

-----------------------
Definitions - For the purpose of this Rule, the following terms have the meanings below:

1. 
   
   
   • Schedule Change – an advance change in UA’s schedule (including a change in operating carrier or itinerary) that is not a unique event such as Irregular Operations or Force Majeure Event as defined below.
   • Connecting Point – a point to which a Passenger holds or held confirmed space on a flight of one carrier and out of which the Passenger holds or held confirmed space on a flight of the same or another carrier. All airports through which a city is served by any carrier will be deemed to be a single Connecting Point when the receiving carrier has confirmed reservations to the Delivering Carrier.
   • Delivering Carrier – a carrier on whose flight a Passenger holds or held confirmed space to a Connecting Point.
   • Force Majeure Event – any of the following situations:
     1. Any condition beyond UA’s control including, but not limited to, meteorological or geological conditions, acts of God, riots, terrorist activities, civil commotions, embargoes, wars, hostilities, disturbances, or unsettled international conditions, either actual, anticipated, threatened or reported, or any delay, demand, circumstances, or requirement due directly or indirectly to such condition;
     2. Any strike, work stoppage, slowdown, lockout, or any other labor-related dispute involving or affecting UA’s services;
     3. Any governmental regulation, demand or requirement;
     4. Any shortage of labor, fuel, or facilities of UA or others;
     5. Damage to UA’s Aircraft or equipment caused by another party;
     6. Any emergency situation requiring immediate care or protection for a person or property; or
     7. Any event not reasonably foreseen, anticipated or predicted by UA.

Great, none of those apply to Dao. Thanks for playing.

Indirectly, they do. You said Force Majeure doesn't apply here. I just proved to you it does. When it did, the airline was right to deplane an appropriate number of passengers to fix the problem. Dao was one of them. Dao's problems came up when he thought he as sitting at Burger King instead of an airliner covered by multiple Federal and State laws.

You proved no such thing.

You posted a list of reasons where force majeure could potentially apply -- but none of them actually apply in Dao's case. Let's review them...

• Failure by Passenger to comply with the Rules of the Contract of Carriage.
  
  
  This would require Dao to have been in non-compliance leading up to the point he was asked to deplane. Up to that point, he was apparently in complete compliance. He apparently had a legally purchased ticket, was welcomed by the airline to board their plane, took a seat, and was not being belligerent, abusive, or threatening to any of the other passengers or crew.
  
  This reason does not apply to Dao​
• Government Request, Regulations or Security Directives – Whenever such action is necessary to comply with any government regulation, Customs and Border Protection, government or airport security directive of any sort, or any governmental request for emergency transportation in connection with the national defense.
  
  
  The decision to remove Dao from that flight was not based on any governmental request, regulation, or directive. It was made by the airline itself for convenience purposes. There was no emergency. There was no threat to national defense.
  
  This reason does not apply to Dao​
• Force Majeure and Other Unforeseeable Conditions – Whenever such action is necessary or advisable by reason of weather or other conditions beyond UA’s control including, but not limited to, acts of God, force majeure, strikes, civil commotions, embargoes, wars, hostilities, terrorist activities, or disturbances, whether actual, threatened, or reported.
  
  
  Weather played no part in seeking to remove Dao from the flight. There was no strike, no civil commotion (as the reason for him to lose his seat), no embargo, war, hostility or terrorist activity.
  
  This reason does not apply to Dao​
  
  U.S.A. Origin Flights - Where the UA flights originate in the U.S.A., the provisions of this Rule apply to a Passenger who has a Ticket and a confirmed reservation on a flight that incurs a Schedule Change, Force Majeure Event or Irregular Operations.

• If local or international laws regulate a Schedule Change, Force Majeure or Irregular Operations, then the procedures in Rule 24 will not be applied.
  
  
  There was no schedule change due to international regulations.
  
  This reason does not apply to Dao​
• If no local law otherwise regulates a Schedule Change, Force Majeure or Irregular Operations, then the procedures in Rule 24 will be applied.
  
  
  There was no schedule change for any other reasons.
  
  This reason does not apply to Dao​
  
  RULE 24 FLIGHT DELAYS/CANCELLATIONS/AIRCRAFT CHANGES

• Any condition beyond UA’s control including, but not limited to, meteorological or geological conditions, acts of God, riots, terrorist activities, civil commotions, embargoes, wars, hostilities, disturbances, or unsettled international conditions, either actual, anticipated, threatened or reported, or any delay, demand, circumstances, or requirement due directly or indirectly to such condition;
  
  
  There were no acts of G-d. There were no riots. There were no international conditions affecting that flight. UA simply wanted Dao's seat to transport someone else of their choosing.
  
  This reason does not apply to Dao​
• Any strike, work stoppage, slowdown, lockout, or any other labor-related dispute involving or affecting UA’s services;
  
  
  There was no strike, work stoppage, lockout, or any other labor-related dispute.
  
  This reason does not apply to Dao​
• Any governmental regulation, demand or requirement; any level of government.
  
  This reason does not apply to Dao[/indent]
  
  
  This was solely UA's decision and had nothing to do with any level of government.
  
  This reason does not apply to Dao​
• Any shortage of labor, fuel, or facilities of UA or others;
  
  
  There was no shortage of labor affecting that flight. No issues of fuel or facilities affecting that flight.
  
  This reason does not apply to Dao​
• Damage to UA’s Aircraft or equipment caused by another party;
  
  
  There was no reported damage to the plane.
  
  This reason does not apply to Dao​
• Any emergency situation requiring immediate care or protection for a person or property; or
  
  There was no emergency situation requiring immediate care or protection. The reason cited by UA was simply to transfer several employees.
  
  
  This reason does not apply to Dao​

• Any event not reasonably foreseen, anticipated or predicted by UA.
  
  
  There were no events not reasonably foreseen requiring the delay, cancellation, or change of plane
  
  This reason does not apply to Dao​
  
  So no, force majeure, which by definition is an major enforceable event beyond the control of United Airlines; does not apply to Dao.
  
  UA was not only in control of that situation, it was their choice to give away Dao's seat, which he already occupied, to another person of their choice. You know, the polar opposite of force majeure.

Awesome. Let's see what happens in court.

 

[ChrisL]

They sold him that seat. He paid for it fair and square. If he didn't want to give up his seat, then he shouldn't have been forced to do it. They can offer him money or whatever, but if he still says NO, then they need to do something else. Mr. Divine Wind, I think you are the ONLY person who is defending this airlines actions.

 

[Divine Wind]

Those were not paying passengers. They were employees that United wanted to shuffle around at the cost of passengers' convenience.

Why do you think they were shuffling around those employees? Why do you think they'd inconvenience passengers if it wasn't necessary to do so?

Because they are assholes, obviously. Demanding a paying passenger leave his seat and the plane? Put yourself in his shoes. I would have been like, "Eff you. Make me." Lol.

Then you would have been detained, if not arrested.

In this case, it's a bit like the Rodney King incident. If justice was done that night, five people would have been arrested; King and the four assholes who beat him. As it was, King got off for free because the police broke the law so LA gave all a free pass. The problem for Dao is that the police officer was Chicago, but the laws Dao broke included Federal laws. Neither United, Republic nor the State of Illinois have any say in that matter.

 

[ChrisL]

The man is near 70 years old and he suffered a concussion, three lost teeth, a broken nose . . . WTH? Was it necessary to beat the crap out of the man too?

 

[Divine Wind]

They sold him that seat. He paid for it fair and square. If he didn't want to give up his seat, then he shouldn't have been forced to do it. They can offer him money or whatever, but if he still says NO, then they need to do something else. Mr. Divine Wind, I think you are the ONLY person who is defending this airlines actions.

I'm telling you what the law is on the matter. I don't care if they change the law. If they do, the result will be a canceled flight. I've seen it happen with the tarmac delay laws.

 

[Divine Wind]

The man is near 70 years old and he suffered a concussion, three lost teeth, a broken nose . . . WTH? Was it necessary to beat the crap out of the man too?

No, not at all. How is that United's fault or how does that absolve Dao from his multiple violations of Federal law?

 

[Divine Wind]

A lawsuit will indeed reveal many facts, the most important and relevant of which is that bad judgment is the primary punishable offense in this example. While that fact will not absolve United from its civil liability for the damages suffered by Dr. Dao, the behavior of the airline cops who callously and deliberately inflicted those damages on behalf of United Airlines is the result of something I refer to as donut-shop legislation.

Donut-shop legislation is the practice by which many (most?) American cops have managed to find
loopholes, curvatures, rhetorical devices and devious interpretations of SOP by which they are able to circumvent various restraints on their actions and official conduct and to flagrantly commit serious felonies while seeming to enforce relevant laws.

The various police unions, along with the universal FOP (Fraternal Order of Police) have increasingly managed over recent years to successfully defend cops against charges of first-degree murder and unnecessary use of force by applying the principles put forth in donut-shop legislation. But these airline cops, like mall cops, are not real cops so it is not likely they belong to powerful unions and therefore are not eligible for the defensive benefits of donut-shop legislation.

But time will tell.

Agreed on lawsuit, disagreed that United is as culpable as you believe. I'm looking forward to the entertainment value of this. Much more fun than Russiagate.

 

[ChrisL]

Not really the same situation, but I can't help thinking about this. Lol!

 

[ChrisL]

The man is near 70 years old and he suffered a concussion, three lost teeth, a broken nose . . . WTH? Was it necessary to beat the crap out of the man too?

No, not at all. How is that United's fault or how does that absolve Dao from his multiple violations of Federal law?

Because it's THEIR fault. Lol. What in the hell kind of business practice is THAT? I don't care what excuses you come up with for them treating their customers and passengers in such a way. It is STILL wrong.

 

[leftwinger]

The man is near 70 years old and he suffered a concussion, three lost teeth, a broken nose . . . WTH? Was it necessary to beat the crap out of the man too?

So they say........


Scam artist in progress, I would bet. Acting on lawyer advice. Opportunist. Criminal history reported in this thread. I don't want USA children forced to pay higher so he can scam the legal system. He caused any real injuries on purpose.

 

[Pogo]

UAL stock is fine. That's all that matters.

..... to the cause of fascism.

Finished it for ya.

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?

I don't have enough facts to answer that. I don't know if they properly identified themselves as officers. The guy who yanked Dao out of his seat was dressed in jeans and a jacket. Could be Dao didn't know they were law enforcement.

1) The investigation will reveal the facts.
2) The uniforms and badges are a clue:

3)A fair point. I don't know who Mr. Jeans was, but it appears he came on afterwards. From what I've read, he's a police officer and the first one put on administrative leave. The other two were put on leave later.

"Dept. Of Aviation Police"

These guys are on a par with the Sewer Cops. Every one of the inflated goons will be fired and I'd wager one of them will be criminally charged.

Fucking Liberals always hate the police.

Fucking ballsack-free authoritarian passive wimps drool over belligerence.

 

[Pogo]

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.

In Basketball, It's Called "Flopping"

If United pays off this nasty pervert, others will try the same scam.

Agreed. United wants to avoid a PR nightmare for something they didn't do, but if they pay off Dao, thousands of passengers will start "flopping" every time they are asked to move or deplane. Thousands more will be inconvenienced when flights are cancelled rather than airlines risk a similar PR nightmare.

Again, the solution here should have been deplaning the entire flight once a belligerent and non-compliant passenger was identified.

They didn't "identify" such a passenger. The word you're looking for is "created".
None of this needed to go down. United Airlines crew on the scene created the entire thing. And you want to go all snowflake on 'em. Spineless wimp.

And you know who agrees that United Airlines created this situation?
---- United Airlines. Hence the apologies, and the begging bribes moaning "please don't sue us" to everybody who was on that flight and witnessed what they did.

 

[rightwinger]

They sold him that seat. He paid for it fair and square. If he didn't want to give up his seat, then he shouldn't have been forced to do it. They can offer him money or whatever, but if he still says NO, then they need to do something else. Mr. Divine Wind, I think you are the ONLY person who is defending this airlines actions.

I'm telling you what the law is on the matter. I don't care if they change the law. If they do, the result will be a canceled flight. I've seen it happen with the tarmac delay laws.

United had the law on their side

That is why they thought they could abuse their passengers and get away with it

They are paying a heavy price