Apr 10, 2017, 8:42 pm
Last edit by: WineCountryUA
WELCOME, THREAD GUIDELINES and SUMMARY PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING
If you are new to us, welcome to FlyerTalk! Who we are: FlyerTalk features discussions and chat boards that cover the most up-to-date traveler information; an interactive community dedicated to the topic of travel (not politics or arguments about politics or religion, etc. – those discussion are best in the OMNI forum)
The incident discussed in this thread has touched a nerve for many, and many posters are passionate about their opinions and concerns. However we should still have a civil and respectful discussion of this topic. This is because FlyerTalk is meant to be a friendly, helpful, and collegial community. (Rule 12.)
1. The normal FlyerTalk Rules apply. (Including not discussing moderation actions in thread). Please be particularly attentive to "discussing the idea and not the poster" when you have a disagreement. Civility and mutual respect are still expected and are what we owe each other as a community.
2. You are expected to respect the FlyerTalk community's diversity, and therefore refrain from posting inflammatory comments about race, religion, culture, politics, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc. Do not cite, copy, or report on such.
3. While you can disagree with an opinion, the holder of that opinion has the same right to their opinion as you have to yours. We request all to respect that and disagree or discuss their point of views without getting overly personal and without attacking the other poster(s). This is expected as a requirement in FT Rule 12.
4. Overly exaggerative posts as well as posts with information that has been posted several times previously may be summarily deleted.
5. In addition, those who repeatedly fail to comply with FlyerTalk Rules, may be subjected to FlyerTalk disciplinary actions and, e.g., have membership privileges suspended, or masked from this forum.
If you have questions about the Rules or concerns about what another has posted in this or other threads in this forum, please do not post about that. Rather, notify the moderators by using the alert symbol within each post or email or send a private message to us moderators.
Let’s have this discussion in a way that, when we look back on it, we can be proud of how we handled ourselves as a community.
The United Moderator team:
J.Edward
l'etoile
Ocn Vw 1K
Pat89339
WineCountryUA
N.B. PLEASE do not alter the contents of this moderator note
CHICAGO, April 27, 2017 /PRNewswire/ -- We are pleased to report that United and Dr. Dao have reached an amicable resolution of the unfortunate incident that occurred aboard flight 3411. We look forward to implementing the improvements we have announced, which will put our customers at the center of everything we do.
What facts do we know?
- UA3411, operated by Republic Airways, ORD-SDF on Sunday, April 9, 2017. UA3411 was the second to last flight to SDF for United. AA3509 and UA4771 were the two remaining departures for the day. Also, AA and DL had connecting options providing for same-day arrival in SDF.
- After the flight was fully boarded, United determined four seats were needed to accommodate crew to SDF for a flight on Monday.
- United solicited volunteers for VDB. (BUT stopped at $800 in UA$s, not cash). Chose not to go to the levels such as 1350 that airlines have been known to go even in case of weather impacted disruption)
- After receiving no volunteers for $800 vouchers, a passenger volunteered for $1,600 and was "laughed at" and refused, United determined four passengers to be removed from the flight.
- One passenger refused and Chicago Aviation Security Officers were called to forcibly remove the passenger.
- The passenger hit the armrest in the aisle and received a concussion, a broken nose, a bloodied lip, and the loss of two teeth.
- After being removed from the plane, the passenger re-boarded saying "I need to go home" repeatedly, before being removed again.
- United spokesman Jonathan Guerin said the flight was sold out — but not oversold. Instead, United and regional affiliate Republic Airlines – the unit that operated Flight 3411 – decided they had to remove four passengers from the flight to accommodate crewmembers who were needed in Louisville the next day for a “downline connection.”
United Express Flight 3411 Review and Action Report - released 27 April 2017
Videos
- Passenger one row behind and on the aisle footage BEFORE man was dragged off https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=655_1492004707
- Videos of man being removed https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4b7_1491983214 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nAZEk6nsNE
- Video of man re-entering plane https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNEQDWpYbZA (link dead)
Internal Communication by Oscar Munoz
Oscar Munoz sent an internal communication to UA employees (sources: View From The Wing, Chicago Tribune):
Dear Team,
Like you, I was upset to see and hear about what happened last night aboard United Express Flight 3411 headed from Chicago to Louisville. While the facts and circumstances are still evolving, especially with respect to why this customer defied Chicago Aviation Security Officers the way he did, to give you a clearer picture of what transpired, I've included below a recap from the preliminary reports filed by our employees.
As you will read, this situation was unfortunately compounded when one of the passengers we politely asked to deplane refused and it became necessary to contact Chicago Aviation Security Officers to help. Our employees followed established procedures for dealing with situations like this. While I deeply regret this situation arose, I also emphatically stand behind all of you, and I want to commend you for continuing to go above and beyond to ensure we fly right.
I do, however, believe there are lessons we can learn from this experience, and we are taking a close look at the circumstances surrounding this incident. Treating our customers and each other with respect and dignity is at the core of who we are, and we must always remember this no matter how challenging the situation.
Oscar
Summary of Flight 3411
Like you, I was upset to see and hear about what happened last night aboard United Express Flight 3411 headed from Chicago to Louisville. While the facts and circumstances are still evolving, especially with respect to why this customer defied Chicago Aviation Security Officers the way he did, to give you a clearer picture of what transpired, I've included below a recap from the preliminary reports filed by our employees.
As you will read, this situation was unfortunately compounded when one of the passengers we politely asked to deplane refused and it became necessary to contact Chicago Aviation Security Officers to help. Our employees followed established procedures for dealing with situations like this. While I deeply regret this situation arose, I also emphatically stand behind all of you, and I want to commend you for continuing to go above and beyond to ensure we fly right.
I do, however, believe there are lessons we can learn from this experience, and we are taking a close look at the circumstances surrounding this incident. Treating our customers and each other with respect and dignity is at the core of who we are, and we must always remember this no matter how challenging the situation.
Oscar
Summary of Flight 3411
- On Sunday, April 9, after United Express Flight 3411 was fully boarded, United's gate agents were approached by crewmembers that were told they needed to board the flight.
- We sought volunteers and then followed our involuntary denial of boarding process (including offering up to $1,000 in compensation) and when we approached one of these passengers to explain apologetically that he was being denied boarding, he raised his voice and refused to comply with crew member instructions.
- He was approached a few more times after that in order to gain his compliance to come off the aircraft, and each time he refused and became more and more disruptive and belligerent.
- Our agents were left with no choice but to call Chicago Aviation Security Officers to assist in removing the customer from the flight. He repeatedly declined to leave.
- Chicago Aviation Security Officers were unable to gain his cooperation and physically removed him from the flight as he continued to resist - running back onto the aircraft in defiance of both our crew and security officials.
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 oversold situations 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
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 oversold situations 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
Each flight you take with us represents an important promise we make to you, our customer. It's not simply that we make sure you reach your destination safely and on time, but also that you will be treated with the highest level of service and the deepest sense of dignity and respect.
Earlier this month, we broke that trust when a passenger was forcibly removed from one of our planes. We can never say we are sorry enough for what occurred, but we also know meaningful actions will speak louder than words.
For the past several weeks, we have been urgently working to answer two questions: How did this happen, and how can we do our best to ensure this never happens again?
It happened because our corporate policies were placed ahead of our shared values. Our procedures got in the way of our employees doing what they know is right.
Fixing that problem starts now with changing how we fly, serve and respect our customers. This is a turning point for all of us here at United – and as CEO, it's my responsibility to make sure that we learn from this experience and redouble our efforts to put our customers at the center of everything we do.
That’s why we announced that we will no longer ask law enforcement to remove customers from a flight and customers will not be required to give up their seat once on board – except in matters of safety or security.
We also know that despite our best efforts, when things don’t go the way they should, we need to be there for you to make things right. There are several new ways we’re going to do just that.
We will increase incentives for voluntary rebooking up to $10,000 and will be eliminating the red tape on permanently lost bags with a new "no-questions-asked" $1,500 reimbursement policy. We will also be rolling out a new app for our employees that will enable them to provide on-the-spot goodwill gestures in the form of miles, travel credit and other amenities when your experience with us misses the mark. You can learn more about these commitments and many other changes at hub.united.com.
While these actions are important, I have found myself reflecting more broadly on the role we play and the responsibilities we have to you and the communities we serve.
I believe we must go further in redefining what United's corporate citizenship looks like in our society. If our chief good as a company is only getting you to and from your destination, that would show a lack of moral imagination on our part. You can and ought to expect more from us, and we intend to live up to those higher expectations in the way we embody social responsibility and civic leadership everywhere we operate. I hope you will see that pledge express itself in our actions going forward, of which these initial, though important, changes are merely a first step.
Our goal should be nothing less than to make you truly proud to say, "I fly United."
Ultimately, the measure of our success is your satisfaction and the past several weeks have moved us to go further than ever before in elevating your experience with us. I know our 87,000 employees have taken this message to heart, and they are as energized as ever to fulfill our promise to serve you better with each flight and earn the trust you’ve given us.
We are working harder than ever for the privilege to serve you and I know we will be stronger, better and the customer-focused airline you expect and deserve.
With Great Gratitude,
Oscar Munoz
CEO
United Airlines
Earlier this month, we broke that trust when a passenger was forcibly removed from one of our planes. We can never say we are sorry enough for what occurred, but we also know meaningful actions will speak louder than words.
For the past several weeks, we have been urgently working to answer two questions: How did this happen, and how can we do our best to ensure this never happens again?
It happened because our corporate policies were placed ahead of our shared values. Our procedures got in the way of our employees doing what they know is right.
Fixing that problem starts now with changing how we fly, serve and respect our customers. This is a turning point for all of us here at United – and as CEO, it's my responsibility to make sure that we learn from this experience and redouble our efforts to put our customers at the center of everything we do.
That’s why we announced that we will no longer ask law enforcement to remove customers from a flight and customers will not be required to give up their seat once on board – except in matters of safety or security.
We also know that despite our best efforts, when things don’t go the way they should, we need to be there for you to make things right. There are several new ways we’re going to do just that.
We will increase incentives for voluntary rebooking up to $10,000 and will be eliminating the red tape on permanently lost bags with a new "no-questions-asked" $1,500 reimbursement policy. We will also be rolling out a new app for our employees that will enable them to provide on-the-spot goodwill gestures in the form of miles, travel credit and other amenities when your experience with us misses the mark. You can learn more about these commitments and many other changes at hub.united.com.
While these actions are important, I have found myself reflecting more broadly on the role we play and the responsibilities we have to you and the communities we serve.
I believe we must go further in redefining what United's corporate citizenship looks like in our society. If our chief good as a company is only getting you to and from your destination, that would show a lack of moral imagination on our part. You can and ought to expect more from us, and we intend to live up to those higher expectations in the way we embody social responsibility and civic leadership everywhere we operate. I hope you will see that pledge express itself in our actions going forward, of which these initial, though important, changes are merely a first step.
Our goal should be nothing less than to make you truly proud to say, "I fly United."
Ultimately, the measure of our success is your satisfaction and the past several weeks have moved us to go further than ever before in elevating your experience with us. I know our 87,000 employees have taken this message to heart, and they are as energized as ever to fulfill our promise to serve you better with each flight and earn the trust you’ve given us.
We are working harder than ever for the privilege to serve you and I know we will be stronger, better and the customer-focused airline you expect and deserve.
With Great Gratitude,
Oscar Munoz
CEO
United Airlines
- Chicago Aviation Department said on the Monday afternoon after the incident that the officer who had dragged the passenger off the plane had been placed on leave pending an investigation. Spokesperson Karen Pride said in an email that "The incident on United flight 3411 was not in accordance with our standard operating procedure and the actions of the aviation security officer are obviously not condoned by the Department."
- 4/12/17: Two more Chicago Aviation officers involved are suspended
- Muñoz does ABC interview, announcing United will no longer use law enforcement to remove passengers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90jSUe_vdhM
- United announces policy change that crews traveling on their aircraft must be booked at least 60 minutes prior to departure.
- United releases multiple changes in overbooking / denied boarding policies "We are making changes to ensure that we always put customers first" (http://newsroom.united.com/2017-04-2...mer-Experience) released 27 April 2017
- Statement from United Airlines Regarding Resolution with Dr. David Dao - released 27 April 2017
- Response to Senate Commerce Committee questions - 1 May 2017
- United Airlines PR Boss to Step Down
- James Long, one of several officers involved in removing David Dao from the April 9, 2017, flight to make room for airline employees, filed suit on Tuesday against United, Chicago’s Department of Aviation and its commissioner, Ginger Evans. The lawsuit, filed in the circuit court of Cook County, Illinois, alleges he was not properly trained on how to use force.
Poll: Your Opinion of United Airlines
Poll link: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/KP68GYG
Results link: https://www.surveymonkey.com/results...Q6B2B/instant/
Reference MaterialResults link: https://www.surveymonkey.com/results...Q6B2B/instant/
UA's Customer Commitment says:
Occasionally we may not be able to provide you with a seat on a specific flight, even if you hold a ticket, have checked in, are present to board on time, and comply with other requirements. This is called an oversale, and occurs when restrictions apply to operating a particular flight safely (such as aircraft weight limits); when we have to substitute a smaller aircraft in place of a larger aircraft that was originally scheduled; or if more customers have checked in and are prepared to board than we have available seats.
If your flight is in an oversale situation, you will not be denied a seat until we first ask for volunteers willing to give up their confirmed seats. If there are not enough volunteers, we will deny boarding to passengers in accordance with our written policy on boarding priority. If you are involuntarily denied boarding and have complied with our check-in and other applicable rules, we will give you a written statement that describes your rights and explains how we determine boarding priority for an oversold flight. You will generally be entitled to compensation and transportation on an alternate flight.
We make complete rules for the payment of compensation, as well as our policy about boarding priorities, available at airports we serve. We will follow these rules to ensure you are treated fairly. Please be aware that you may be denied boarding without compensation if you do not check in on time or do not meet certain other requirements, or if we offer you alternative transportation that is planned to arrive at your destination or first stopover no later than one hour after the planned arrival time of your original flight.
CoC is here: https://www.united.com/web/en-US/con...-carriage.aspxIf your flight is in an oversale situation, you will not be denied a seat until we first ask for volunteers willing to give up their confirmed seats. If there are not enough volunteers, we will deny boarding to passengers in accordance with our written policy on boarding priority. If you are involuntarily denied boarding and have complied with our check-in and other applicable rules, we will give you a written statement that describes your rights and explains how we determine boarding priority for an oversold flight. You will generally be entitled to compensation and transportation on an alternate flight.
We make complete rules for the payment of compensation, as well as our policy about boarding priorities, available at airports we serve. We will follow these rules to ensure you are treated fairly. Please be aware that you may be denied boarding without compensation if you do not check in on time or do not meet certain other requirements, or if we offer you alternative transportation that is planned to arrive at your destination or first stopover no later than one hour after the planned arrival time of your original flight.
Man pulled off of overbooked flight UA3411 (ORD-SDF) 9 Apr 2017 {Settlement reached}
Apr 13, 2017, 11:52 am
#4831
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Nawthun Virginia
Programs: Air: UA (Gold), AA, WN, DL; Hotel: Hilton (Diamond), plus all the rest
Posts: 135
And that's exactly why, in my opinion, this will never go to trial.
United obviously has a substantial interest in settling out of court.
Frankly, so does the passenger; a settlement means less money spent on lawyer fees, and less time having irrelevant details of his personal life (real or imagined) being debated in public. Plus, juries are notoriously fickle; you never know what can happen if you get a couple of "anything for security" folks on the jury that swing the jury's attitude against the passenger.
I didn't see the press conference. But all of the posturing about "this is going to trial" is exactly what one does in order to set up a strong negotiating position before a settlement.
United obviously has a substantial interest in settling out of court.
Frankly, so does the passenger; a settlement means less money spent on lawyer fees, and less time having irrelevant details of his personal life (real or imagined) being debated in public. Plus, juries are notoriously fickle; you never know what can happen if you get a couple of "anything for security" folks on the jury that swing the jury's attitude against the passenger.
I didn't see the press conference. But all of the posturing about "this is going to trial" is exactly what one does in order to set up a strong negotiating position before a settlement.
2. Juries are fickle, it is true. But the standard is lower in a civil case. It's tried on the basis of preponderance of the evidence, and it does not require a unanimous consensus of the jury (at least in the jurisdiction of which I am familiar--I don't know anything about Illinois tort liability lawsuits). If the instructions to the jury do not allow a security assessment (which seems likely given what United has already acknowledged), I'm not sure the scenario you pose will be possible. More likely, the jury will turn against him if they think it's merely trying to milk the system, but that's the risk faced in all tort cases and the good lawyers know how to manage it.
Apr 13, 2017, 11:53 am
#4832
Join Date: May 2004
Location: SDF
Programs: DL:360/DM/6 MMer; Bonvoy: Lifetime Titanium 10+M pts, 3100+ nights;
Posts: 1,441
Apr 13, 2017, 11:54 am
#4833
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Aug 2002
Programs: UALifetimePremierGold, Marriott LifetimeTitanium
Posts: 71,110
Cheers.
Apr 13, 2017, 11:54 am
#4834
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: San Diego, CA
Programs: AA ex-EXP, 2MM (ex DL, ex TWA)
Posts: 1,427
We all know the answer. He refused to yield his contracted for seat for United's convenience.
Apr 13, 2017, 11:54 am
#4835
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
"Never say never."
The UA-called brutes on this flight showing up in police uniform or not doesn't change the fact that UA and its called-up henchmen working for Chicago are jointly and severally responsible for this incident. Blood was spilled and now money will be squeezed out of UA and Chicago far more easily than blood from rock.
Apr 13, 2017, 11:55 am
#4836
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: ORD/MDW
Programs: BA/AA/AS/B6/WN/ UA/HH/MR and more like 'em but most felicitously & importantly MUCCI
Posts: 19,719
It has been many years since I let my elderly mother-in-law fly United. Her last (disastrous) time, I got her a first class cross-country seat and they invol downgraded her, lost her bag, flew her home hours late to IAD instead of DCA, and refused to pay for the ground transport made necessary by the airport switch.
I thought I was being a good guy setting her up in first class, and instead she and the whole family were mad at me.
United is not an airline for amateur passengers who don't know how to protect their own interests.
Apr 13, 2017, 11:56 am
#4838
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: San Diego, CA
Programs: AA ex-EXP, 2MM (ex DL, ex TWA)
Posts: 1,427
Apr 13, 2017, 11:57 am
#4839
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Washington DC and Denver CO
Programs: UA 1K, Bonvoy Titanium/LT Gold
Posts: 379
The fact that even frequent fliers haven't heard word one from United on a culture shift is disturbing, and feels like they're still not seeing their problems as endemic and based in an adversarial customer culture.
Apr 13, 2017, 11:58 am
#4840
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Ewa Beach, Hawaii
Posts: 10,909
Apr 13, 2017, 12:02 pm
#4841
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: San Diego, CA
Programs: AA ex-EXP, 2MM (ex DL, ex TWA)
Posts: 1,427
I wasn't joking. It must be a rare frequent flyer who has not heard airline staff threatening to call security over any and all disagreements. That threat usually suffices to cow most of us into submission. Dr. Dao, however, having fled a totalitarian regime, and no doubt recognizing such, had more intestinal fortitude than most of us, and refused to follow their "orders" (sic). So United pulled the trigger on the threat.
Apr 13, 2017, 12:05 pm
#4842
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 118
He didn't do anything wrong, except what he did wrong.
He was asked to leave by the employees of the owner of the property he was on. He refused. That's wrong.
He was asked to leave by law enforcement personnel. He refused. That's wrong.
Law enforcement personnel warned him that if he did not leave willingly, they would drag him off the plane. He told them to drag him off the plane.
Law enforcement commenced dragging him off the plane.
The passenger was absolutely wrong.
Anyone can ask you to leave their property at any time, and the only acceptable response is to leave their property. If you refuse to leave their property, law enforcement will show up and they will remove you, by force if necessary, and if you force law enforcement to use force to remove you, you accept the risk that you will be injured in the result.*
That's not to say it's always legal for someone to ask you to leave their property. But if it isn't legal, say the business is a restaurant that makes all black people leave, or making you leave the property violates a contract you have with the property owner, that gets addressed later, after you have left the property. You don't get to just hang around in the meantime. Once law enforcement tells you to leave, you must leave.
* Assuming law enforcement uses reasonable force. The initial force used was reasonable in this case, but once the passenger hit his head, use of force should have ended and medical assistance should have been provided. The law enforcement agency will lose the lawsuit on that one and the officers will probably lose their jobs.
United is the one party here that did not do something wrong. Well, accept the horrible handling of the PR afterwards.
He was asked to leave by the employees of the owner of the property he was on. He refused. That's wrong.
He was asked to leave by law enforcement personnel. He refused. That's wrong.
Law enforcement personnel warned him that if he did not leave willingly, they would drag him off the plane. He told them to drag him off the plane.
Law enforcement commenced dragging him off the plane.
The passenger was absolutely wrong.
Anyone can ask you to leave their property at any time, and the only acceptable response is to leave their property. If you refuse to leave their property, law enforcement will show up and they will remove you, by force if necessary, and if you force law enforcement to use force to remove you, you accept the risk that you will be injured in the result.*
That's not to say it's always legal for someone to ask you to leave their property. But if it isn't legal, say the business is a restaurant that makes all black people leave, or making you leave the property violates a contract you have with the property owner, that gets addressed later, after you have left the property. You don't get to just hang around in the meantime. Once law enforcement tells you to leave, you must leave.
* Assuming law enforcement uses reasonable force. The initial force used was reasonable in this case, but once the passenger hit his head, use of force should have ended and medical assistance should have been provided. The law enforcement agency will lose the lawsuit on that one and the officers will probably lose their jobs.
United is the one party here that did not do something wrong. Well, accept the horrible handling of the PR afterwards.
What you said has been debunked many times and is completely analogous to the renter/landlord situation. As a landlord you can't just throw someone off your property, not even delinquent tenants or even squatters. There are procedures for this. No police will enforce your request without a court order. If you physically throw them out, you are liable for their damages.
The pax was an invitee and a fully paid customer who was boarded on a valid ticket and boarding pass. Nothing that UA did afterwards followed procedures proscribed on their contract of carriage, as IDB only applies to oversold flights or perhaps safety situations such as weight, as well as force majeure (weather), which airlines try to claim everything under. This was not the situation here. Even if the procedures according to the contract of carriage actually did apply to this situation, they are still liable for any negligence on the part of themselves or their agents, in which the airport police was acting as their agents in this instance.
If people would just read a little bit instead of asserting themselves on a subject they have no idea about...
Apr 13, 2017, 12:07 pm
#4843
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Nawthun Virginia
Programs: Air: UA (Gold), AA, WN, DL; Hotel: Hilton (Diamond), plus all the rest
Posts: 135
If a LEO decides to arrest you, resisting actively, even in illegitimate cases, opens up the potential to be charged with a variety of additional crimes.
Aside from the legality, unless your goal is to protest and/or draw attention, refusing orders from a LEO when they seem inclined to use force and/or arrest powers serves no utility. Our legal system is not setup to handle such issues on the street, these battles are best for the courts post-arrest.
Aside from the legality, unless your goal is to protest and/or draw attention, refusing orders from a LEO when they seem inclined to use force and/or arrest powers serves no utility. Our legal system is not setup to handle such issues on the street, these battles are best for the courts post-arrest.
Sometimes, cops are called to help settle a dispute, and they find themselves in a mediating role. "I'll go talk to him." They did that, and doing that might have been appropriate. But when he showed them a valid boarding pass, and when those around him supported the claim that he was minding his own business and posing no safety threat, they should have told the gate agents that there is nothing they can do--find another solution. Unless they have probable cause to believe a crime has been committed, I don't see any justification for the laying on of hands.
Threatening the safety of other passengers by violating the safety-based rules that permit the airline from refusing passage is another thing entirely. That is not what happened here.
Apr 13, 2017, 12:07 pm
#4844
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 118
I haven't read through all 298 pages of this thread so I apologize if this information has been previously posted.
I seems if Dr. Dao has a somewhat checked past and this may account for his reluctance to comply with law enforcement personnel.
From People.com human interest
Dao was arrested in 2003 as part of an undercover operation. Two years later, Dao was convicted on six felony counts of obtaining drugs by fraud and deceit and in 2005, he was sentenced to five years probation. Dao was also convicted for writing prescriptions and checks to a male patient in exchange for sexual favors.
In February 2005, Dao surrendered his license to practice medicine in Kentucky.
In response, the state medical licensing board issued a suspension that was lifted in 2015. But the board has since placed severe restrictions on Dao’s ability to practice internal medicine, which will be lifted on Feb. 28, 2018, according to documents obtained by PEOPLE.
State records indicate the board believes Dao’s practices are outdated.
Last year, the medical board imposed restrictions on his right to practice. He can only practice internal medicine in an outpatient facility one day a week.
I seems if Dr. Dao has a somewhat checked past and this may account for his reluctance to comply with law enforcement personnel.
From People.com human interest
Dao was arrested in 2003 as part of an undercover operation. Two years later, Dao was convicted on six felony counts of obtaining drugs by fraud and deceit and in 2005, he was sentenced to five years probation. Dao was also convicted for writing prescriptions and checks to a male patient in exchange for sexual favors.
In February 2005, Dao surrendered his license to practice medicine in Kentucky.
In response, the state medical licensing board issued a suspension that was lifted in 2015. But the board has since placed severe restrictions on Dao’s ability to practice internal medicine, which will be lifted on Feb. 28, 2018, according to documents obtained by PEOPLE.
State records indicate the board believes Dao’s practices are outdated.
Last year, the medical board imposed restrictions on his right to practice. He can only practice internal medicine in an outpatient facility one day a week.
He was a paying passenger and UA and the airport police had no right or pretense to throw him out under any contract, statute, or common law.
Apr 13, 2017, 12:08 pm
#4845
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,111
Overbooking: A Less than Modest Proposal
Overbooking is specifically desirable (for both customers and airlines) because it makes airlines more efficient, allowing them to serve customers for cheaper costs.
Overbooking is critical to allowing connections to work profitably. The hub and spoke model that many domestic airlines use lean heavily on that ability. Imagine flying from A to C via B, and your AB segment is delayed by weather and you miss your connection. The airline uses overbooking to ensure that they can effectively and efficiently service large numbers of passengers flowing through B to a variety of destinations while trying to minimize the portion of their capacity that goes to waste. This is beneficial to both the airline and the majority of customers. It is obviously not beneficial to most of the folks who get bumped (though given that there is compensation involved, and given that there are people who go out of their way to try to get bumped, it may well be beneficial to some of them as well).
If airlines were not allowed to overbook, they would likely either require the customer to make every segment (and if you're delayed, tough luck, the seat you paid for on BC was available and reserved for you), or prices will increase for everyone to make up for the additional capacity that is lost. This is worse for both the airlines and the majority of customers. It is ostensibly better for the 0.04% of passengers who get bumped.
A much more likely outcome IMO is that the IDB caps will increase or be eliminated, and possibly all IDB will go away altogether, or require fairly substantial VDB offerings first.
I should add that the connection model is an essential one to providing service to regional and low volume airports, and their respective areas of the country. Airlines that only move point to point are not flying to Des Moines. So ensuring the profitable success of the hub and spoke model is often considered to be in the national public interest.
Overbooking is specifically desirable (for both customers and airlines) because it makes airlines more efficient, allowing them to serve customers for cheaper costs.
Overbooking is critical to allowing connections to work profitably. The hub and spoke model that many domestic airlines use lean heavily on that ability. Imagine flying from A to C via B, and your AB segment is delayed by weather and you miss your connection. The airline uses overbooking to ensure that they can effectively and efficiently service large numbers of passengers flowing through B to a variety of destinations while trying to minimize the portion of their capacity that goes to waste. This is beneficial to both the airline and the majority of customers. It is obviously not beneficial to most of the folks who get bumped (though given that there is compensation involved, and given that there are people who go out of their way to try to get bumped, it may well be beneficial to some of them as well).
If airlines were not allowed to overbook, they would likely either require the customer to make every segment (and if you're delayed, tough luck, the seat you paid for on BC was available and reserved for you), or prices will increase for everyone to make up for the additional capacity that is lost. This is worse for both the airlines and the majority of customers. It is ostensibly better for the 0.04% of passengers who get bumped.
A much more likely outcome IMO is that the IDB caps will increase or be eliminated, and possibly all IDB will go away altogether, or require fairly substantial VDB offerings first.
I should add that the connection model is an essential one to providing service to regional and low volume airports, and their respective areas of the country. Airlines that only move point to point are not flying to Des Moines. So ensuring the profitable success of the hub and spoke model is often considered to be in the national public interest.
Welcome to Flyertalk.
Last edited by WineCountryUA; Apr 13, 2017 at 1:35 pm Reason: Discuss the issues, not the poster