Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Airlines and Mileage Programs > United Airlines | MileagePlus
Reload this Page >

Man pulled off of overbooked flight UA3411 (ORD-SDF) 9 Apr 2017 {Settlement reached}

Community
Wiki Posts
Search
Old Apr 10, 2017, 8:42 pm
FlyerTalk Forums Expert How-Tos and Guides
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 Do not cite, copy, or report on such.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
Statement from United Airlines Regarding Resolution with Dr. David Dao - released 27 April 2017
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.
DOT findings related to the UA3411 9 April 2017 IDB incident 12 May 2017

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

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
  • 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.
Email sent to all employees at 2:08PM on Tuesday, April 11.
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
Statement to customers - 27 April 2017
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
Aftermath
Poll: Your Opinion of United Airlines Reference Material

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.aspx
Print Wikipost

Man pulled off of overbooked flight UA3411 (ORD-SDF) 9 Apr 2017 {Settlement reached}

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Apr 13, 2017, 1:50 pm
  #4936  
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Tampa, FL
Programs: UA 1.5mm, *gold, AA - P, Marriot Titanium
Posts: 71
Originally Posted by richarddd
This is a frequent statement. Is there some relevant law, regulation or controlling case?

I'm not disputing the idea, I just would like to understand the basis for the idea that the pilot is in charge and can, for example, order someone removed.
Please see my post above. When you are on a vessel, maritime law says you must obey the captain. Aviation law derives the same principle. If the captain demands you to do something, you must comply. Your legal recourse from wrongs committed by the captain are only settled once off boarded in either case. Please understand I am not saying the captain is always right.
Jeffw5555 is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 1:52 pm
  #4937  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: USA
Programs: Delta
Posts: 43
Interesting piece on Thomas Demetrio
SuperLawyers THE EVERYMAN’S LAWYER Thomas Demetrio studied the masters, then became one
http://www.superlawyers.com/illinois...5a2c6a8a2.html
NotSoOftenFlyer is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 1:57 pm
  #4938  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: SFO
Programs: COdbaUA Platinum 2MM
Posts: 5,532
Originally Posted by Rdenney
No lawsuit has been filed. The only filing is an emergency discovery order to preserve evidence, which is routine in tort cases. The lawyer said he would file a lawsuit only when he had "every word, every preposition" just right. He said he had two years to do it, but it wouldn't take that long.
Thanks for the correction. It was Petitioner's Emergency Bill of Discovery filed. Legal action has begun.
1KChinito is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 1:59 pm
  #4939  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 6,437
Originally Posted by carolinaflyr
In most states you can disregard all orders of law enforcement without violating any criminal law unless you interfere with the officer performing his duties - example, if the officer is in the process of lawfully arresting someone (including you) and you step in to try to prevent or resist the arrest, you are in violation of the law. But if the officer tells you to stand, sit, go somewhere, exit your car, get in his/her car, talk more, talk less, or whatever, (outside the arrest context) you can decline. As a practical matter, the officer may choose to escalate the situation and use force, and as a practical matter, the DA or State's Attorney is very unlikely to prosecute them for doing so, so it may be poor decision to refuse to comply. But it breaks no law. And although officers sometimes charge noncompliance as interference, DA's routinely dismiss those charges.
I would say that "if the officer tells you to stand, sit, go somewhere, exit your car, get in his/her car, talk more, talk less, or whatever" the officer has not given a lawful order. An officer can ask you to do those things, but I don't see how the officer can lawfully order you to do so.

To the extent we have a disagreement, it seems more over the definition of lawful order than over whether you can disobey a lawful order.

EDIT: quick googling reveals that the definition of "lawful order" is far from clear.

Last edited by richarddd; Apr 13, 2017 at 2:07 pm
richarddd is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 2:01 pm
  #4940  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 628
Originally Posted by Jeffw5555
I have read most of this thread, and need to weigh in from a legal perspective. It seems a lot of people don't understand the concept of boarding, and confuse the legal aspects of the term with the operational aspects. This example is not a case of IDB. The reason I say this has to due with the historical precedent of "boarding". Aviation law was modeled from maritime law. "Boarding" is very clear in both case law, and legally occurs when you step off the gang plank onto the vessel for maritime law, and off the jet bridge onto the aircraft for aviation law. Mr Dao was legally boarded when he stepped onto the plane. At that point, he is legally bound to the command of the captain. From my limited read of both the UA CoC and the DOT rules, there is a hole in how this event is treated due to the fact he cannot be treated as denied boarding according to aviation law. In this situation, the captain has the authority to kick anyone off the plane for whatever reason, and reasonable force could be used to remove him. But then Mr Dao could sue him and the airline for breach of contract.

All this doesn't matter, there is enough bad optics for UA so they would be foolish to do anything but settle.
First off, I have humble pie to eat because I got this situation wrong, and very wrong. I initially thought that to believe the airline's initial account was the best starting position to take, since theirs seemed the simplest explanation, and I usually prefer those at least as a 'first draft.' And yes, I have become jaded to people videoing everything under the sun and posting it on the net with 'ain't it awful.' This time, though, it seems it actually WAS awful - the wolf being cried about, really had appeared and dragged an innocent man in its jaws off of an aircraft.

Perhaps I wouldn't have missed this had I recalled the series "House" where a frequent phrase from the doctor (played by Hugh Laurie) was that "People lie" - and that such people can include airline staff. Perhaps because, being a confrontation phobe myself, I could only imagine someone being willing to confront an airline because the complainant was being unreasonable (oh boy. That was a real case of limited imagination. ) So, I have learned a great deal. Humble pie, followed by crow, or should I eat these dishes in the reverse order, 'pie' denoting dessert?

Anyway I have a question on this boarding business. I was indeed initially confused about the 'finished boarding' thing because, as you explained, there are legal aspects to boarding that should be kept distinct from the operational aspects.

Another lawyer elsewhere mentioned the 'refusal to transport' clause, I think article 21, in United's CofC. This rule does allow for removal of a passenger, but the situations that allow it are very specific, and none of them applied here. Nowhere is it mentioned that one can be removed from an aircraft to free up a seat, even for purposes that might be said to benefit the group of passengers served by the airline as a whole (e.g. transporting much needed employees on a deadhead run, or keeping ticket costs down overall by maximizing revenue in respect of a single seat - i.e. overbooking.)

You mentioned stepping off the jetway onto the plane as being the legal definition of boarding. Past that point, boarding can't be denied in the legal sense, since one can't be refused what one already has. But I have been wondering if it could not also be taken as the point at which the first passenger in the departing clutch of passengers gets their ticket scanned one last time, just before they step onto the jetway. For logistical and safety reasons it is desirable for passengers to wait their turn, i.e. queue to be boarded. Surely at some point the plane load of passengers should be considered provisionally boarded as a group, if only to prevent chaos at boarding as people struggle to 'safely' get on board, and thus be safe from being bumped under the 'denial of boarding' provisions.
simpleflyer is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 2:02 pm
  #4941  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: SAT
Posts: 373
Seems to me that United misused law enforcement officers by having them physically resolve what was in reality a civil matter, not criminal. Too many airline personnel have their heads full of self-imposed authority to use law enforcement even when the issue is not criminal in nature such as safety and security matters.

Once law enforcement becomes involved, even mistakenly as in this case, they operate under the three part rule for compliance: ask you,tell you, make you. Law enforcement should have asked more questions of United personnel before they agreed to become involved and declined for lack of jurisdiction in a civil matter. Simply alleging that a passenger is refusing to comply with orders from airline personnel should not be the only criteria for law enforcement agreeing to assist. A few more questions would reveal this was not a law enforcement matter. LEOs are not just the hired muscle for airline personnel to use to get their way.
GoSpurs is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 2:03 pm
  #4942  
nsx
Moderator: Southwest Airlines, Capital One
Hyatt Contributor Badge
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: California
Programs: WN Companion Pass, A-list preferred, Hyatt Globalist; United Club Lietime (sic) Member
Posts: 21,628
I await Spirit Airlines' ad comparing their accommodations to United's latest "Red Carpet Club" re-accommodation.
nsx is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 2:05 pm
  #4943  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: DAY
Programs: UA 1K 1MM; Marriott LT Titanium; Amex MR; Chase UR; Hertz PC; Global Entry
Posts: 10,160
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
I believe you are somewhat mistaken on these guys status. I have read that they are in fact Sworn Police Officers with limited arrest powers. There has been a move in Chicago to authorize this group to be armed although that likely will be tabled for the foreseeable future after this incident.
There are some specifics that get misconstrued about this. From my reading, they meet all requirements for a Peace Officer in Illinois. ie they have the state-mandated minimum training. That does not mean they are sworn officers or, if so, they have jurisdiction in this particular geographic area.

So either someone that has made it through the academy and received their certificate, but is only working for this agency in a reduced capacity...or a moonlighting officer from another agency, outside of their jurisdiction where they are sworn.

Note: This is my understanding, though I am admittedly not up on the particulars of IL LEO rules. I linked to a Chicago Tribune article on the previous page that discusses all this.


Originally Posted by richarddd
What's an example of a lawful order you can ignore?

By lawful order, I'm thinking of something like ordering someone to stop doing something illegal (e.g., criminal trespass or violating a noise ordinance). If you don't comply, you get arrested for the underlying action.

When can LE lawfully order you to do something when you're not doing anything illegal?
There are numerous. In a most basic level, you can be ordered to leave a public area...crime scene, traffic crash, etc.
goodeats21 is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 2:06 pm
  #4944  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: USA
Programs: Delta
Posts: 43
Originally Posted by nsx
I await Spirit Airlines' ad comparing their accommodations to United's latest "Red Carpet Club" re-accommodation.
Someone gets 'Clubbed' & falls to the 'Carpet' which turns 'Red' with their blood I guess (horrible visuals I know but that's now what I think of in relation to UAL).
NotSoOftenFlyer is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 2:13 pm
  #4945  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 6,437
Originally Posted by goodeats21
There are numerous. In a most basic level, you can be ordered to leave a public area...crime scene, traffic crash, etc.
You most probably can be lawfully ordered to leave a crime scene, traffic crash, etc. if you are interfering with an investigation or creating a safety issue. That's about the only consistent thread I've found in attempts to define lawful order (beyond orders to stop some violation).

As noted above, most discussions I've found on the subject include that the definition is unclear.
richarddd is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 2:14 pm
  #4946  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Minneapolis: DL DM charter 2.3MM
Programs: A3*Gold, SPG Plat, HyattDiamond, MarriottPP, LHW exAccess, ICI, Raffles Amb, NW PE MM, TWA Gold MM
Posts: 100,417
Originally Posted by cerealmarketer
Walking on while boarding is in process with a valid seat assignment for the flight doesn't seem like something that warrants arrest after being taken off the flight (which appears to be what happened). It's grey.

Difference here...

No injuries
Police is properly uniformed
No video of her being pulled out of the seat
No worry by the other passengers (there weren't 70 other people hoping hey wouldn't get picked to leave)

So it gets a news story and we all move on.
So do we all need to start worrying that we could be arrested if the GA doesn't scan our boarding pass correctly?
MSPeconomist is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 2:15 pm
  #4947  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Atlanta, GA, USA
Programs: Frontier Gold, DL estranged 1MMer, Spirit VIP, CO/NW/UA/AA once gold/plat/comped gold now dust.
Posts: 38,176
"High fares can be a real DRAG! Fly yellow!"

Yeah, it's hard to say what they'll do, if anything. A big problem is that Spirit is really, really bad when things go wrong (and that accounts for a big share of their complaints and being the most complained-about airline). I've seen oversold situations on Spirit but not that often...I don't think they're quite as aggressive about overbooking or as confident in the computer modeling. But they really resist things like hotel vouchers or putting people on other airlines. They couldn't get away with some of what they do if in the EU or certain other developed countries.
RustyC is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 2:18 pm
  #4948  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Southwest
Programs: HAL Platinum, JetBlue, KrisFlyer, NWA, USAirways, Alaska Air
Posts: 105
1. I found this legal opinion to be the most helpful
http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/unit...ing-passenger/

2. If all four of these MustRides were pilots, and if the destination was a 5 hour drive away, that would make it less than an hour to fly where they needed to be on a charter jet. Surely UA/Republic has access to small planes? Why didn't they fly them to their next destination? It would have cost considerably less than the $75K they paid to reimburse all the pax on this flight. And it certainly will cost less than the attorneys, bad PR, lost business, bribes to lobbyists and congress, and all the other outflows of $$ we don't know about. Of course, then again, as the above article states, they were going on the cheap for the "Pay to Disembark" plan, so maybe they got what's coming to them. (Methinks that's probably the Republic Airlines cheap thinking. If this WERE a regular UA flight, it may have gone down differently...)

3. I used to be a million miler on UA, back in my international days. It was a wonderful airline then. Now... not so much. Their culture sucks. You can tell the employees aren't having a good time either. I've avoided flying them as much as possible. Now I'll just drive if my destination is 6 hours drive or less from home. Just tired of all this.

4. This thread is interesting, entertaining, educational, sad, scary, horrifying and heartbreaking. Whether or not the Doc in question has a sketchy past is immaterial. No one should have that happen to them. I'd be apoplectic if they arbitrarily made me miss a speaking engagement. Then again, I'd be less inclined to scream and resist because I'm still in business and can't afford that kind of social media video meltdown!

Cheers. Everyone get the popcorn. This will be a looooooong ride. Thanks to all the insiders and legal beagles for your insights.
BSpeaker is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 2:19 pm
  #4949  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Minneapolis: DL DM charter 2.3MM
Programs: A3*Gold, SPG Plat, HyattDiamond, MarriottPP, LHW exAccess, ICI, Raffles Amb, NW PE MM, TWA Gold MM
Posts: 100,417
Originally Posted by FiveMileFinal
Hold up...

In the video, one of them was clearly wearing a vest that said POLICE across the back. So ... do we have people impersonating LEOs at this point? Crazy to ask, yes, but then, this whole thing is crazy.
In the video of the dragging, the first two guys had POLICE on their backs, but I didn't see any such indication anywhere on the third guy, the one who did the dragging and seems to have entered the aircraft/"discussion"/situation a bit later than the other two. I'm assuming that the dragger was the one who was first placed on administrative leave.

Last edited by MSPeconomist; Apr 13, 2017 at 2:55 pm Reason: Typo
MSPeconomist is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 2:23 pm
  #4950  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Minneapolis: DL DM charter 2.3MM
Programs: A3*Gold, SPG Plat, HyattDiamond, MarriottPP, LHW exAccess, ICI, Raffles Amb, NW PE MM, TWA Gold MM
Posts: 100,417
Originally Posted by Klimo
Lot of talk about settlement guesses. I know I wouldn't even get out of bed in this situation at the $5M mark. Anyone else feel the same way? I think to get me to a sit down meeting they'd have to start at $10M.

stupid game, i know.
This morning Dan Abrams opined that the settlement would be multiple (I'm not sure this was his exact word) millions. IIRC this was before the press conference.
MSPeconomist is offline  


Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.