United Airlines Training Video

[ebhead]

1 hour ago, Lawdawg said:

Guys, not to swim against the current here, but, has anyone seen a full video of the incident?  Have you noticed that all the footage we have seen starts with the man being dragged out of his seat?  Does it matter that he was probably given multiple opportunities to comply and de-board voluntarily?  Does it matter that when you purchase a plane

From my perspective no. There is no way in any world that a person should be subject to that kind of treatment by a profit making enterprise, for an issue that was of the airline's own making. From start to finish it was the wrong thing to do.

As to the victim's life outside of the confines of that seat, no, it matters not one bit.

[Nino]

1 hour ago, Lawdawg said:

 

Also, does it matter that this 'doctor' has been convicted of all sorts of misconduct - writing narcotic prescriptions willy-nilly, etc, and most juicily, trading prescription drugs for sex?  Because of his repeated medical misconduct he is only allowed to practice one day a week in some sort of special facility.  Something tells me that if the header of the video was included in the news footage and you saw him acting like a fool and failing to comply with the airline's demands which as an air traveller he is required to do, the public opinion would be quite different.  

 

I'd be very careful with that statement - it is slanderous.

Doctor on the plane was David Thanh Duc Dao not David Anh Duy Dao.

Duc Dao has no criminal record. It is mistaken identity and slander.

Besides, even if correct, it has no influence on the shame/disgraceful and brutal way used to remove a paying passenger sitting on his seat. Totally unacceptable.

[Fuzz]

Agree. One's past has no bearing on the incident. United had other options to get their employees to their destination but chose the easiest way. I see no reason why a passenger should give up the seat they paid for (especially when they have already been boarded), to an employee who arrives at the last minute. Manhandling a passenger should only be reserved for those who pose a serious risk to other passengers and aircrew.

[wabashcr]

I understand sometimes airlines need to bump paying customers to move a flight crew to another airport to keep another flight from being significantly delayed or cancelled.  With the DOT/FAA regulations on flying and resting time, delays out of the airline's control could necessitate that they scramble to get a replacement crew in place with very little notice.  In this case, I imagine United had a very good reason for needing to have those four employees on that flight.  I don't think you can just assume it was poor planning on their part.

The problem I have is that the airlines are given too much protection to take seats away from paying customers.  It would seem fair to me if the airlines were required to buy back the seats from their customers for whatever the market dictates.  You have roughly 150 people on an average flight.  Start making offers until you get the number of takers you need.  Then everything is voluntary.  If you're a passenger, and you don't mind giving up your seat for some compensation, you have to figure out what your price is.  If your price is too high, you might get "undercut" by another passenger and miss out on compensation.  Too low and you could possibly risk leaving some money on the table.  The airlines may have to pay a bit more than they normally would on occasion, but then you don't have police violently removing a passenger from your plane.  

[Nino]

36 minutes ago, wabashcr said:

I understand sometimes airlines need to bump paying customers to move a flight crew to another airport to keep another flight from being significantly delayed or cancelled.  With the DOT/FAA regulations on flying and resting time, delays out of the airline's control could necessitate that they scramble to get a replacement crew in place with very little notice.  In this case, I imagine United had a very good reason for needing to have those four employees on that flight.  I don't think you can just assume it was poor planning on their part.

 

Respectfully disagree.
It is Crew planning/Flight Ops responsability to make sure dead-heading crewmembers have seats before they board the plane/flight.
Not after passengers have boarded the plane, taken their seats and boarding is completed as this was the case.
Error was made by United and should have been solved by gate/flight manager in a way that would accomodate all interests.
To call a paying passenger disruptive and belligerent just because he refuses to give up his rightly purchased seat and call police to forcefully remove him shows a total disregard for passenger's rights, service and ... common sense.
It is plainly abusing authority and LE for your own goals - I am surprised police acted here as it is a civil dispute and not a security/safety issue.

Never had anything remotely similar to this clusterf##k in my 35 years as airline crew.
United deserves all the flak it gets and the CEO should be the first to be fired for misleading the public.
 

[wabashcr]

28 minutes ago, nino said:

Respectfully disagree.
It is Crew planning/Flight Ops responsability to make sure dead-heading crewmembers have seats before they board the plane/flight.
Not after passengers have boarded the plane, taken their seats and boarding is completed as this was the case.
Error was made by United and should have been solved by gate/flight manager in a way that would accomodate all interests.
To call a paying passenger disruptive and belligerent just because he refuses to give up his rightly purchased seat and call police to forcefully remove him shows a total disregard for passenger's rights, service and ... common sense.
It is plainly abusing authority and LE for your own goals - I am surprised police acted here as it is a civil dispute and not a security/safety issue.

Never had anything remotely similar to this clusterf##k in my 35 years as airline crew.
United deserves all the flak it gets and the CEO should be the first to be fired for misleading the public.
 

I agree it's never good to bump passengers after they've boarded the plane, but the airlines do retain that right under their contracts of carriage.  And the DOT has upheld that right.  Of course just because they are allowed to do it doesn't make it the right thing morally.  

Once he refused the flight crew's orders to leave the plane, he was breaking the law.  It doesn't matter that he wasn't abusive or belligerent.  The police didn't really have the option of writing it off as a civil dispute.

I agree United handled it poorly, and they deserve the bad publicity they're getting.  They could have reached an amicable resolution in any number of ways, but chose not to because they're not legally obliged.  They should have never needed to call the police, but they knew they could.  I assume they probably figured the guy would go peacefully once the police showed up, and nobody would have any reason to record video of the incident.  But once you involve the police, they're going to get him off the plane by any means necessary.  United should know that violence like this was a possibility once police were involved.

[Nino]

37 minutes ago, wabashcr said:

Once he refused the flight crew's orders to leave the plane, he was breaking the law.  It doesn't matter that he wasn't abusive or belligerent.  The police didn't really have the option of writing it off as a civil dispute.

 

While you make valid points, I again respectfully disagree.
The flight crew was never involved in this issue - as long as the a/c door is open the flight manager has authority.
The passenger never "broke the law", he refused to give up his rightly obtained seat and was passive - the "law" broke the law ... by forcibly removing him and injuring him.
The police was abused/misused to iron out the gate's/flight manager's/crew ops mistakes.

IMHO it does matter that he was neither belligerent nor abusive - just protecting his right in a passive manner against an unjust decision..

[clutch5150]

2 hours ago, wabashcr said:

I agree it's never good to bump LUMP passengers after they've boarded the plane, but the airlines do retain that right under their contracts of carriage.  And the DOT has upheld that right.  Of course just because they are allowed to do it doesn't make it the right thing morally.  

Once he refused the flight crew's orders to leave the plane, he was breaking the law.  It doesn't matter that he wasn't abusive or belligerent.  The police didn't really have the option of writing it off as a civil dispute.

I agree United handled it poorly, and they deserve the bad publicity they're getting.  They could have reached an amicable resolution in any number of ways, but chose not to because they're not legally obliged.  They should have never needed to call the police, but they knew they could.  I assume they probably figured the guy would go peacefully once the police showed up, and nobody would have any reason to record video of the incident.  But once you involve the police, they're going to get him off the plane by any means necessary.  United should know that violence like this was a possibility once police were involved.

Fixed it for you.... As stated earlier, my guess he's shopping for that new Ferrari since he DID lawyer up!

[Lawdawg]

5 hours ago, nino said:

I'd be very careful with that statement - it is slanderous.

Doctor on the plane was David Thanh Duc Dao not David Anh Duy Dao.

Duc Dao has no criminal record. It is mistaken identity and slander.

Besides, even if correct, it has no influence on the shame/disgraceful and brutal way used to remove a paying passenger sitting on his seat. Totally unacceptable.

Thanks for correcting me nino, I should do my own fact checking before I believe things I hear and read.

With that said, yeah, it sucks for the doctor (and his patients), but as soon as a stewardess or a United employee says "Sir you need to get off this plane here's a hotel room and a flight voucher", unfortunately "I don't want to get off the plane" isn't on the table.  Obviously it sucks for the guy but he should've gotten off the plane.  Then he wouldn't have been dragged off the plane.

Sure we can say it sucks that airlines have so many protections and sure, lets change the rules going forward.  But unfortunately, the way it stands today, when the airplane people tell you to do something, you can't sit there and say "no thanks I don't want to".  That's what entering into a voluntary transaction with a commercial airline is, as sad as it may be.

And I've never flown United and never will.  Nasty commie Chicago types.  Delta TYVM.

If the cop asks you to do something, most civilized people think it's probably best to do what the armed guy with the badge says.  Most folks who are 'victims' of police 'brutality' are criminals who fail to comply with simple instructions.

 

 

[Lawdawg]

2 hours ago, SenorPerfecto said:

Makes zero difference. Because this is not even about whether he was roughed up or not (he was). It's about a corporation legally being able to sell a guy a ticket months in advance, have him come to the airport on time, check in, do all the security crap, and everything else he's supposed to do, get a seat assignment, settle in for his flight -- and then have that corporation demand that he give up his seat for the corporation's own employee. That's just plain wrong.

 

THEN apparently it is perfectly legal for the corporation to take advantage of the fact that the "airline's word is God" whether they want him removed because he's causing trouble (he wasn't) or just because the airline can make more money by giving his seat to someone else, and call the damn COPS to have him phyusically removed?

 

How exactly did the lawyers think this was going to look, when a passenger finally called them on this ridiculous protocol of theirs?

 

Hahahaha. United is F@CKED. That guy will never be flying commercial again   Only question is, will it be first class for life, or his own plane?

 

Side benefit: we ALL will reap the rewards as the airlines will have to start treating us like human beings. If, today, you are in the same situation, and refuse to deplane, do you know what will happen? The FA will walk away.

 

Win WIN.

As much as I want to have a bleeding heart bloodletting ceremony with you on behalf of the doctor who was dragged off the plane...

The corporation IS allowed under law to sell the guy a ticket months in advance and kick him off the plane if they want to.  Those are the rules.  He entered into a voluntary transaction with that corporation and didn't want to follow the rules.  Yes sucks for him but for each sob story like his, thousands and thousands of people travel relatively painlessly everyday.

Doc was given multiple opportunities to get off plane.  Sucks for him obviously unfair etc etc.  Doc should've gotten off plane.  

After asked multiple times, airline does what airline wants and if doc won't move himself, other people must.  Sad world we live in.  Voluntary transaction, failure to follow rules attached to said transaction.

Sad part for humanity is that now we are boohooing for the rulebreaker and he will receive a crazy settlement and become a hero for breaking the law.  

[Lawdawg]

2 minutes ago, SenorPerfecto said:

What part of " this is not even about whether he was roughed up or not" did you not get?

 

You and many others are focused on whether he was roughed up. And on details such as the fact that the airline was "within its rights" to do what it did -- I SAID as much in my comment, man.

It isn't -- AT ALL -- about whether the guy was physically hurt, or whether the airline had the right to pull him off, or whether it had the right to call the cops to do it. It's about the fact that all those things BEING within the airline's rights is MORALLY REPUGNANT. This is the very definition of an unjust law, and we have an obligation to break those, so that they change.

 

This is precisely what this doctor has done. For all of us. Because until Sunday, nobody had apparently ever challenged the airline to see what they would actually do. It turns out, they did the worst thing they could have done -- the extent of what they were "within their rights" to do. And what did it get them?

• United is going to pay this guy tens of millions of dollars
• United is bleeding stock value
• United is bleeding customers
• United is now a cautionary tale
• United is now a punchline (take a look at the memes in this thread)

If you don't get that what this is actually about is that the airlines created, and have been allowed to get away with, an untenable, untested, immoral protocol for handling passengers however they want to handle them, then maybe think about it a little more. I'm sure it will come to you...

Loud and clear, holmes, loud and clear...

Fight that power

[luv2fly]

Play the ball, not the man.  Please!  Just MHO.  

[helix]

Next time ask for a volunteer FFSake !! Simple .

[Lawdawg]

Just now, helix said:

Next time ask for a volunteer FFSake !! Simple .

Absolutely.  And they did for $400 voucher.  Obviously United blew it.  They should've upped the voucher until people volunteered.  And clearly people would've volunteered.  And giving out a few $5k vouchers would've been a lot better for United than what they have on their hands now.

I have no dog in the race here at all.  It's just the way it played out:

Stewardess:  " Sir I'm sorry but you have to deboard.  You have been randomly selected, I'm so sorry.  Here's a hotel room and a $400 voucher.  Thank you please come again"

Doctor: "No.  I must see patients in morning.  No."

Stewardess: "Sir I'm sorry there's nothing I can do.  You have to get off the plane now."

Doctor:  "No.  No.  I have to see patients I don't want stupid voucher"

Stewardess: "Sir.."

Stewardess #2:  "Sir this is out of our control.  Please come with us."

Doctor: "No no no."

Stewardess:  "Sir there is nothing we can do"

blah blah blah....

Guy gets dragged off plane.  Guy should've gotten off plane and blogged about it.  Let's not start comparing him to Rosa Parks please.

[Smallclub]

11 minutes ago, Lawdawg said:

I have no dog in the race here at all.

Of course you have one. His name is Milgram.

[Lawdawg]

2 minutes ago, Smallclub said:

Of course you have one. His name is Milgram.

Milgram wasn't an economist, he was a psychologist.

Doctor Dao bought a plane ticket.  Essentially entering into a contract with the airline from which he bought it.

He then failed to follow the rules of the contract and by doing so, broke the law.

Social Psychology has no bearing here.

[Lawdawg]

30 minutes ago, SenorPerfecto said:

Dude, you SO don't get it.

Rosa Parks should just have moved, right?? I mean, it was against the LAW to sit where she did! She inconvenienced all those poor commuters!

 

Some people are simply far too amenable to following directions, even when the directions are immoral.

No Mister Perfect,

I'm saying that Rosa Parks was heroic.  I don't think that Dr. Dao was.

Ms. Parks didn't enter into a voluntary transaction with an airline.  She was a victim of many things that she didn't sign up for, and did something bold about it.

[...]

Just now, Lawdawg said:

 

He then failed to follow the rules of the contract and by doing so, broke the law.

Social Psychology has no bearing here.

The American revolutionaries and founding fathers broke the law as well... should everybody just have followed England's law back then?

how do you square that circle? Please enlighten us with your perfect logic... ?

[Lawdawg]

7 minutes ago, Jeanff said:

The American revolutionaries and founding fathers broke the law as well... should everybody just have followed England's law back then?

how do you square that circle? Please enlighten us with your perfect logic... ?

My logic is hardly perfect, if existent at all.  And I don't presume to square that circle, Jeanff.  Your question is more than valid.  

The only thing I would say is that the American revolutionaries, God bless them, had not entered into a voluntary transaction with England.  Dr. Dao bought a plane ticket that had fine print attached.  I suppose you could respond with the fact that being born in a certain place at a certain time comes with fine print attached, but my key word here is voluntary.

But I am reminded why I quit social media and how much life has improved as a result.  Alas, I will resume being a mild and content lurker, and conduct my conversations and debates in person from here on out.  

[Lawdawg]

This is how that southern hospitality comes into play, y'all:

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/atlanta/delta-airlines-paid-one-woman-11000-not-to-fly-last-weekend/511225702

If United had just gone with the $11k voucher offer, this story would never have become a source of boredom and/or stress for anyone...

[Nino]

7 hours ago, Lawdawg said:

Doctor Dao bought a plane ticket.  Essentially entering into a contract with the airline from which he bought it.

He then failed to follow the rules of the contract and by doing so, broke the law.

Social Psychology has no bearing here.

Maybe Legal Psychology has a bearing here ... so much for the "rules of contract" and who broke them :

An aviation attorney has weighed in from the article linked here: David Dao vs United Lawsuit - How Much Can United Airlines Be Sued For

"First, Wolk believes the airline breached its own contract by removing Dao. Having read United's contract of carriage in its entirety, Wolk thinks Dao could sue for assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional disturbance, and may also have grounds to sue under various civil rights acts, in addition to that breach of contract.

"There is nothing in that contract that gives United the right to commit an assault and battery on a passenger," he told me over the phone.

"This is not a denied boarding incident, which is covered by the contract; this man was already boarded. This is not an oversold incident, as provided for by the contract; this airplane was not oversold—every passenger was ticketed and had a seat.

"This was not a situation where the passenger was unruly, committed a criminal act, interfered with the flight crew, was incapable of being a passenger by himself or anything of that nature, obviously until they attempted to physically throw him off the airplane.
"So to me, United Airlines breached their own contract of carriage."

Second, if Wolk points out that if this case does go to trial, the case would come down to the jury—another major obstacle for United. "You have to understand what your jury pool is going to look like here. Virtually every person who has flown on an airline flight on a regular basis feels that airlines abuse their passengers. The mindset of the jury pool is that they hate the way they're being treated by airlines."

http://www.townandcountrymag.com/leisure/travel-guide/a9266366/david-dao-united-law-suit/

[El Presidente]

Customer service businesses face a conundrum on a regular basis. Do you do what is legally right or do you do what is ethically right. Hopefully both. 

What occurred this week at UA was a breach of simple humanity.  Humanity is simply the respect for any human being. 

You pay.  You have a boarding pass. You take your seat. You are good to go. 

Drag me through the isle  in order to board flight crew ........F***k you. Let them bleed in coin. 

Put up whatever agreements you want. It doesn't pass the sniff test. 

 

[wabashcr]

5 hours ago, nino said:

"This is not a denied boarding incident, which is covered by the contract; this man was already boarded. This is not an oversold incident, as provided for by the contract; this airplane was not oversold—every passenger was ticketed and had a seat.
 

This is an interesting point.  United, along with many "aviation experts," have tried to make the argument that you can "deny boarding" at any point up until the door is closed, including people already on the plane.  But reading through the federal law, as well as United's contract of carriage, this isn't specifically defined anywhere.  As for United's contract of carriage, they'll have a difficult time arguing that they can deny boarding to someone who's already seated on the plane.  Since they don't define "boarding" in their contract, generally the definition that will apply in court is one that will be favorable to the party that didn't write the contract, in this case the passenger.  They would have to argue that the federal law implicitly affirms their definition of "boarding," which would be a very tricky argument.

United also spells out reasons for refusal of transport, but their reasons don't include anything to do with refusing to give up a seat you paid for.  They do include disorderly passengers and passengers who fail to comply with flight crew personnel.  That's a pretty tough argument for United to make, given the circumstances and what we've seen of the incident on video.  

Of course, all of this is academic only.  United will pay this man regardless of whether they could win in court, just to make this story go away.  

[helix]

Too late , this is not going away and a long time coming . IMHO the guy did nothing wrong , he had an assigned seat and it was his choice at that point , under his own freewill , to give it up or not . He lost two teeth , sustained a concussion and a broken nose , all because he did not want to take them up on the offer to "voluntarily" give up HIS seat for a $400 voucher  . This is going to shake up the airline industry as whole , by the time the dust settles , hopefully, we can expect a higher degree of respect for all airline customers .

[dominattorney]

10 hours ago, wabashcr said:

This is an interesting point.  United, along with many "aviation experts," have tried to make the argument that you can "deny boarding" at any point up until the door is closed, including people already on the plane.  But reading through the federal law, as well as United's contract of carriage, this isn't specifically defined anywhere.  As for United's contract of carriage, they'll have a difficult time arguing that they can deny boarding to someone who's already seated on the plane.  Since they don't define "boarding" in their contract, generally the definition that will apply in court is one that will be favorable to the party that didn't write the contract, in this case the passenger.  They would have to argue that the federal law implicitly affirms their definition of "boarding," which would be a very tricky argument.

United also spells out reasons for refusal of transport, but their reasons don't include anything to do with refusing to give up a seat you paid for.  They do include disorderly passengers and passengers who fail to comply with flight crew personnel.  That's a pretty tough argument for United to make, given the circumstances and what we've seen of the incident on video.  

Of course, all of this is academic only.  United will pay this man regardless of whether they could win in court, just to make this story go away.  

Agree 100 fold.  This is also a one-sided contract where the passengers do not have any right to negotiate terms, making the grade a little steeper for United to climb.