Passenger Forcibly Removed From Overbooked UA Flight

[Princess Fiona]

Re: Pax forcibly removed from United overbooked flight

I'm still not convinced his past has anything to do with United and law enforcement botching up this situation.

That's what we need to focus on to ensure this is not repeated.

I'm not convinced either, but it's something that the lawyers on both sides will need to be aware of and if it gets to court you can bet his past aggressive conduct will be raised.
The article posted by kpc from "Heavy" is light on in these matters. If you want to read something heavy the 130 page report from the Kentucky Medical Board is extremely heavy.

Sadly you can never escape your past.....

I think all parties here including David Dao will learn for the future. United via the Chicago law enforcement hopefully to never repeat this appalling treatment of passengers.

 

[Quickstatus]

Re: Pax forcibly removed from United overbooked flight

Very fair comment.
When lawyers are involved all angles tend to be explored and dissected to the nth degree to gain the slimmest advantage.

 

[dfcatch]

Re: Pax forcibly removed from United overbooked flight

I'm not convinced either, but it's something that the lawyers on both sides will need to be aware of and if it gets to court you can bet his past aggressive conduct will be raised.
The article posted by kpc from "Heavy" is light on in these matters. If you want to read something heavy the 130 page report from the Kentucky Medical Board is extremely heavy.

Sadly you can never escape your past.....

I think all parties here including David Dao will learn for the future. United via the Chicago law enforcement hopefully to never repeat this appalling treatment of passengers.

Nonsense - this issue is bigger than Dr Dao.

United's lawyers won't go near this with Delta's barge pole.

They're already jumping without needing to ask "how high".

 

[kpc]

Re: Pax forcibly removed from United overbooked flight

Nonsense - this issue is bigger than Dr Dao.

United's lawyers won't go near this with Delta's barge pole.

They're already jumping without needing to ask "how high".

I agree. The latest press release I quoted above all but suggests that UA have admitted liability. Their lawyers are probably wondering "how much is it going to cost?"...and it looks like Dao's attorney is going to extract every last cent out of UA and probably the Chicago police department as well; I assume his fees will be a % of the payout!

 

[cove]

Re: Pax forcibly removed from United overbooked flight

Some of the humour that started is quite funny despite the subject being an assault.
Seeing Kim Jong Un clasping a United air ticket to go and visit the Donald is one that is hard to get out of ones head. The other of a passenger wearing a boxers head protection while onboard a United plane show how creative the jokers are.

 

[RooFlyer]

Re: Pax forcibly removed from United overbooked flight

I'm not convinced either, but it's something that the lawyers on both sides will need to be aware of and if it gets to court you can bet his past aggressive conduct will be raised.
<snip>.

Given that the United CEO has gone on television and stated that Dao had done "nothing wrong" (or words to that effect), I can't see a scenario where Dao's past will come into it and certainly not in the court of public opinion, given that he was demonstrably not aggressive on the plane.

Actually, it appears he did do something wrong, in not obeying a crewmember's instructions (even if there may have been no basis for that instruction) but this particular issue has gone well past a debate about that.

 

[amaroo]

Re: Pax forcibly removed from United overbooked flight

The last line in this article is a doozie!

The three Chicago Aviation Department police officers *involved have been suspended.

The furore could threaten the future of the police force that guards Chicago’s two main airports.Chicago’s about 300 aviation officers are not part of the city’s regular police force, receive less training and cannot carry guns inside airports.

Alderman Michael Zalewski suggested the officers may not have had the legal authority to board the plane.

Who would've thought a US police force guarding airports can't carry guns :shock:

What are the Chicago aviation police? - Chicago Tribune

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Re: Pax forcibly removed from United overbooked flight

Actually, it appears he did do something wrong, in not obeying a crewmember's instructions...

How so? There's no requirement to obey an unlawful instruction. Even the QF contract of carriage (10.1 Refusal of Carriage) says as much... you can only be denied carriage if you fail to follow instructions of ground staff or crew relating to safety and security.

In any event, the gate agent was not a crewmember. And the actual crew were not involved in the incident.

 

[RooFlyer]

Re: Pax forcibly removed from United overbooked flight

Originally Posted by RooFlyer
Actually, it appears he did do something wrong, in not obeying a crewmember's instructions...

How so? There's no requirement to obey an unlawful instruction. Even the QF contract of carriage (10.1 Refusal of Carriage) says as much... you can only be denied carriage if you fail to follow instructions of ground staff or crew relating to safety and security.
<snip>

Keep reading (and quoting), and you'll see that I'm not in disagreement (my bolding):

<snip>

Actually, it appears he did do something wrong, in not obeying a crewmember's instructions (even if there may have been no basis for that instruction) but this particular issue has gone well past a debate about that.

I don't think its practical for pax and crew members to debate the legality / fine print of carriage of contract on board to decide if the instruction is to be obeyed. We have to rely on crew members issuing valid and safe instructions and even if in doubt, just do it and argue/sue later unless you think it will put you in mortal danger.

I'm totally with Dao on this one, and am grateful he sacrificed his teeth and nose to highlight the greater issue, and I hope United truly get their come-uppance, but my view on obeying crew instructions remain.

 

[drron]

Re: Pax forcibly removed from United overbooked flight

Delta has responded well=

Previously gate agents were limited to offering $800 worth of vouchers in compensation, while supervisors were limited to offering $2,000 worth of vouchers in compensation
Delta has now increased compensation limits for voluntary denied boardings — gate agents can now offer up to $2,000 worth of vouchers, while supervisors can offer up to $9,950 worth of vouchers

Wow: Delta Significantly Raises Voluntary Denied Boarding Compensation Limits - One Mile at a Time

 

[eastwest101]

Re: Pax forcibly removed from United overbooked flight

[h=1]United Airlines Statement on Press Conference[/h] April 13, 2017

We continue to express our sincerest apology to Dr. Dao. We cannot stress enough that we remain steadfast in our commitment to make this right.

This horrible situation has provided a harsh learning experience from which we will take immediate, concrete action. We have committed to our customers and our employees that we are going to fix what’s broken so this never happens again.

First, we are committing that United will not ask law enforcement officers to remove passengers from our flights unless it is a matter of safety and security. Second, we’ve started a thorough review of policies that govern crew movement, incentivizing volunteers in these situations, how we handle oversold situations and an examination of how we partner with airport authorities and local law enforcement. Third, we will fully review and improve our training programs to ensure our employees are prepared and empowered to put our customers first. Our values – not just systems – will guide everything we do. We’ll communicate the results of our review and the actions we will take by April 30.

United CEO Oscar Munoz and the company called Dr. Dao on numerous occasions to express our heartfelt and deepest apologies.

I think the United Airlines press release is actually a fair summary of the events as we understand them. If this had been the first UA response on the matter, a few days ago, then it still would have been a "PR disaster" for UA but I think it would have been a "Better handled PR problem" than where they are now.

The bits I have highlighted seem to imply that UA seemed to have learned their rather expensive lesson and will hopefully come good on their promises to avoid situations like this in the first place, and to review and improve their procedures so stuff like this is resolved peacefully in the future. Hopefully other US and even other non-US airlines are also taking notes and/or reviewing their own crewing/rostering/incentives for volunteers and overbooking/voluntary and involuntary denied boarding and offloading policies and procedures as well. Hopefully the review will focus on more carrot and less stick in their approach to matters in the future (or at least defining and clarifying when the stick will be used? )

Incidently MEL_Traveller has also raised yet another interesting legal point about what is classified as legal crew instructions and what are not. I assume crew includes airline pilots and flight attendants but possibly not ground crew and ground checkin agents? Legal instructions may include "please get off for safety/weight and balance/because you are armed/making threats to other pax or staff", but instructions on shakier ground may may now include "we need your seat for flying an airline crew/commercial reasons/a higher tier FF turned up and wants a seat etc".

This is one of a number of legal definition issues that would be good to sort out, or they may exist but would be handy to have them all clearly published in the future. Will be interesting to see if any significant changes to pax rights and airline behaviour comes out of this.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Re: Pax forcibly removed from United overbooked flight

Keep reading (and quoting), and you'll see that I'm not in disagreement (my bolding):



I don't think its practical for pax and crew members to debate the legality / fine print of carriage of contract on board to decide if the instruction is to be obeyed. We have to rely on crew members issuing valid and safe instructions and even if in doubt, just do it and argue/sue later unless you think it will put you in mortal danger.

You are sort of in disagreement by stating that the passenger did something wrong (even if the instruction was not lawful).

Airlines make you to agree to the terms and conditions of contract when you purchase your ticket... is not the passenger then entitled to rely on those when it comes to the crunch?

Passengers negotiate with crew every day... 'will you move so this couple on their honeymoon can sit together?'

I've been on flights where the tone and inflection of the 'request' by the cabin crew sounds anything but a 'request'. And it's not entirely unreasonable that inexperienced flyer might interpret it more than a request (ie a direction).

But knowing that you don't have to move, and if you've specifically selected your seat for good reason, an experience flyer knows they can decline.

 

[Quickstatus]

Re: Pax forcibly removed from United overbooked flight

And what of the cabin crew?. Understandbly the issue is much bigger than them, however some cabin crew prob should not work in the service industry (not just UA, though UA's "friendly Skies" motto has never really been believed with a significant view that their cabin crew are distinctly unfriendly). Hopefully this incident will dial back the attitude of passenger loathing that some display. Yes it's not necessarily a glamorous job as it used to be and yes some passengers behave like complete idiots and yes the remuneration is poor these days, but I know not of any other industry where the customer seems always to be in the wrong.

 

[RooFlyer]

Re: Pax forcibly removed from United overbooked flight

You are sort of in disagreement by stating that the passenger did something wrong (even if the instruction was not lawful).

Airlines make you to agree to the terms and conditions of contract when you purchase your ticket... is not the passenger then entitled to rely on those when it comes to the crunch?

Passengers negotiate with crew every day... 'will you move so this couple on their honeymoon can sit together?'

I've been on flights where the tone and inflection of the 'request' by the cabin crew sounds anything but a 'request'. And it's not entirely unreasonable that inexperienced flyer might interpret it more than a request (ie a direction).

But knowing that you don't have to move, and if you've specifically selected your seat for good reason, an experience flyer knows they can decline.

You can keep debating the fine print (and the examples you give about moving is a request, not an instruction, so not relevant) but I maintain that having pax debating crew instructions on board will lead to anarchy. The pax may believe they are right, they may think they are certain they are right ... but what if they are not? Then the next pax starts arguing, and the next ...

Do you think the pilot will move the plane anywhere under those circumstances?

No, that's not on for me. This incident will (and already is) lead to better crew training and a more 'hands off' approach, so hopefully the need for 'debate' will substantially reduce, and when it happens, its best done off the aircraft.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Re: Pax forcibly removed from United overbooked flight

You can keep debating the fine print (and the examples you give about moving is a request, not an instruction, so not relevant) but I maintain that having pax debating crew instructions on board will lead to anarchy. The pax may believe they are right, they may think they are certain they are right ... but what if they are not? Then the next pax starts arguing, and the next ...

Do you think the pilot will move the plane anywhere under those circumstances?

No, that's not on for me. This incident will (and already is) lead to better crew training and a more 'hands off' approach, so hopefully the need for 'debate' will substantially reduce, and when it happens, its best done off the aircraft.

Dr Tao being asked to leave the plane was nothing more than a request. Which was declined. So it's kind of the the same situation (bearing in mind I mentioned that sometimes when cabin crew 'request' a passenger to move it can actually come across as more of an instruction rather than a request).

This doesn't lead to anarchy... it means passengers follow lawful instructions relating to safety and security, and they discuss contractual issues to reach an agreeable outcome.

Pilots understand that refusing a request to be IDB'ed does not infer a refusal to obey crew instructions during an emergency.

 

[Quickstatus]

Re: Pax forcibly removed from United overbooked flight

The airlines seem to want to persist with the right to de-seat and de-board a sitting passenger in favour of another passenger and they propose to increase the compensation to facilitate this in a non Dao way.

I'm hoping that this practice would cease. After all this to me is the root cause of the issue.
Sadly it seems a law or regulation will need to be created, I think, for this to happen.

Cabin crew powers should not be unlimited.

 

[RooFlyer]

Re: Pax forcibly removed from United overbooked flight

Dr Tao being asked to leave the plane was nothing more than a request. Which was declined. So it's kind of the the same situation (bearing in mind I mentioned that sometimes when cabin crew 'request' a passenger to move it can actually come across as more of an instruction rather than a request).

This doesn't lead to anarchy... it means passengers follow lawful instructions relating to safety and security, and they discuss contractual issues to reach an agreeable outcome.

Pilots understand that refusing a request to be IDB'ed does not infer a refusal to obey crew instructions during an emergency.

Well, we can disagree. Although things have gotten pretty bad on planes, I don't think there's been a situation where security has been called to yank a pax out of their seat to make them swap with another passenger.

I'm sorry, giving free reign for passengers to debate crew instructions on board because they believe they are in the right will lead to anarchy. How many a**eholes out there do you think are flying ... who if given the opportunity would just argue with the crew ... and argue ... and argue ... insisting that they are in the right (saying the instruction isn't 'lawful'), even when they are not. And then, emboldened, the next guy, maybe liquored up, will do the same.

Do you want to be on that flight?

Will all pax know the 'laws' of all countries they fly in? Just how much time should be spent with each passenger to 'discuss contractual issues to reach an agreeable outcome'? This is something you will have to reach a conclusion on with your 'discuss to reach a conclusion' philosophy. Is it 5 minutes? 10? more? Maybe the other passengers will join into the 'discussion' with the passenger.

How much time in total for discussion? Miss the departure time slot? Miss the curfew?

I read - maybe on OMAAT or View from the Wing - that this is one reason why the US authorities have allowed and tolerated such relatively draconian powers of crew; that is, for the integrity of the flying network. A flight should not be allowed to be delayed or cancelled because on one disruptive passenger, as there are major knock-on effects. Now, there is no question in my view that the Dao incident was an abuse of power by the airline, and could have been avoided if the airline approached it differently (in several ways) or if Dao complied with the instruction to get off the flight (and again, I'm not saying that he should have been asked in the first place).

But again, allowing passengers to debate the merits of a crew instruction on board until they reach an 'agreeable outcome' would lead to anarchy and probably much more violence on board, as other passengers, being delayed more and more, get fed up with the guy debating the point.

Just fixing the crew instructions thing is a much better answer.

 

[Princess Fiona]

Re: Pax forcibly removed from United overbooked flight

Dr Tao being asked to leave the plane was nothing more than a request. .

And that's the bit that the lawyers can debate. Was it an IDB or not ? Given that the boarding process wasn't complete, the flight became oversold once the 4 crew showed up, and no volunteers could be found.

I'm with RooFlyer here. I would obey crew member instructions and seek redress later.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Re: Pax forcibly removed from United overbooked flight

Well, we can disagree. Although things have gotten pretty bad on planes, I don't think there's been a situation where security has been called to yank a pax out of their seat to make them swap with another passenger.

I'm sorry, giving free reign for passengers to debate crew instructions on board because they believe they are in the right will lead to anarchy. How many a**eholes out there do you think are flying ... who if given the opportunity would just argue with the crew ... and argue ... and argue ... insisting that they are in the right (saying the instruction isn't 'lawful'), even when they are not. And then, emboldened, the next guy, maybe liquored up, will do the same.

Do you want to be on that flight?

Will all pax know the 'laws' of all countries they fly in? Just how much time should be spent with each passenger to 'discuss contractual issues to reach an agreeable outcome'? This is something you will have to reach a conclusion on with your 'discuss to reach a conclusion' philosophy. Is it 5 minutes? 10? more? Maybe the other passengers will join into the 'discussion' with the passenger.

How much time in total for discussion? Miss the departure time slot? Miss the curfew?

I read - maybe on OMAAT or View from the Wing - that this is one reason why the US authorities have allowed and tolerated such relatively draconian powers of crew; that is, for the integrity of the flying network. A flight should not be allowed to be delayed or cancelled because on one disruptive passenger, as there are major knock-on effects. Now, there is no question in my view that the Dao incident was an abuse of power by the airline, and could have been avoided if the airline approached it differently (in several ways) or if Dao complied with the instruction to get off the flight (and again, I'm not saying that he should have been asked in the first place).

But again, allowing passengers to debate the merits of a crew instruction on board until they reach an 'agreeable outcome' would lead to anarchy and probably much more violence on board, as other passengers, being delayed more and more, get fed up with the guy debating the point.

Just fixing the crew instructions thing is a much better answer.

Viewfromthewing has received some criticism forbeing potentially conflicted... blogs rely on the airlines for information and want to have a close relationship with those airlines. VFTW's view have been discredited by some for their support for UA - at least initially until they saw the tide of public opinion was against them. Even UA's CEO's views are against VFTW (VFTW stated the passnger was incorrect not to follow crew instructions). Neither UA nor any other entity has mentioned or relied on the 'keep the system going' argument, or that 'must fly' has any legal basis.

I agree passengers should not debate crew instructions. But there seems to be some confusion between 'instructions' and 'requests'. Airlines and relevant rules/laws/legislation define 'instructions'. So there's little doubt over those. This was not a case of defying an instruction. How does the passenger know? because it's in the contract of carriage which they acknowledged at the time of booking.

How much time for discussion? It depends on the airline's commercial incentives. If they want to miss curfew and incur the delays in missing that curfew rather than fork out $1000 to IDB a passenger, that's their choice. Or they could choose not to oversell. It seems airlines thought they had the ability to get aggressive because they could rely on law enforcement to back them up. They thought they had the upper hand. The alternative is for them to start being nice, calm, reasonable, and polite in these situations.

Why should Dr Tao have complied and left the plane? For the greater good of the system? Perhaps his decision to stay will actually turn out for the greater good of the rest of us?

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Re: Pax forcibly removed from United overbooked flight

I'm with RooFlyer here. I would obey crew member instructions and seek redress later.

Except there would be no redress from crew instructions as they are issued for safety and security grounds.