Sometimes even the small people can win...

[Tommy]

United Airlines will no longer be using police to remove passengers.

http://www.mynbc5.com/article/united-pledges-to-review-policies-on-removal-of-passengers/9265041

Munoz called the embarrassment a "system failure" and said United would reassess its procedures for seeking volunteers to give up their seats when a flight is full. 

So from now on when you book flights with United (really?) for yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, you can sleep easy with the fact that none of you will be "re-accommodated!" (don't you just love this word?). There is now a senate committee investigating this incidence. You never know but maybe systematic overbooking and gaming your seats for extra profit will be a thing of the past. http://www.startribune.com/senators-including-klobuchar-franken-push-united-for-answers/419331764/ Now wouldn't that be nice?

"You are all welcome" says Dr. Dao in his hospital bed.

Dao is no Rosa Parks but his contribution to and impact on aviation as a whole is, dare I say, very likely more than all of us here on MS combined...

___________

Now facts! To Nobody Paul Greg Peter Cnoe Couch

Reading comments from REAL aviation lawyers / experts:

1) Yes Untied has indeed breached its contract. The United's condition of carriage on bumping ONLY applies pre-boarding and in the event of overbooking. The flight was NOT overbooked. Since the flight was not actually overbooked, but instead only fully booked, with the exact number of passengers as seats available, United Airlines was not in their legal right to force any passengers to deplane to prioritize others. What United did was give preference to their employees over people who had reserved confirmed seats, in violation of 14 CFR 250.2a. Since Dr. Dao was already seated, it was clear that his seat had already been "reserved" and "confirmed" to accommodate him specifically.

2)  It's not a of deny boarding situation which means, in order for the airline to remove Dao from the plane, they need to follow Federal regulations including explanation of his rights, criteria used to select passengers, and on the spot compensation etc. United broke ALL the regulations. 

3) Chicago Airport law enforcement has no reason to make the arrest as he poses no threat to the safety and didn't break any laws. It's an unlawful arrest, false imprisonment, and excessive force. 

4) The Dr. Dao that has committed 98 counts of felony turns out to be NOT the passenger. The smear campaign is despicable. 

___________

This incident is definitely an eye opener. I am lucky that I had never witnessed a bumping incident in my life here in Australia but now I know my rights all thanks to Dao and the aviation lawyers. I also know that I won't be flying United for the rest of my entire life.

 

 

 

[Tommy]

And by the way this post is not intended as a debate (And after numerous apologies and $1 billion loss, there is really no debate here who is right and who is wrong, is it). It's for more of a FYI, really.

[Yetti]

This is just the culmination of everyone's experience with commercial travel. The $250 change fee. The $90.00 for not getting sardined into what is already an uncomfortable excuse for a chair.  Steerage class is revolting.

No one who flew Continental thought the merger with United was a good idea.  The proof is in the pudding.

[rbridges]

I know the officer was placed on leave.  I guess he's going to get in some hot water, too?

[Tommy]

Just now, rbridges said:

I know the officer was placed on leave.  I guess he's going to get in some hot water, too?

Depends if he broke any procedural rules. Say if United told him Dao is disruptive and a safety concern without mentioning anything about those 4 staff, then probably not. But I doubt it. 

[rbridges]

Just now, Tommy said:

Depends if he broke any procedural rules. Say if United told him Dao is disruptive and a safety concern without mentioning anything about those 4 staff, then probably not. But I doubt it. 

I didn't know if he was responsible for knowing the law in this unusual situation or if he could say he was going by what United told him.

[201er]

4 hours ago, Tommy said:

Reading comments from REAL aviation lawyers / experts:

Well if you're right, Dr Dao and his lawyers will become very rich.

[Tommy]

1 minute ago, 201er said:

Well if you're right, Dr Dao and his lawyers will become very rich.

Still probably nowhere near what Munoz's remuneration estimated to be 11.3million this year. The exact figure will be published soon. The timing of which couldn't be any worse for Munoz...

[Yetti]

United is stupid.  They should be meeting with the injured and treating him like a king and wine dine and shower with free passes and free flights.  Then have him and CEO do a lovefest TV appearance.   This is what annoys me about Executive Compensation.   Companies say they have to pay top dollar to attract the best talent.  But when times are bad they can't manage their way out of a paper sack.

[201er]

1 minute ago, Yetti said:

United is stupid.  They should be meeting with the injured and treating him like a king and wine dine and shower with free passes and free flights.  Then have him and CEO do a lovefest TV appearance.   This is what annoys me about Executive Compensation.   Companies say they have to pay top dollar to attract the best talent.  But when times are bad they can't manage their way out of a paper sack.

If the guy wouldn't get out of his seat, what makes you think he'd accept some niceties from the airline instead of a giant sack of cash?

[75_M20F]

I have an "opposing" view.

There is this whole thing about following rules. There are rules you know? It's called the contract of carriage that you agree to when purchasing a ticket.

The airline needed four seats. (why they needed them is irrelevant - it can be for a number of reasons) The airline is well within their rights to bump passengers. The other selectees were deplaned without incident. This particular selectee chose not to comply and fight it. If he had just gotten off the plane he would have been fine and would have gotten to his destination with compensation per the contract of carriage. This bumping procedure takes place thousands of times a year without incident, this guy chose to fight it. In doing so, by his action, he forced the gate agent to call the police who in turn were forced to act (due to his noncompliance).

So, apparently it should be up to the flying public to decide which rules they wish to comply with?

 

One should be careful getting their information from the fake news machine. They only give half of any story pushing their conclusion.

 

 

(And no I don't work for the airline in question here.)

[Yetti]

55 minutes ago, 201er said:

If the guy wouldn't get out of his seat, what makes you think he'd accept some niceties from the airline instead of a giant sack of cash?

Sack of cash could be part of the deal.   CEO should have gone and picked him up and brought him to the United tower and tried to give the man his dignity back

Edited April 13, 2017 by Yetti

[PTK]

United needed four seats. They offered compensation as per the guidlines. Three folks complied, were compensated and made it to their destination just fine. One decided to be difficult and cause interference. So difficult that the police had to be called in and forcibly remove him!

UAL and the police did their job. I don't see a problem frankly. 

[jkhirsch]

1 hour ago, Mooney_Mike said:

I have an "opposing" view.

There is this whole thing about following rules. There are rules you know? It's called the contract of carriage that you agree to when purchasing a ticket.

One should be careful getting their information from the fake news machine. They only give half of any story pushing their conclusion.

Based on the latest "facts" you are standing opposed to facts?

The latest "facts" appear that they wanted to remove passengers but had no right to remove them.

3 sheep were kind enough to bend to the desire of the airline, not the right of the airline.

It's tit-for-tat until it's settled by the courts but it doesn't appear that the airline had the statutory right to remove the passengers in this case.

The bottom line across our society is that everyone acts in their interpretation of the "statutory laws" and the only recourse a single individual has--when they believe another party has acted discordantly with those "laws"--is to seek the opinion of the established court system. The "only viable" way to seek the opinion of the established court system is to hire an attorney.

Tough, but it's the "only system we have."

I think we can all agree that the 24 hours news cycle and now the internet and photo/video sharing have fundamentally changed society for better or for worse.

Unfortunately I think a major repercussion is that it further expands the use of the "lawyering system" as society now moves too quickly for state/federal legislation to keep up or much less get ahead.

Edited April 13, 2017 by jkhirsch

[Bob - S50]

Having worked for an airline, and being practical, I see a problem with not removing the Dr.  They offered money and could not get enough volunteers.  They used their sorting system and picked 4 individuals.  The Dr. refused to leave as instructed.  I see many future problems if he was not forced to leave and even more problems now that United will not use security/police to remove uncooperative passengers.  Will they also not use them to remove disruptive passengers?  It is a violation of federal law to disobey the orders of a crew member of to interfere with the performance of their duties.  If I remember right, it is punishable with up to 1 year in prison and a $10,000 fine.  At Northwest we used to carry a card with that information on it that could be given to the individual to read.

1.  They have just taught the entire flying public that if they don't want to get off the plane, they don't have to.  United will not remove them by force.  How else can they make you get off if you refuse to leave?

2.  If they will not use police to remove them, that leaves employees.  Does United want the flight crew or gate agents to drag them off the plane?  Put their own employees at risk?

3.  That being the case, here is how I would handle it if I were the Captain under those conditions.  First, I would inform the non-cooperative passenger that they were violating a federal law if they did not comply with instructions.  If that didn't work, I would get on the PA and explain the situation to the passengers.  I would explain in full detail how we arrived at this point and that the 4th selected passenger refuses to leave.  I would then explain that the airplane will not leave the gate, and nobody will get to their destination until one more person agrees to get off the plane.  If anyone wants to cooperate, please contact a crew member.  If nobody will cooperate, I would proceed as below.

4.  In the case of a disruptive passenger, if I could not have the police escort them off the plane, I would be forced to coordinate deplaning ALL passengers and all their luggage.  Once everyone was off the plane (if they actually complied without police presence) then we could board the plane again while excluding the disruptive passenger(s).

See the problem with not allowing police to use force?

[N201MKTurbo]

Didn't we beat this to death the other day?

None of this has anything to do with Mooney's or flying, at least the type of flying we care about.

These discussions have no business on this forum.

The world has Facebook for these wastes of digital bandwidth.

[jkhirsch]

14 minutes ago, bluehighwayflyer said:

Statutory right? What statutory right did United need to remove a trespasser from their property?  That's right. That is exactly what the good doctor was once United revoked their consent for him to be aboard. Everything after that is just a matter of determining just compensation.

You know it all comes down to legal definitions. Tommy cited the CFRs which are supposed to be an implementation of the U.S.C and are widely considered statutory even though they are technically "administrative law."

["Congress cannot possibly write out such specific laws," so they task the Executive Branch with the implementation of their "grand schemes."]

The argument from what I have read is that United entered a valid and conscionable contract with a passenger and under the framework of that agreement they have no contractual (statutory) right to remove him just because they "wanted to." The contract is derived from the statutes (CFRs) that assigns rights to the carrier and passenger.

From what I have read so far the ruling could be in his favor because the flight was not "overbooked" it was simply full, it would require the "overbooked" status for some of the carrier protections to kick in.

I don't think I have read a good assessment of the "pre-boarding" "post-boarding" part of the case yet.

Edited April 13, 2017 by jkhirsch

[tigers2007]

Depends if he broke any procedural rules. Say if United told him Dao is disruptive and a safety concern without mentioning anything about those 4 staff, then probably not. But I doubt it. 

Deprivation of civil rights under color of law; amongst other violations. Im sure our attorneys here will agree. The cops thought that what they were doing was legal practice even though it wasn't, etc. 42 USC 1983.
I just watched that MSLSD News video and I was shocked how they ripped him out. Im not saying that I have never done something like this before (ripping people out of cars, etc.) but anytime I have, I've been diligent to know what the underlying issue is before going "hands on" with a knucklehead. If they told me that they were overbooked and that I needed to pull that passenger, I would have laughed myself off the plane. Law enforcement officers can lose their entire career/pension because of a single stupid incident. This is clearly a stupid situation. The safety of that flight was clearly not jeopardized thus it was a civil matter between the Airline and Mr Dao. These cops need to pick and choose their battles (something that new LEO's need to be trained to do). Ill keep saying it, this appears to be a non-belligerent passenger that was already boarded. Removing anyone from that plane was asking for trouble. Now I'm learning that it was Republic Airlines? C'est la vie Republic when Trump ends the Essential Air Service (EAS) funding even quicker (as he already has indicated to do)...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[KSMooniac]

As more details of the incident and CFR nuances emerge, this looks really bad for United. The bumping practice is only protected for pre-boarding from what I've read now. Once boarded and seated, they have no right to remove pax unless they meet a few specific criteria like being disruptive, intoxicated, ill, etc. There is no right to remove them forcibly for overbooking (doesn't apply here) or the need to carry dead head crew, etc. They can ask for volunteers and offer incentives, but not force people to deplane. This is likely going to be a big pay day for Dao and his lawyers. I bet he had a line of them trying to see him in the hospital.

Sent from my LG-LS997 using Tapatalk

[jkhirsch]

5 minutes ago, tigers2007 said:

. Im not saying that I have never done something like this before (ripping people out of cars, etc.) but anytime I have, I've been diligent to know what the underlying issue is before going "hands on" with a knucklehead.
 

I do not envy police officers' duties in today's society. I think as a society we need an entirely new philosophy on policing.

I think "Americans" have lost their sense of community, vis-a-vis the internet "look at me" revolution, and it hurts all of society.

[salty]

2 hours ago, Yetti said:

Sack of cash could be part of the deal.   CEO should have gone and picked him up and brought him to the United tower and tried to give the man his dignity back

A police officer comes up to you on private property and tells you the property owner wishes you to leave and he will remove you if you do not leave. Who exactly is responsible for your loss of dignity if you refuse?  You are. 

Edited April 13, 2017 by salty

[jkhirsch]

14 minutes ago, salty said:

A police officer comes up to you on private property and tells you the property owner wishes you to leave and he will remove you if you do not leave. Who exactly is responsible for your loss of dignity if you refuse?  You are. 

That's an incredibly vast oversimplification to the point of not being relevant to this discussion, two parties mutually assented to a contract which entitled the party to be on-board the aircraft during the time at which he was on-board the aircraft.

That interaction is therefore governed by the rules spelled out in that contract, any breach of the contract is governed the the statutes in which the contract is founded.

[PTK]

This pax was disruptive and belligerent. They didn't want him on their airplane. 

Maybe UAL should've cancelled the flight and fly the jet empty to Louisville. Would that have been better? Because they could do that!

 

[Yetti]

32 minutes ago, salty said:

A police officer comes up to you on private property and tells you the property owner wishes you to leave and he will remove you if you do not leave. Who exactly is responsible for your loss of dignity if you refuse?  You are. 

I would ask the officer what terms of the CoC have I violated and what lawful request he belives he is enforcing?  A gate agent is not a crew member. So that CFR is not in play.

[jkhirsch]

I'm about halfway through this article and it seems to be worth reading:

http://www.newsweek.com/why-united-were-legally-wrong-deplane-dr-dao-583535

7 minutes ago, PTK said:

This pax was disruptive and belligerent.

Cite a valid source for this accusation?

From http://www.newsweek.com/why-united-were-legally-wrong-deplane-dr-dao-583535:

Although this depends on the facts, news reports suggest that Dao was not upset, and was minding his own business until he was told that he was being involuntarily removed and he was dragged kicking and screaming from the aircraft.

His being upset was caused by the breach by United Airlines of its contractual duties towards him as a passenger, rather than the reverse.

Edited April 13, 2017 by jkhirsch