I believe in personal accountability, as many of you USUALLY do. As nearly all internet and YouTube videos go, they start at the end of the story. There are a lot of assumptions made about the airline and the options they allegedly had. There were errors and significant omissions in the earliest reports and most reports continue to be cursory.

First, the flight was not overbooked but sought to accommodate passengers from other flights which had been cancelled by weather.

Second, all televised news reports characterized it as just employees on a pass (freebie). It was a FLIGHT CREW of 4

Third, Dr. Dao is made out to to be the sole victim, when in fact, 200 of his fellow passengers were held up for two hours because of his selfish actions. If he acted differently, this story never happens. If the Flight Crew seeking seats doesn't get to KY in a timely fashion, another 200-250 travelers are victimized by one man.

Fourth, Dr. Dao was the only one with options.

United has federal regulations they must adhere to on hours worked. This was becoming an issue with the working crew AND the four needing to get to Louisville. United has Union Contracts they must follow as well. There is a ticketing Agreement between each passenger and United. You can be bumped AND compensation is limited by regulation to 3x the fare or $1350. No one had authority to escalate the offer past that regulation.

O'Hare is a 4 hr 55 minute drive from the Louisville Airport. At $800, less car and gas expenses, Dr. Dao could have made $120 per hour for driving back to his car. I once did it to Detroit for under $180. Seven hours.

Dr.Dao could have negotiated at the gate beforehand when it was announced four seats were needed. There are passengers they don't touch..unaccompanied minors, splits of families to name two classes.

I have debated this on social media but have yet to find anyone who has a gentle way to remove a person from a cabin, when they are adamant about staying. How long to you repeat your request? How long does law enforcement stay away from other duties they may have? Short of bringing in a hostage negotiating team, what is the answer for next time?

We can Monday morning quarterback this and say its all United or those heavy hand LEO, but the truth is we need better ways to deal with weather induced delays, we need better communication between airline and passengers BUT we need to put the blame for this fiasco where it belongs, Dr. Dao's lap.

entropy, do not post again in this thread for 48 hours, and I do mean every last bit of 48 hours from the time stamp on this post of mine. You need to just be quiet. Really, you do.
This is not your personal thread and the world doesn't revolve around you. Just because you work in the airline industry, that doesn't give you the right to act as if every opinion posted in this thread has to be filtered by your view of the subject. Once again, I am telling you in no uncertain terms that you are really trying my patience and I am through with babysitting you in this thread.

One single post from you in this thread within the next 48 hours is going to get you 30 days of Moderated Status.

And, ONCE AGAIN, to the person who reported posts to me in this thread overnight- and there was just one of you- you do not need to report a thread to me or any posts in it if I am already in the Goddamned thing, and I am growing weary of pointing this out to you. If you don't like what's happening in this thread, then, by God, jump into the thing. Just stop reporting threads to me when I am already in the things. It's pointless and it's annoying. Your ability to report posts can be revoked and that's the direction you're heading. Just cool it.

United Airlines' Own Contract Denied it any Right to Remove Passenger

by Jens David Ohlin

On Sunday, United Airlines passenger David Dao was forcibly removed from his United Airlines flight when he refused to relinquish his seat. The police officers who removed him from the seat then dragged him down the aisle of the airplane. Videos of the incident show a visibly injured and bloodied Dao screaming. Videos also show a clearly injured Dao returning to the plane, walking up and down the aisle, and muttering that he needed to get home. He was then escorted off the plane a second time.

The incident has caused a PR nightmare for United Airlines. Videos of the incident have reinforced the public perception that airlines care too much about their profit margins and too little about their passengers. The initial public comments from the airline exacerbated the PR crisis by insufficiently recognizing the depth of the public’s anger over the issue. Instead of apologizing profusely in the first instance, the airline initially issued statements indicating that it was reviewing the situation and apologizing only for the need to “re-accommodate” the affected passengers. Only later did United CEO Oscar Munoz issue a blanket apology for the incident and pledge a full investigation and review of its policies that led to the event.

The airline’s stock has declined since the incident became public, and some on the Internet are suggesting a consumer boycott. Twitter users have relentlessly mocked the airline with a series of vicious memes.

For the moment, I want to focus on the basic premise—and legal assumptions—behind most of the press accounts of the incident. Most articles and news reports have implied that the airline was permitted to remove Dao from the airplane. Articles have made this claim as part of a larger point to readers: Airlines frequently overbook their flights and “bump” passengers, and then pay them compensation in line with federal regulations governing the payment of this compensation. It happens all the time, according to the newspapers.

This overarching narrative—repeated in virtually every newspaper, with only a few exceptions—is incorrect at least as applied to this situation. Or, at the very least, it is far more complicated than the news reports suggest. In truth, airlines do indeed “bump” passengers from oversold flights, but the process by which they do so is to “deny boarding” to ticketed passengers who have otherwise complied with the boarding requirements. However, Dao was not denied boarding. Dao was granted boarding, and then subsequently involuntarily deplaned, which is not the same thing.

To understand the difference, it is important to review the facts of the case. This summary is drawn from press reports in major newspapers. It appears that Dao had a valid ticket. He presented his ticket to the gate agent, who accepted the ticket, scanned it, and granted him access to the causeway and the airplane. Because he was granted boarding, Dao walked onto the aircraft and took his seat. Only later, after he and the other passengers were in their seats, did a representative come onto the plane and explain that four seats would need to be surrendered to make room for four United Airlines employees who needed to get to Louisville. After no passengers accepted financial incentives to voluntarily relinquish seats, four seated passengers—including Dao—were told to leave. Dao refused.

Like all airlines, United has a very specific (and lengthy!) contract for carriage outlining the contractual relationship between the airline and the passenger. It includes a familiar set of provisions for when a passenger may be denied boarding (Rule 25 “Denied Boarding Compensation”). When a flight is oversold, UA can deny boarding to some passengers, who then receive compensation under specific guidelines. However, Dao was not denied boarding. He was granted boarding and then involuntarily removed from the airplane. What does the contract say about that?

It turns out that the contract has a specific rule regarding “Refusal of Transport” (Rule 21), which lays out the conditions under which a passenger can be removed and refused transport on the aircraft. This includes situations where passengers act in a “disorderly, offensive, abusive, or violent” manner, refuse to comply with the smoking policy, are barefoot or “not properly clothed,” as well as many other situations. There is absolutely no provision for deplaning a seated passenger because the flight is oversold.

An added complication here is that the flight wasn’t even oversold. The contract defines an oversold flight as “a flight where there are more Passengers holding valid confirmed Tickets that check-in for the flight within the prescribed check-in time than there are available seats.” In this case, the airline attempted to remove seated passengers to make room for airline staff requiring transport to another airport, not because it had sold more tickets than there were seats available. In any event, this point is largely moot, because neither employee transportation nor oversold situations is listed as among the reasons that a passenger may be refused transport.

One might argue that Dao had not completed “boarding” until the cabin door was closed. This argument would be wrong. The term “boarding” is not defined in the definition section of the contract, and absent an explicit definition in the contract, terms are to be afforded their plain meaning. “Boarding” means that the passenger presents a boarding pass to the gate agent who accepts or scans the pass and permits entry through the gate to the airplane, allowing the passenger to enter the aircraft and take a seat.

It is possible in this regard to distinguish between the collective completion of the plane’s boarding process, which is not complete until all passengers have boarded and the cabin door is closed. But that is different from each passenger’s boarding, which is complete for each individual once he or she has been accepted for transportation by the gate agent and proceeded to the aircraft and taken his or her assigned seat.

Bottom line is that if the airline wants to bump you from the aircraft, it must deny you boarding. After the crew grant you boarding, the number of conditions under which they may deplane you substantially decreases. In this case, United Airlines made the mistake of boarding all passengers and then trying to find space for additional crew. The airline should bear the burden of this mistake, not the passengers who successfully boarded the plane. If the airline doesn’t like this, it should have written a different contract.

Might the airline argue that it had the right to refuse transport because Dao was “disorderly, offensive, abusive, or violent” (Rule 21H1) or causing a “disturbance” (Rule 21H4)? 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 United Airline’s breach of its contractual duties towards him as a passenger, rather than the reverse.

Finally, Rule 21 includes a provision on force majeur and other unforeseen circumstances such as weather, but there is no evidence that the airline had to specifically deplane Dao due to a force majeur that was impacting his plane. Perhaps UA could make the argument that getting the airline employees to Louisville was a necessary response to unforeseen circumstances (weather-related flight delays and cancellations in another city that caused the crew to be misplaced). The contract allows the airline to take actions that are “reasonable” or “advisable” in response to circumstances beyond its control.

UA might give “reasonable” a utilitarian gloss and argue that it was reasonable (i.e. economical) for it to deplane four passengers to transport the misplaced crew and thus prevent cancellation of another flight that would have impacted a far greater number of passengers. (I have no idea if the facts support this contention or not.) The argument is vulnerable to various questions about the reasonableness or advisability of the action. Could the airline have arranged alternate transportation for the misplaced crew, such as renting a car and driver, or used a larger aircraft, but refused to do so because it was too cheap? Following this train of thought might just make the public angrier. The utilitarian argument suggests that the rights of individual passengers can be balanced away—which is precisely why so many people are furious about the airline’s conduct.

All of this means that the airline may not have had the right to remove Dao from the aircraft. What are the consequences of this breach? Rule 21 on Refusal of Transport states that “UA is not liable for its refusal to transport any passenger or for its removal of any passenger in accordance with this Rule” and that the sole remedy is a refund of the ticket. In this case, however, United Airlines did not deplane the passenger “in accordance with this Rule,” but probably acted contrary to the Rule. So, the liability exclusion by its terms does not apply.

The last aspect of this case – the most disturbing one – is the level of force used by the police officers. Based on the videos, most observers have concluded that the force was excessive and unnecessary given the circumstances. A deeper issue is whether the police had the authority to remove Dao in the first instance once United Airlines declared him persona non grata and asked the police to treat him as a trespasser. Presumably the police had the authority to remove him (but only with an appropriate level of force), but even so, there is a plausible argument that Dao’s injuries and damages suffered during that process were caused by the airline’s breach of contract, which specifically defines the circumstances when it can refuse transport, none of which applied in this case.
In some situations, a contractual dispute and a trespassing dispute should be kept separate. Say you hire a painter to paint the inside of your house. You refuse to pay and so the painter says, “I’m not leaving until you pay me.” When the painter refuses to leave, you call the police and ask them to remove him because he is trespassing. The proper resolution is that the painter must leave but can sue you for breach of contract.

That may be so, but in that case, the painter’s refusal to leave is incidental to the object and purpose of the contract, which is to paint the house, not stay in your house. In contrast, the object and purpose of the contract of carriage is, among other things, to require the airline to transport the passenger from location A to location B aboard aircraft C. Being on the aircraft is the whole point of the contract, and it specifically lists the situations when the airline may deny transport to a ticketed customer. Since the airline did not comply with those requirements, it should be liable for the damages associated with their breach.

http://www.dorfonlaw.org/2017/...tract-denied-it.html

quote:

Originally posted by Redford1970:
Second, all televised news reports characterized it as just employees on a pass (freebie). It was a FLIGHT CREW of 4

Read the thread, that has been known virtually from the beginning and is irrelevant to the discussion.

quote:

United has federal regulations they must adhere to on hours worked. This was becoming an issue with the working crew AND the four needing to get to Louisville. United has Union Contracts they must follow as well. There is a ticketing Agreement between each passenger and United. You can be bumped AND compensation is limited by regulation to 3x the fare or $1350. No one had authority to escalate the offer past that regulation.

United never offered $1350. They offered $800 in vouchers and then went to involuntary. Also, they can offer that PRIOR to boarding. Read the contract, they do not have the right to remove a passenger after boarding. The contract specifically says they can offer options PRIOR to boarding, not after.

Read this article explaining why what United did was illegal:
http://www.newsweek.com/why-un...eplane-dr-dao-583535

quote:

O'Hare is a 4 hr 55 minute drive from the Louisville Airport. At $800, less car and gas expenses, Dr. Dao could have made $120 per hour for driving back to his car. I once did it to Detroit for under $180. Seven hours.

So could the flight crew. In a chartered van or other aircraft.

quote:

Dr.Dao could have negotiated at the gate beforehand when it was announced four seats were needed. There are passengers they don't touch..unaccompanied minors, splits of families to name two classes.

He never had that opportunity - the plane was fully boarded before United noticed that they had screwed up and wanted 4 seats. As posted in the link above, they don't have a right to remove you after you have boarded and been seated.

quote:

I have debated this on social media but have yet to find anyone who has a gentle way to remove a person from a cabin, when they are adamant about staying. How long to you repeat your request? How long does law enforcement stay away from other duties they may have? Short of bringing in a hostage negotiating team, what is the answer for next time?

That's because the airline does not have the right to remove you unless you are a danger to the flight crew or other passengers. It's in the contract. Thus, if you are a danger to the flight crew or drop dead drunk, you can be removed by any means necessary. That doesn't apply here because the passenger was never loud, disruptive or a danger to anyone.

quote:

We can Monday morning quarterback this and say its all United or those heavy hand LEO, but the truth is we need better ways to deal with weather induced delays, we need better communication between airline and passengers BUT we need to put the blame for this fiasco where it belongs, Dr. Dao's lap.

This is United's problem - they have publicly taken full blame and specifically stated that the passenger has no blame whatsoever.

One aspect of this that has been lost in most of the commentary is that the doctor was traveling with his wife. They were both removed from the plane (she apparently with much less drama), yet only he attempted to reboard. What did he expect was going to happen to her if he did get back on to "see his patients" the next day? Was she on her own at that point? He may be the aggrieved party in this case and probably deserves to win some compensation, but that doesn't mean he isn't an asshole, especially in light of his previous criminal history.

I have to go fly my 4-day trip. Should I bring boxing gloves?? Just wondering.....

Oh...and to those that are saying the crew could have driven there? They would have most DEFINITELY run into Flight Duty Period issues the next morning with the passengers in IIU, further delaying that batch of paying customers the next day. You see...even if you're in a cab/limo/bus/shuttle craft being driven around, flight crews are still considered to be on duty and MUST get required rest after arriving at their station (IIU in this case) per FAR 117. In addition, a flight crew member CANNOT knowingly violate this FAR without severe penalty up to and including suspension of his Certificate. Just some minor facts to be aware of when considering that "could've taken a cab/limo/bus/shuttle craft" solution.

The entire situation was treated VERY poorly by the Gate Agent(s) and "Security"...we can ALL agree on that. Please leave the pilots and flight attendants out of the discussion, both the ones working the flight and the ones needing positive space to IIU. They had NOTHING to do with this, nor could they have prevented ANY of this from happening.

Great day to all!!!

quote:

Originally posted by bigwagon:
One aspect of this that has been lost in most of the commentary is that the doctor was traveling with his wife. They were both removed from the plane (she apparently with much less drama), yet only he attempted to reboard. What did he expect was going to happen to her if he did get back on to "see his patients" the next day? Was she on her own at that point?

Did it occur to you that this 69 year old man might be disoriented after having his head slammed into an armrest? Do you think there's any possibility that at that point, he was very upset and not thinking clearly?

Do you want to ask any more questions which imply the man is somehow at fault for United's screwup?

quote:

Originally posted by erj_pilot:
I have to go fly my 4-day trip. Should I bring boxing gloves?? Just wondering.....

I think brass knuckles would be more appropriate!

Also, review this video in case you get dragged down the aisle:

quote:

Originally posted by bigwagon:
One aspect of this that has been lost in most of the commentary is that the doctor was traveling with his wife. They were both removed from the plane (she apparently with much less drama), yet only he attempted to reboard. What did he expect was going to happen to her if he did get back on to "see his patients" the next day? Was she on her own at that point? He may be the aggrieved party in this case and probably deserves to win some compensation, but that doesn't mean he isn't an asshole, especially in light of his previous criminal history.

Why don't YOU get accosted by a bunch of jack-boot thugs, get your face smashed into a hard armrest, get two teeth knocked out, a broken nose, AND a concussion and see how logically and rationally YOU act. . .

The poor guy was just assaulted. Plus, he was likely in shock (having experienced shock as the result of a vehicle roll-over, I know it impedes one's better judgment). So, I'm willing to cut the doctor some slack.

quote:

Third, Dr. Dao is made out to to be the sole victim, when in fact, 200 of his fellow passengers were held up for two hours because of his selfish actions. If he acted differently, this story never happens. If the Flight Crew seeking seats doesn't get to KY in a timely fashion, another 200-250 travelers are victimized by one man.

That is not his problem. That is the airline's problem. They need to figure out what they need to do to make this work for the person they are inconveniencing.

quote:

Fourth, Dr. Dao was the only one with options.

Also bull. The airline has options. You don't know if Dr. Dao felt he had options or not. Perhaps the offers of vouchers etc., weren't enough for him to want to exercise his options.

quote:

United has federal regulations they must adhere to on hours worked. This was becoming an issue with the working crew AND the four needing to get to Louisville. United has Union Contracts they must follow as well. There is a ticketing Agreement between each passenger and United. You can be bumped AND compensation is limited by regulation to 3x the fare or $1350. No one had authority to escalate the offer past that regulation.

Complete and utter bull. First, everything in the first portion of the paragraph is United's problem, not Dr. Dao's problem. They asked him to fix their problem for them, and then didn't make an offer he wanted to accept. Second, the 4x/$1350 are federal minimums, not caps. The airline is free to give him a brand new Porsche if they feel like it.

This is wholly and completely United's fault, and United's problem, exacerbated by stupidity, and possibly illegal use of force by the Airport Police.

To the extent Dr. Dao bears any responsibility for this mess, it is in having the good faith expectation that he wouldn't be assaulted by agents of the airline while he was on the phone (possibly with his lawyer) about this issue.

I hope you are as accommodating when they come for your guns. It could be the law, you know.

quote:

Originally posted by Redford1970:
I believe in personal accountability, as many of you USUALLY do. As nearly all internet and YouTube videos go, they start at the end of the story. There are a lot of assumptions made about the airline and the options they allegedly had. There were errors and significant omissions in the earliest reports and most reports continue to be cursory....

Seems to me, as Bama pointed out, much of your argument was based on your own errors and omissions. Yes, many believe in personal responsibility, but you exonerate United for any contribution they made to the fiasco. Maybe look in the mirror when you read your lines.

Also seems to me this incident shows the airline industry is arrogant and elitist, they serve themselves first, very favorable treatment, the passengers are secondary. Their contrition/apology here is a result of full damage control mode as they see the costs soar.

quote:

Originally posted by Redford1970:
We can Monday morning quarterback this and say its all United or those heavy hand LEO, but the truth is we need better ways to deal with weather induced delays, we need better communication between airline and passengers BUT we need to put the blame for this fiasco where it belongs, Dr. Dao's lap.

Horse shit.

United Airlines is at fault, 100%. Sorry if that goes against what you want to be true, but a blind man can see it.

quote:

I have debated this on social media but have yet to find anyone who has a gentle way to remove a person from a cabin, when they are adamant about staying. How long to you repeat your request? How long does law enforcement stay away from other duties they may have? Short of bringing in a hostage negotiating team, what is the answer for next time?

The answer is to leave a seated passenger the fuck alone. Guess what? That's exactly what will happen from this point on.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:

Do you want to ask any more questions which imply the man is somehow at fault for United's screwup?

Not at all. FWIW, I believe that United did just about everything wrong leading up to the point where the goon squad was called onto the plane to remove him. However, at that point he did have to make a choice how to respond, just like any of us would when in a situation where law enforcement is demanding for you to comply with their instructions. I think most of us know how those situations usually end up, whether or not the outcome is fair or justified.

I believe I heard that in the attorney's statement it was said that the Dr. had no memory of going back onto the plane.

I have only flown once in the past 10 years, and that was a few years ago. When did it become "a thing" for passengers to be threatened with arrest by flight staff for such mundane things as getting up to stretch a sore back, or placement of an armrest? According to rule 21 reference above, there are no elements of violation in these actions. Where in policy does it specify use of these threats?

That is not treating passengers as customers, it is treating passengers as pieces of shit who are simply an annoyance to the flight staff. Who are supposedly there to SERVE these customers.

quote:

Originally posted by bigwagon:
One aspect of this that has been lost in most of the commentary is that the doctor was traveling with his wife. They were both removed from the plane (she apparently with much less drama), yet only he attempted to reboard. What did he expect was going to happen to her if he did get back on to "see his patients" the next day? Was she on her own at that point? He may be the aggrieved party in this case and probably deserves to win some compensation, but that doesn't mean he isn't an asshole, especially in light of his previous criminal history.

If you bring up his criminal history, you should probably also bring up his being a Vietnam boat person, escaping the Commies at the fall of Saigon. PTSD doesn't go away with a prescription and a chat with the counselor.

quote:

Originally posted by AH.74:...That is not treating passengers as customers, it is treating passengers as pieces of shit who are simply an annoyance to the flight staff. Who are supposedly there to SERVE these customers.

It seems that way to me.

Anyone who starts in with this "his criminal history" crap- you might as well give it up, because you've lost the argument by trying to introduce irrelevant details into the story. If you had a genuine argument- a position from which you could employ reason- then you wouldn't be trying to use dirty tricks that are usually employed by sleazeball lawyers, and that crap isn't fooling anyone in this thread.

I wonder if the airline must take every step in their policy to entice passengers to give up their seats. Since it is airline policy and not law,they likely can skip steps to hurry things along. Company policy and law might not completely overlap. It would be dumb policy if it didn't have any flexibility and made them liable without strict adherence.

Much of this will be greatly clarified as a result of this incident, including passengers being more aware of Carriage contracts. Don't like the contract, don't buy a ticket.

quote:

Originally posted by pbslinger:
Much of this will be greatly clarified as a result of this incident, including passengers being more aware of Carriage contracts. Don't like the contract, don't buy a ticket.

You're kidding, right? Tell me what percentage of the flying public do you think has ever even heard the term "carriage contract", and then hazard a guess at what fraction of that fraction have ever bothered to understand it.

What do you think? One person in a thousand?

quote:

Originally posted by pbslinger:
I wonder if the airline must take every step in their policy to entice passengers to give up their seats. Since it is airline policy and not law,they likely can skip steps to hurry things along. Company policy and law might not completely overlap. It would be dumb policy if it didn't have any flexibility and made them liable without strict adherence.

Much of this will be greatly clarified as a result of this incident, including passengers being more aware of Carriage contracts. Don't like the contract, don't buy a ticket.

It will also lead to carriers being more aware of the Carriage contracts.

Once the passenger has been boarded and seated they do not have a right to remove you. The Carriage contract clearly states that PRIOR to boarding you can be forced to give up your seat. There is nothing in the contract that gives them the right to remove you AFTER boarding.

http://www.newsweek.com/why-un...eplane-dr-dao-583535