69-year old passenger doctor David Dao dragged off overbooked United Express flight UA3411
Moderator: Latest news team
-
sn-remember
- Posts: 848
- Joined: 13 Sep 2004, 00:00
- Location: Jodoigne/Geldenaken
- Contact:
Re: Elderly man dragged off overbooked United Express flight
Meaning he believes he can win the lawsuit.
And he discards the bad name the company may have among SOME(many) of the potential customers.
As he did with the teens in leggings issue.
This is bad management all over again IMHO ...
And he discards the bad name the company may have among SOME(many) of the potential customers.
As he did with the teens in leggings issue.
This is bad management all over again IMHO ...
-
quixoticguide
- Posts: 1655
- Joined: 23 Mar 2011, 18:41
- Location: Pyongyang, DPRK
- Contact:
Re: Elderly man dragged off overbooked United Express flight
Visit my flights on: http://www.quixoticguide.com
Re: Elderly man dragged off overbooked United Express flight
2 days after the "incident" it seems that Twitter is still blowing up and so are multiple fora and news sites, in Asia they are even going so far as calling it racism (which is bullshit unless the pax weren't "randomly" chosen).
In the mean time, Twitter is also having a field day with #NewUnitedAirlinesMottos, a few of them:
"We can re-accommodate you the easy way... or the hard way"
"Not enough seating? Prepare for a beating"
"United Airlines. Pay for the seating, stay for the beating"
"If there's no seat spare, we'll put you in intensive care"
"We treat you like we treat your luggage"
"Board as a doctor, leave as a patient"
"If we cannot beat our competitors, we'll beat our customers"
"We put hospital in hospitality"
"Our prices won't be beat, you however might be"
"You pay for the flight, we drag you for free"
"Fly United, because bones heal and blood clots"
and dozens, what do I say, hundreds, thousands more like this and that's even without all the memes that are being created.
If the legging story was bad then this is 1.000x worse...
In the mean time, Twitter is also having a field day with #NewUnitedAirlinesMottos, a few of them:
"We can re-accommodate you the easy way... or the hard way"
"Not enough seating? Prepare for a beating"
"United Airlines. Pay for the seating, stay for the beating"
"If there's no seat spare, we'll put you in intensive care"
"We treat you like we treat your luggage"
"Board as a doctor, leave as a patient"
"If we cannot beat our competitors, we'll beat our customers"
"We put hospital in hospitality"
"Our prices won't be beat, you however might be"
"You pay for the flight, we drag you for free"
"Fly United, because bones heal and blood clots"
and dozens, what do I say, hundreds, thousands more like this and that's even without all the memes that are being created.
If the legging story was bad then this is 1.000x worse...
Re: Elderly man dragged off overbooked United Express flight
Now, regarding the incident itself. Obviously I'm going to side with the passenger though the fault might be shared by multiple parties, including the passenger himself.
From a PR view there's only one loser in this and that's United. People don't care that it was a Republic plane (dba United Express) and people don't care that the most damage to the person was done by a "City of Chicago Department of Aviation" law enforcement officer. The damage for United will be in the multiple millions figure and that's excluding the price they'll end up paying in an out of court settlement (a settlement that will most likely end up being a 7 or even more likely (since it's the USA) a 8 figure settlement but we'll probably never know unless it will go to court). In the end it's probably likely that the city of Chicago (as the owner/operator of the airport and the employer of the law enforcement officer(s) will also write a fat check to keep it out of court (certainly since Chicago, the city, the airport and their LEO's don't have a stellar reputation them self). In the end the long term damage will be somewhat limited, once they settled and once the news cycles are passed the story people will start to forget. Maybe a few thousand people will end up changing airlines indefinitely but in the end it will be nothing newsworthy.
From what I read it seemed that the passenger in question posed no threat and was polite all the way (he just declined to leave which he may (or may not) had the right to do so) until the law enforcement officer started to remove him when the passenger tried to shield himself by raising his arms, when the LEO then forcibly removed him he started to yell/cry and then he came (accidentally?) hard in contact with the seat (and maybe the LEO's fists, who knows?) which rendered the passenger (semi?) unconscious after which the LEO dragged him all the way through the plane to the bridge. It seems that at this point the passenger regained consciousness and ran back into the plane still confused, dazed by the events (probably due a severe concussion). He was then removed via wheelchair and taken to a hospital for medical care. Here, in Europe, such events are definitely considered "excessive force" but I'm not sure this will be the case in the USA (the beloved country where law enforcement can virtually justify every action taken though it seems that it is slowly changing).
The big question is where the legality lies of the actions taken by United and this is something lawyers will have fun determining. We all read that the passenger was "Involuntary denied boarding" but since the passenger was allowed to board, had a scanned boarding pass, had a seat which he was assigned and he sat in, I'm not sure that IDB applies in this case. The only (small) chance they have is if all the action was taken by the gate agent since the plane was boarded but not yet in flight (afaik the authority changes when the door is closed at which point the plane is considered as being in flight and the flight crew has legal authority to take certain actions (like removing a passenger for whatever reason they like (though technically it has to be justifiable).
IMHO United made a big mistake by throwing of the passenger without making decent efforts to find volunteers , wetter their subsequent actions were legal or not will yet remain to be seen but in the end it won't matter, this incident has already been tried in the court of public opinion and United lost it big time. So they (and Chicago) will end up writing multi million dollar checks with an NDA contract preventing the passenger speaking about this incident and the figure he received. And if UA gives a damn about their reputation they start to give all pax on board some vouchers for free flights in the hope nobody sues the airline for causing PTSD as the incident could be considered traumatic for certain people, followed by a public and sincere apology for the incident (and not one with a text written by an army of lawyers).
From a PR view there's only one loser in this and that's United. People don't care that it was a Republic plane (dba United Express) and people don't care that the most damage to the person was done by a "City of Chicago Department of Aviation" law enforcement officer. The damage for United will be in the multiple millions figure and that's excluding the price they'll end up paying in an out of court settlement (a settlement that will most likely end up being a 7 or even more likely (since it's the USA) a 8 figure settlement but we'll probably never know unless it will go to court). In the end it's probably likely that the city of Chicago (as the owner/operator of the airport and the employer of the law enforcement officer(s) will also write a fat check to keep it out of court (certainly since Chicago, the city, the airport and their LEO's don't have a stellar reputation them self). In the end the long term damage will be somewhat limited, once they settled and once the news cycles are passed the story people will start to forget. Maybe a few thousand people will end up changing airlines indefinitely but in the end it will be nothing newsworthy.
From what I read it seemed that the passenger in question posed no threat and was polite all the way (he just declined to leave which he may (or may not) had the right to do so) until the law enforcement officer started to remove him when the passenger tried to shield himself by raising his arms, when the LEO then forcibly removed him he started to yell/cry and then he came (accidentally?) hard in contact with the seat (and maybe the LEO's fists, who knows?) which rendered the passenger (semi?) unconscious after which the LEO dragged him all the way through the plane to the bridge. It seems that at this point the passenger regained consciousness and ran back into the plane still confused, dazed by the events (probably due a severe concussion). He was then removed via wheelchair and taken to a hospital for medical care. Here, in Europe, such events are definitely considered "excessive force" but I'm not sure this will be the case in the USA (the beloved country where law enforcement can virtually justify every action taken though it seems that it is slowly changing).
The big question is where the legality lies of the actions taken by United and this is something lawyers will have fun determining. We all read that the passenger was "Involuntary denied boarding" but since the passenger was allowed to board, had a scanned boarding pass, had a seat which he was assigned and he sat in, I'm not sure that IDB applies in this case. The only (small) chance they have is if all the action was taken by the gate agent since the plane was boarded but not yet in flight (afaik the authority changes when the door is closed at which point the plane is considered as being in flight and the flight crew has legal authority to take certain actions (like removing a passenger for whatever reason they like (though technically it has to be justifiable).
IMHO United made a big mistake by throwing of the passenger without making decent efforts to find volunteers , wetter their subsequent actions were legal or not will yet remain to be seen but in the end it won't matter, this incident has already been tried in the court of public opinion and United lost it big time. So they (and Chicago) will end up writing multi million dollar checks with an NDA contract preventing the passenger speaking about this incident and the figure he received. And if UA gives a damn about their reputation they start to give all pax on board some vouchers for free flights in the hope nobody sues the airline for causing PTSD as the incident could be considered traumatic for certain people, followed by a public and sincere apology for the incident (and not one with a text written by an army of lawyers).
-
travellover
- Posts: 313
- Joined: 12 Aug 2007, 00:14
- Location: plane heaven
- Contact:
Re: Elderly man dragged off overbooked United Express flight
What a shame to treat this man like that ! 
Cheers
Re: Elderly man dragged off overbooked United Express flight
UA managed to get into a true shit storm...
It seams that the DOT (department of transportation) has taken an interest also by opening an investigation to review the incident.
Also there are calls to start a congressional hearing about the "fiasco"
In pre-trading the average loss of United Airlines value is +/- 2% over stock prices yesterday
Well played United, well played... Most could be avoided by issuing a sincere apology but guess that the lawyers didn't liked that, wonder what they will be thinking today.
It seams that the DOT (department of transportation) has taken an interest also by opening an investigation to review the incident.
Also there are calls to start a congressional hearing about the "fiasco"
In pre-trading the average loss of United Airlines value is +/- 2% over stock prices yesterday
Well played United, well played... Most could be avoided by issuing a sincere apology but guess that the lawyers didn't liked that, wonder what they will be thinking today.
Re: Elderly man dragged off overbooked United Express flight
Long discussion about this incident on CNN a few minutes ago, with Richard Quest minimizing the future impact on United.
Re: Elderly man dragged off overbooked United Express flight
Richard could be right but it probably all depends on how fast UA is willing to write a cheque and how high it will be. If UA and Chicago agree to settle out of court quickly then it's likely the long time impact on UA will be virtually non-existent. If it all goes as far as going to court, the DOT finding issues and a congressional hearing then the impact could be much greater...
But this incident did cost them about half a billion in value overnight... It will probably bounce up again but it still shows the power of bad PR.
Re: Elderly man dragged off overbooked United Express flight
Nice analysis, bralo20.
AFAIK, IDB applies here: the passenger was politely asked to leave the plane before the doors were closed. The request was duly made by airline personnel. The passenger had no right to remain on the plane. Thus "involuntary denied boarding" (even if the word "boarding" is ill-chosen in this case when he had already boarded).Bralo20 wrote: ↑11 Apr 2017, 12:53 The big question is where the legality lies of the actions taken by United and this is something lawyers will have fun determining. We all read that the passenger was "Involuntary denied boarding" but since the passenger was allowed to board, had a scanned boarding pass, had a seat which he was assigned and he sat in, I'm not sure that IDB applies in this case. The only (small) chance they have is if all the action was taken by the gate agent since the plane was boarded but not yet in flight (afaik the authority changes when the door is closed at which point the plane is considered as being in flight and the flight crew has legal authority to take certain actions (like removing a passenger for whatever reason they like (though technically it has to be justifiable).
André
ex Sabena #26567
ex Sabena #26567
-
Boeing767copilot
- Posts: 1387
- Joined: 13 May 2004, 00:00
Re: Elderly man dragged off overbooked United Express flight
United Airlines New Advertisement on Jimmy Kimmel.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjRBuWlNLF8&app=desktop
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjRBuWlNLF8&app=desktop
Re: Elderly man dragged off overbooked United Express flight
Some members here say that passengers must obey at all times to instructions by crew (cabin crew or captain), and that this passenger therefore had to leave the aircraft because he was ordered to do so.
That is not true. There is no such rule. The relevant legislation for obeying to Uniteds' crew instructions is FAA’s Aviation Regulations FARS, 14 CFR § 125.328: “…No person may assault, threaten, intimidate, or interfere with a crewmember in the performance of the crewmember’s duties aboard an aircraft being operated under this part…”
The get-off instruction here was not about the flight operation. It was because of a booking error: the airline had sold too many seats, thus shortening four seats that were needed for another flight the next day. This was clearly explained to the passengers, so they knew it had nothing to do with flight safety. If the "you must obey" is absolute, passengers must also obey when crew orders them to take down their pants...
The above clausule 14 CFR § 125.328 is no stand-alone rule: it is linked to flight safety and flight operations. Indeed: the previous clausule (125.327) explains how passengers have to be briefed before flight. I’m not going to copy/paste that whole article, but it sounds like this:
(a) Before each takeoff, each pilot in command of an airplane carrying passengers shall ensure that all passengers have been orally briefed on:
(1) Smoking…
(2) The use of safety belts...
(3) The placement of seat backs in an upright position before takeoff and landing...;
(4) Location and means for opening the passenger entry door and emergency exits...;
(5) Location of survival equipment...;
(6) If the flight involves extended overwater operation, ditching procedures...;
(7) If the flight involves operations above 12,000 feet MSL, the normal and emergency use of oxygen...;
(8) Location and operation of fire extinguishers.
(b) Before each takeoff, the pilot in command shall ensure that each person who may need the assistance of another person to move expeditiously to an exit if an emergency occurs and that person’s attendant, if any, has received a briefing as to the procedures to be followed if an evacuation occurs.
(c) The oral briefing required by paragraph (a) of this section shall be given by the pilot in command or a member of the crew. It shall be supplemented by printed cards for the use of each passenger containing.
- - -
Repeat: once the passenger is seated and he does not "assault, threaten, intimidate, or interfere with a crewmember in the performance of the crewmember’s duties", there is no legal ground for an order “leave the plane now”. Actually, the basic consumer legislation then applies: the passenger has a valid ticket, so he is entitled to be flown to his destination.
- - -
Also, this passenger cannot be seen as a "denied boarding passenger", a qualification that indeeds allows airlines to refuse passengers to get onboard. Once a passenger has been allowed to board the aircraft, he cannot be downgraded to "denied boarding" anymore.
- - -
The only solution for United here was to increase their offer for volunteers: if no one accepts 400 USD and no one accepts 800 USD, they shoud have tried 1.000 USD or 1.500 USD or even more. Untill 4 passengers accept the deal.
That is not true. There is no such rule. The relevant legislation for obeying to Uniteds' crew instructions is FAA’s Aviation Regulations FARS, 14 CFR § 125.328: “…No person may assault, threaten, intimidate, or interfere with a crewmember in the performance of the crewmember’s duties aboard an aircraft being operated under this part…”
The get-off instruction here was not about the flight operation. It was because of a booking error: the airline had sold too many seats, thus shortening four seats that were needed for another flight the next day. This was clearly explained to the passengers, so they knew it had nothing to do with flight safety. If the "you must obey" is absolute, passengers must also obey when crew orders them to take down their pants...
The above clausule 14 CFR § 125.328 is no stand-alone rule: it is linked to flight safety and flight operations. Indeed: the previous clausule (125.327) explains how passengers have to be briefed before flight. I’m not going to copy/paste that whole article, but it sounds like this:
(a) Before each takeoff, each pilot in command of an airplane carrying passengers shall ensure that all passengers have been orally briefed on:
(1) Smoking…
(2) The use of safety belts...
(3) The placement of seat backs in an upright position before takeoff and landing...;
(4) Location and means for opening the passenger entry door and emergency exits...;
(5) Location of survival equipment...;
(6) If the flight involves extended overwater operation, ditching procedures...;
(7) If the flight involves operations above 12,000 feet MSL, the normal and emergency use of oxygen...;
(8) Location and operation of fire extinguishers.
(b) Before each takeoff, the pilot in command shall ensure that each person who may need the assistance of another person to move expeditiously to an exit if an emergency occurs and that person’s attendant, if any, has received a briefing as to the procedures to be followed if an evacuation occurs.
(c) The oral briefing required by paragraph (a) of this section shall be given by the pilot in command or a member of the crew. It shall be supplemented by printed cards for the use of each passenger containing.
- - -
Repeat: once the passenger is seated and he does not "assault, threaten, intimidate, or interfere with a crewmember in the performance of the crewmember’s duties", there is no legal ground for an order “leave the plane now”. Actually, the basic consumer legislation then applies: the passenger has a valid ticket, so he is entitled to be flown to his destination.
- - -
Also, this passenger cannot be seen as a "denied boarding passenger", a qualification that indeeds allows airlines to refuse passengers to get onboard. Once a passenger has been allowed to board the aircraft, he cannot be downgraded to "denied boarding" anymore.
- - -
The only solution for United here was to increase their offer for volunteers: if no one accepts 400 USD and no one accepts 800 USD, they shoud have tried 1.000 USD or 1.500 USD or even more. Untill 4 passengers accept the deal.
Re: Elderly man dragged off overbooked United Express flight
One small detail also
"Many people are surprised to learn that the United States has no official language. As one of the major centers of commerce and trade, and a major English-speaking country, many assume that English is the country's official language. But despite efforts over the years, the United States has no official language."
"Many people are surprised to learn that the United States has no official language. As one of the major centers of commerce and trade, and a major English-speaking country, many assume that English is the country's official language. But despite efforts over the years, the United States has no official language."
My messages reflect my personal opinion which may be different than yours. I beleive a forum is made to create a debate so I encourage people to express themselves, the way they want, with the ideas they want. I expect the same understanding in return.
-
jan_olieslagers
- Posts: 3059
- Joined: 24 Jun 2006, 08:34
- Location: Vl.Brabant
- Contact:
Re: Elderly man dragged off overbooked United Express flight
This is of course a very sad story, and many will think about it twice, at least.
Still, I can't help remembering my young days when I drove a tourist coach for my living. Whenever trouble arose, the ultimate parole was "we won't depart until the trouble is settled" and indeed I have - very rarely, but still - stopped the coach along the road and refused to depart until all were calm. Why couldn't this flight refuse to depart until matters were settled?
Still, I can't help remembering my young days when I drove a tourist coach for my living. Whenever trouble arose, the ultimate parole was "we won't depart until the trouble is settled" and indeed I have - very rarely, but still - stopped the coach along the road and refused to depart until all were calm. Why couldn't this flight refuse to depart until matters were settled?
-
jan_olieslagers
- Posts: 3059
- Joined: 24 Jun 2006, 08:34
- Location: Vl.Brabant
- Contact:
Re: Elderly man dragged off overbooked United Express flight
quite off-topic:
Or, in other words, where are them advocates of a multi-cultural society?
But the world, and them US of A in particular, is very far from those nice long ago ideals. Today, the US of A are the only country to measure runway length in feet, and altitude in inches mercury; they are nowhere when it comes to uniting the world, at least in this kind of matter. At the contrary, they are the one and main force against.
Isn't that a very laudable aspect of the very very laudable original "American dream"?despite efforts over the years, the United States has no official language."
Or, in other words, where are them advocates of a multi-cultural society?
But the world, and them US of A in particular, is very far from those nice long ago ideals. Today, the US of A are the only country to measure runway length in feet, and altitude in inches mercury; they are nowhere when it comes to uniting the world, at least in this kind of matter. At the contrary, they are the one and main force against.
-
sn-remember
- Posts: 848
- Joined: 13 Sep 2004, 00:00
- Location: Jodoigne/Geldenaken
- Contact:
-
quixoticguide
- Posts: 1655
- Joined: 23 Mar 2011, 18:41
- Location: Pyongyang, DPRK
- Contact: