Well that's kind of a drag

[Maverick]

2 hours ago, Zan Vetter said:

I'm surprised at the quite frankly ignorant takes on this thread from people who work/worked in this business. 

It appears that, per United corporate comms and their CEO, that the oversold/deboarding process was followed. Yes, the passenger paid for his seat. No, that doesn't entitle him to unlimited rights. I can't support the injuries he sustained but, when asked by the airline- after their voluntary and involuntary deboarding process has been complete, and then by the police to deplane, and you refuse, what do you envision the next scene looking like? Police backing down/allowing you to travel? 

I imagine that the crew attempting to board were positioning for an early flight the next day. Let's say at 0600. If they travel on the 2100 departure instead of the 1740, the next mornings flight is delayed. So it isn't difficult to understand why United attempted to deboard 4 pax that day, give them each $800 or $1000, send them at 2100, rather than send the crew on the 2100 flight thereby inconveniencing 75 passengers and likely busting several dozen connections in ORD the next day. 

And, it bears mentioning that denied boarding is not the same as overselling. We don't know if this flight was oversold, only that, for some reason United wanted to deny boarding to 4 people. Three of whom, it bears mentioning, got off the plane without fanfare.

All they had to do was keep upping the ante. $2000 x 4 PAX would have done it almost certainly. 

The gate agents may not have that discretion though.

Make no mistake, this is going to cost all of us in this industry going forward.

[GTFA]

Keeeeep reading...

https://thepilotwifelife.wordpress.com/2017/04/11/i-know-youre-mad-at-united-but-thoughts-from-a-pilot-wife-about-flight-3411/

[Moon The Loon]

42 minutes ago, GTFA said:

Keeeeep reading...

https://thepilotwifelife.wordpress.com/2017/04/11/i-know-youre-mad-at-united-but-thoughts-from-a-pilot-wife-about-flight-3411/

Yabut - from the words of a pilot's wife - i.e. someone somewhat (at least) in the know.

The poor schmuck who got assaulted then removed in this case probably didn't have a clue about those types of protocol we, in the business, take for granted.

He was criminally assaulted for no good reason.

I think a 7 figure settlement might be conservative...

[Guest]

56 minutes ago, Moon The Loon said:

Yabut - from the words of a pilot's wife - i.e. someone somewhat (at least) in the know.

The poor schmuck who got assaulted then removed in this case probably didn't have a clue about those types of protocol we, in the business, take for granted.

He was criminally assaulted for no good reason.

I think a 7 figure settlement might be conservative...

Evidently he is suing UA but shouldn't he be suing the police force that did the deed?

[blues deville]

8 minutes ago, Malcolm said:

Evidently he is suing UA but shouldn't he be suing the police force that did the deed?

I believe a United employee requested their assistance. And I don't think these were federal officers as mentioned by Pilot's wife. Local airport police and security. 

[Moon The Loon]

2 hours ago, Malcolm said:

Evidently he is suing UA but shouldn't he be suing the police force that did the deed?

When you sue, you sue EVERYbody involved.

[Zan Vetter]

I can't see how a kind of knee-jerk ban of overselling might help avoid something like this. Denied boarding is different from overselling, and happens all the time. I can see United perhaps revising the cap on how much an agent can offer as compensation. But eliminating it entirely? Doubt it. As for just moving on to another passenger, it's definitely an option, although I think we sell the agent in this case a little short when we suggest something as obvious as that. Clearly, nobody on the plane was budging, even as the cops were preparing to bash that guy's head off the armrest, everyone in the cabin is sitting there with a, "glad that's not ME" look on their face, still snug in their seat. I'm alright Jack.

Obviously, the cops went overboard. But as "pilot's wife" said, disobeying law enforcement on an airplane isn't going to end well, no matter how aggrieved you feel or how high the moral ground is that you believe you're occupying. 

[Moon The Loon]

1 hour ago, Zan Vetter said:

But as "pilot's wife" said, disobeying law enforcement on an airplane isn't going to end well, no matter how aggrieved you feel or how high the moral ground is that you believe you're occupying.

Disagree (strongly), but to disagree. You're boarded; you're seated; you're "asked" to deplane; you find out you can't get to work in time; others have been asked to deplane; they've complied or refused.

Why wasn't a further polling done of any who would deplane?

It never happened. Time constraints took over; force was used; a criminal assault ensued.

What don't you understand of that scenario?

[Jaydee]

[blues deville]

UA 3411 is operated by Republic Airlines dba United Express. No excuse for their alleged actions but my guess is they were trying to save money and other related delay costs by bumping revenue pax to deadhead their own cabin crew to Louisville. I think perhaps a simple oversight by a regional feeder airline positioning their crews has created a firestorm for this legacy airline. And it wasn't really United dragging the man down the aisle, it was ORD airport police. End result Mr. Dao will be able to retire or fly only UA first class from now on. 

On April 9, 2017, a passenger named David Dao was forced off United Express Flight 3411 by the Chicago Department of Aviation after refusing to leave his seat for airline employees due to overbooking. A video showing him removed from the plane, led to a outrage by the public, resulting United Express and its parent company, United Airlines to have extreme drops in the stocks

[deicer]

[deicer]

[Canoehead]

4 hours ago, blues deville said:

UA 3411 is operated by Republic Airlines dba United Express. No excuse for their alleged actions but my guess is they were trying to save money and other related delay costs by bumping revenue pax to deadhead their own cabin crew to Louisville. I think perhaps a simple oversight by a regional feeder airline positioning their crews has created a firestorm for this legacy airline. And it wasn't really United dragging the man down the aisle, it was ORD airport police. End result Mr. Dao will be able to retire or fly only UA first class from now on. 

On April 9, 2017, a passenger named David Dao was forced off United Express Flight 3411 by the Chicago Department of Aviation after refusing to leave his seat for airline employees due to overbooking. A video showing him removed from the plane, led to a outrage by the public, resulting United Express and its parent company, United Airlines to have extreme drops in the stocks

Hi bd.  Almost guaranteed that it was a last minute thing that Republic crew sked did because of IROPS in some way/place.  DH's (for an entire crew like this) are normally scheduled and in the system long in advance, be it the mainline or regional contract carrier.  If that were the case here, there would have been 4 seats available for them.  It would appear that the Republic crew sked opened the flight after it was closed by United sales agents (usually no less than 30 minutes before sked), and added the 4 DH crew. That left the United agents probably swearing under their breath and then going down to the already boarded airplane to look for the volunteers.  The bottom line in this case is that is a part of the CPA that Republic and UAL have.  They (crew sked) can do that.  The sales agents then have to deal with it at the customer service level, which they deal with on a regular basis I'm sure.  Unfortunately they ran out of tools ($$) that night, and were left with having to expropriate a seat in the end.  

My question now- did this guy (and his wife) initially agree to compensation as I've read ($800 ea) but then change his mind?  Timeframe?  One seat or now two saying 'no'?  Usually 'denied' boarding (or seat expropriation) has a protocol to follow (non-rev, fare structure, card member status etc.... then down to last pax checked in).  Who checked in last?  I imagine when they initially accepted the compensation, they were "offloaded pax" (in the res system) quicker than you can say "UNTIED".  Dr. D then decides "you know, that's a big ol' negative.  I've changed my mind... I'm gonna stay", and a whole new set of problems have now arisen.  The United agents were probably strapped for options now, and so they escalated it.  I believe there are many parts to this story, and the public will never know (nor understand) everything that went on.  The general public don't understand airline ops on a good day.  Throw in a "CPA" and they really don't get it (even the media often gets it wrong).  So many sides to this issue- even the cops dragging the guy off probably had no idea the complexities of it. Charter a flight to move the crew- great idea now that we've seen what happened.  But I'm certain it's not in the CPA (who pays for that, Republic or United?). The reality is, the United agents (specifically a CSA manager) need to be able to offer whatever they need to in order to make things happen.  

An offer of '4 free tickets in the system' would've probably got them their damned seat, and cost them next to nothing in the end. Someone would've bit.

My 4 observations:

1) Dr. D should never have been treated like he was

2) Dr. D behaved like a child for everyone to witness

3) Airlines need to have provisions (read $$ and management) to deal with this before they call 911

4) I always check in as soon as the flight is open to do so...

IMHO 

[blues deville]

It's possible from what I've read about Dr. D that he could see a potential law suit as this was happening. Who knows? But there is enough video evidence to show the exchange between him and the airport police and the now famous aisle drag.

Also, airlines including UA better find a new term besides 'volunteer'.  Once they had all takers, that should have been the end of the story. The police should have walked away. Put a typical 275lb NASCAR fan in that same seat and the ORD police wouldn't have challenged it any further.

[Super 80]

I don't know about that, I have seen a few cops lose fights before.

[Jaydee]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=i0GW0Vnr9Yc

[Lakelad]

.

Looks like there might be a target rich environment as far as lawsuits are concerned....

United Airlines passenger suffered broken nose, concussion: lawyer

Thu Apr. 13, 2017 - Reuters
by Don Babwin
  
CHICAGO - A passenger dragged from a United Express flight suffered a “significant” concussion and broken nose, and he lost two front teeth, one of his lawyers said Thursday.

 

Dr. David Dao has been discharged from a hospital but he will require reconstructive surgery, said attorney Thomas Demetrio, whose law firm is representing the 69-year-old Kentucky physician.

 

Dao was removed from the plane Sunday after he refused to give up his seat on the full flight from Chicago to Louisville.

 

One of Dao’s five children, Crystal Pepper, said the family was “horrified, shocked and sickened” to learn and see what happened. She said seeing her father removed from the Sunday flight was “exacerbated” by the fact it was caught on video and widely distributed.

 

Demetrio said he likely will file a lawsuit on Dao’s behalf, adding that airlines — and United in particular — have long “bullied” passengers.

 

The video of a passenger being dragged by an officer from a United Express flight shined an unwanted spotlight on the little-known police force that guards Chicago’s two main airports and could threaten the agency’s future.

 

Chicago’s aviation officers are not part of the regular police force, unlike in many other big cities. They get less training than regular officers and can’t carry firearms inside the airports. Three of them were put on leave amid outrage over how they treated the passenger.

 

Cellphone footage of the confrontation “really has put it at risk,” Alderman Chris Taliaferro said Wednesday, a day before aldermen were scheduled to grill United and the Chicago Aviation Department about why a Kentucky physician was yanked out of his seat after he refused to get off the full jetliner at O’Hare Airport.

 

The City Council is looking for answers about the embarrassing video that has been seen around the world. At the top of the list of questions is whether the airport officers even had the legal authority to board the plane, said Alderman Michael Zalewski, who leads the council’s aviation committee.

 

“They are allowed in the terminal and baggage area, but my understanding is they may not be allowed on a plane,” he said. Zalewski also said that he is not sure if the officers have the authority to make arrests or if they are authorized only to write tickets.

 

'The agency’s history is a decidedly Chicago story. According to Zalewski, the force was created years ago by the legendary Mayor Richard J. Daley. “The chief of his bodyguard detail, when he retired, was sent to O’Hare to head up a new security detail ... called gate guards.” he said. “In the old days, it was all patronage. It was all clout to get those jobs.”

.

 

[deicer]

Keeping it Canadian...

 

[Homerun]

The United Airlines Incident from the Perspective of an Airline Transport Pilot rated Aviation Attorney

Every once in awhile a company finds itself at the center of an issue that triggers massive public outrage. Generally this anger is well-placed and is, in fact, one of the market forces that us free-market types depend on in order to shape corporate behavior. On rare occasion, however, there are nuances surrounding such an event that causes well-intended members of the public to react in a manner that is, quite frankly, wholly inappropriate. I believe that the incident on April 9th during which Dr. David Dao was forcibly removed from an aircraft prior to departure from Chicago is exactly such an event, and what follows is my explanation as to why:

A very common sentiment that is circulating on social media is that Dr. Dao was entitled to remain on the aircraft because he had already bought a ticket. This is incorrect for several reasons:

Reason one: Because they said so. Aviation and maritime law are somewhat unique in that they govern behavior of people that are either out at sea or flying through the sky. Accordingly, they are structured to account for the fact that many of the public resources that we take for granted on dry land (police, medical, and firefighting personnel, to name a few) are simply unavailable. To this end, a great deal of authority is vested in the captain and crewmembers of these vessels. It is actually a federal felony to interfere with a crewmember in the performance of their duties, which includes handling passenger boarding and unboarding (See 49 USC § 46504 & 14 CFR Parts 119 & 121).

I am in no way suggesting that United didn’t screw up; they did. While overbooking is a practice that is both ubiquitous and necessary, the generally accepted policy for handling an overbooked flight is to deny boarding to those for whom there is no available seat. By failing to follow this procedure, United put itself in the position of having to remove Dr. Dao from the aircraft. As most children are taught at a young age, however, two wrongs don’t make a right. In this case Dr. Dao being permitted to board the aircraft did nothing to change the fact that he was obligated by federal law to comply with the flight crew when they told him to depart the aircraft.

Reason two: The contract. When a person buys an airline ticket they are entering into a contractual relationship with the airline. Pursuant to that contract the airline is entitled to the purchase price of the ticket, and the passenger is entitled to carriage aboard the aircraft in accordance with the other terms and conditions that the passenger agreed to when they bought the ticket. In the case of buying an airline ticket from any major US carrier, being bumped from an overbooked flight is an express term to which passengers agree. Thus, it is my opinion that United did not breach its contract with Dr. Dao when they bumped him from the flight.

Even if United did breach their contract with Dr. Dao, he would still have had no legal right to remain on board. In the event that the airline breaches its agreement with the passenger, the passenger has a legal claim against the airline. The remedy that the passenger would be entitled to recover in that instance is monetary damages. It is of critical importance to realize, however, that the non-breaching party has absolutely no legal right whatsoever to compel the airline to perform its contractual obligations. Read that sentence again. When the other party breaches a contract YOU CANNOT LEGALLY FORCE THEM TO DO THE THING THEY WERE CONTRACTUALLY OBLIGATED TO DO, you can only sue them for monetary damages. Compelling the breaching party to perform is called “specific performance,” and it is a remedy that is simply unavailable in this type of case.

There is little doubt that United could have avoided this entire situation by recognizing that they were overbooked prior to beginning the boarding process, but the fact is that it was Dr. Dao’s decision to act like a petulant child and to go “limp like a ragdoll” that made it necessary to forcibly remove him. It is Dr. Dao that is the bad actor here, and those who are acting as though he is some sort of social justice hero are failing to see the big picture. When you are on board an aircraft your life and the lives of everyone else on board are in the hands of the flight crew. They have a duty to comply with (and sometimes to enforce) the laws that govern aviation operations, and passengers have a legal obligation to not interfere with their performance of those duties. Dr. Dao took it upon himself to unilaterally dictate to United and the flight crew that his authority over the flight was superior to their own. At that point, the prudent decision of the captain was to remove him from the flight. As an FAA certificated Airline Transport Pilot I can say with confidence that I would not so much as start an engine if I knew that there was a passenger on board who was already being confrontational with another crewmember. Why? Because the ONLY opportunity to remove an unruly passenger is prior to departure. Thus, all decisions of this nature, for the safety of everyone on board and on the ground, must be heavily biased toward the assumption that a potential problem that is evident on the ground is going to escalate into an actual problem in the air.

[DEFCON]

Thanks HR.

Imo the lawyer sums it up pretty nicely and only leaves one issue to be decided; did the police use reasonable force when they removed the passenger? I believe they did their job as required; they were not called in to debate the validity of United's decision.

 

 

[blues deville]

I've got one those FAA issued ATP thingy's too. No law degree. However hopefully that lawyer doesn't mind chasing slow moving ambulances. I'm going to agree with our minister of transport's plan to never forcibly remove a passenger from an overbooked flight. Sounds like a reasonable idea.

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.thestar.com/amp/news/canada/2017/04/11/ottawa-to-introduce-legislation-to-address-airline-bumping.html

[Super 80]

I think one of the lessons is police officers should look like police officers.

[blues deville]

37 minutes ago, Super 80 said:

I think one of the lessons is police officers should look like police officers.

I have a feeling Dr. D's lawyer will include that fact in his argument. I would. 

[Canoehead]

50 minutes ago, Super 80 said:

I think one of the lessons is police officers should look like police officers.

 

Like these guys...

[Fido]

MUC Police?

What an outfit.

Are those red patches advertising like a NASCAR driver?