United Flight Forcibly Removes Passenger

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

I've been wondering if the doctor claim is true too.

Given the angst among my medical profession friends about this incident, I'm actively hoping that he turns out to be a chiropractor or accupuncturist.

The ensuing exploding heads will be some funny shit.

[Young Drachma]

Reportedly, this is the doctor:

Name of man hauled off United flight in Chicago revealed | Daily Mail Online

[murrayyyyy]

and some more on the doctor (who had his license suspended for 10 years)

David Dao: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know | Heavy.com

[Young Drachma]

Controversial as it might be here, his past doesn't justify what happened to him.

[murrayyyyy]

Originally Posted by Young Drachma

Controversial as it might be here, his past doesn't justify what happened to him.

Doesn't make him a saint either. I'm not saying it was right but at the same time you only get to see what happens when someone hits record on their phone. His wife was also taken off the flight so either she agreed and got up before him and exited the plane or she had no problem with her husband getting dragged off the plane.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Young Drachma

Controversial as it might be here, his past doesn't justify what happened to him.

No ... but his refusal to obey legitimate instructions to deplane does.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by murrayyyyy

Doesn't make him a saint either. I'm not saying it was right but at the same time you only get to see what happens when someone hits record on their phone. His wife was also taken off the flight so either she agreed and got up before him and exited the plane or she had no problem with her husband getting dragged off the plane.

Um, airport security isn't even defending what happened. They placed the guard who tried to remove him on unpaid leave.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Young Drachma

Controversial as it might be here, his past doesn't justify what happened to him.

However, it does change the tone of the conversation. This is not some white knight. My first reaction to all of this was, you don't detain a doctor, that's just ridiculous.

However, thinking about it more, there is some culpability on all sides of this. The airline obviously screwed up. Why is this particular flight so important to him? If I absolutely have to be somewhere, I make sure I leave as soon as possible. If I have a super important meeting, I arrive the day before. The cops obviously could have handled this better.

However, and this goes back to my initial thought, why is any passenger more important than any other passenger? Sure he is a doctor, but I am a salesman. What if the meeting I am flying to means we can hire another 30 people if we land the project? What if it means we do not need to lay anyone off? What if a student is flying back to see their dying father one last time?

If the airlines do a better job managing their scheduling and booking, this won't happen.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

If the airlines do a better job managing their scheduling and booking, this won't happen.

The fact that involuntary bumping happens so rarely I think shows that they do a great job of managing scheduling and booking. The last figures I saw were that 0.1% of booked passengers were denied boarding, and of those, 10% were involuntary denied boardings, so 0.01% of overall passengers. That to me is a great job of managing the balancing act.

[AlexB]

By all accounts it was created by the need to fly four staff members at late notice, so they actually bumped the four not for overbooking per se.

Which explains why they were on the plane, with boarding passes, etc.

And if they announced this, it would piss me off too if I was one of the four (I don't know if they did, and I take Jon's point about the reason why they were asked to unboard not making any difference once they've made the call)

[QuikSand]

Looks like the company has had about a billion dollars of shareholder value "re-accommodated" today in the stock market.

Looking back on that $1,500 voucher you wouldn't even budge on, maybe?

[molson]

There might be a difference in your status as a passenger after you enter the plane. Obviously an airline can refuse to let you board for all kinds of reasons. But once you're on, United's own contract of carriage has a list of reasons they can kick you off, and neither overbooking or getting bumped for United staff is on the list.

(though there may be some other reason it's justified, I haven't looked at the contract, I'm just repeating what I've seen speculated elsewhere.)

[panerd]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Looks like the company has had about a billion dollars of shareholder value "re-accommodated" today in the stock market.

Looking back on that $1,500 voucher you wouldn't even budge on, maybe?

Add in the future effect of the $400 voucher offer when everyone knows they can now take it up to like $1000-$2000. Right or not I'm thinking these airlines may want to rethink the overbooking strategy quickly.

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally Posted by molson

There might be a difference in your status as a passenger after you enter the plane. Obviously an airline can refuse to let you board for all kinds of reasons. But once you're on, United's own contract of carriage has a list of reasons they can kick you off, and neither overbooking or getting bumped for United staff is on the list.

(though there may be some other reason it's justified, I haven't looked at the contract, I'm just repeating what I've seen speculated elsewhere.)

Paging PilotMan.

As I understand it, the gate agent still has authority up until the moment they close the doors and pass off control to the Captain. After that, the Captain is supreme overlord of who stays and who goes.

Basically...they're still "boarding" until they close up the plane, even if they're in their seats, and thus subject to the gate agent.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Quirky little thing I just noticed ...
Fly Rights | Department of Transportation

If the substitute transportation is scheduled to get you to your destination more than two hours later (four hours internationally), or if the airline does not make any substitute travel arrangements for you, the compensation doubles (400% of your one-way fare, $1350 maximum).

Current fares -- literally book today, fly today -- Chicago to Louisville is just under $200.

They could have bumped the guy for around $800 (maybe not a coincidence that was the amount offered mentioned in initial reports) and so the $1,000 offer claimed in the internal memo would have actually represented an amount above & beyond what they were legally required to do.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Drake

I don't disagree with you. I wasn't very clear. I was thinking about the moments following when airport security appeared. Up to that point, he's got options. After that point, there's no endgame that works out in his immediate favor.

Up to that point, gouge the airline for all you get out of them, by all means.

I'm not condoning the airline or the security team's actions at all. I'm merely suggesting that at some point, the passenger let stubbornness get in the way of good judgment...unless he was already thinking far enough ahead to predict that he'd have grounds for a lawsuit. If the latter was the case, I can appreciate a guy who goes all in on a long con and is willing to take the short term consequences for the bigger payout.

I'll be honest, my first thought watching the videos was wondering if the guy was on the spectrum a little bit.

[JPhillips]

I've been trying to put my objection to this into words. I'll start by acknowledging that legally United may have done nothing wrong. I'm not a lawyer, so I'll take the word of people more knowledgeable than I.

Morally, though, I view this as breaking a contract. United agreed to fly passenger X to destination Y at a specific time for an agreed amount of money. If United wants to break the contract it is up to the other party to determine what is adequate compensation. If the passenger said 800 wasn't enough, so be it. If the same passenger decides not to board the plane they wouldn't get their money returned unless United agreed.

If that makes United slightly less profitable, so be it.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Those who are defending this guy, what do you think should happen? That if you just say no you can fly wherever you want? That someone else has to get kicked off? It's a shitty situation to boot someone from a flight but someone had to go in that situation.

It's been stated multiple times - you keep bumping up the voucher/cash offer to get folks to volunteer to give up their seats until you've cleared the needed number. The PR hit United is taking and the effect it will have on their bottom line is orders of magnitude greater than whatever small hit they would have taken by increasing their offers beyond $800.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by panerd

Add in the future effect of the $400 voucher offer when everyone knows they can now take it up to like $1000-$2000. Right or not I'm thinking these airlines may want to rethink the overbooking strategy quickly.

It's already down to being an issue of less than 0.1% of passengers already.
(about half what it was 15 years ago).

The "future effect" you're talking about is already a thing though. It's not unusual for bump offers to get down to basically an auction, first people to bite win. You're gambling with house money a little bit, but it's still a gamble to wait out for $1000 when there's a chance they get the numbers they need at $800. I'm pretty sure most frequent travelers know that part of the game already.

[stevew]

Maybe he should have offered another flyer drugs for their seat? Seems to be the way he operates.

[Young Drachma]

All airlines overbook but some are MUCH better at finding volunteers, paying $$$, and avoiding a @United situation. https://t.co/RDCMqusVkm pic.twitter.com/fOeBYENhdr

— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) April 10, 2017

[Logan]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

Paging PilotMan.

As I understand it, the gate agent still has authority up until the moment they close the doors and pass off control to the Captain. After that, the Captain is supreme overlord of who stays and who goes.

Basically...they're still "boarding" until they close up the plane, even if they're in their seats, and thus subject to the gate agent.

The CEO's own letter says the plane was "fully boarded". Not "in the process of boarding"...it was done. Whether or not it actually met the technical definition of boarded doesn't really matter once that letter gets brought up in court or in settlement discussions.

[Umbrella]

Obligatory.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

It's been stated multiple times - you keep bumping up the voucher/cash offer to get folks to volunteer to give up their seats until you've cleared the needed number. The PR hit United is taking and the effect it will have on their bottom line is orders of magnitude greater than whatever small hit they would have taken by increasing their offers beyond $800.

From a PR and customer service standpoint I agree. But they aren't under any other obligation than to provide (I believe Jon posted that they can pay out 400% of the ticket).

You don't get to stand in a business until you get your way. United screwed up big time and those officers were overzealous. But he also put himself in a situation where that can take place.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

From a PR and customer service standpoint I agree. But they aren't under any other obligation than to provide (I believe Jon posted that they can pay out 400% of the ticket).

There seems to be a lot of uncertainty over this though, because their Contract of Carriage specifically speaks to overbooked situations and not the scenario which took place here (from excerpts I've seen in articles). This flight wasn't overbooked in any way.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

It's already down to being an issue of less than 0.1% of passengers already.
(about half what it was 15 years ago).

The "future effect" you're talking about is already a thing though. It's not unusual for bump offers to get down to basically an auction, first people to bite win. You're gambling with house money a little bit, but it's still a gamble to wait out for $1000 when there's a chance they get the numbers they need at $800. I'm pretty sure most frequent travelers know that part of the game already.

What I meant was after the viral video I could see a lot more passengers holding out for the $1,000 with their cellphone cameras saying "You are going to kick me off the plane?"

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Logan

There seems to be a lot of uncertainty over this though, because their Contract of Carriage specifically speaks to overbooked situations and not the scenario which took place here (from excerpts I've seen in articles). This flight wasn't overbooked in any way.

Either way he'd be in his right to get a full refund for the ticket if he wasn't receiving the service he paid for. This wasn't a situation where they took his money and denied service without the option of a refund.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

From a PR and customer service standpoint I agree. But they aren't under any other obligation than to provide (I believe Jon posted that they can pay out 400% of the ticket).

You don't get to stand in a business until you get your way. United screwed up big time and those officers were overzealous. But he also put himself in a situation where that can take place.

Your first part of your response is the only part that matters. Yes, United can boot him from the plane (though by their company's own admission the security guys at O'Hare didn't follow procedure). Yes, there may be limits on how much they are obligated to offer to incentivize passengers to voluntarily give up their seats. But United has taken a huge PR hit from this incident, and they would have been much better off just bumping up their offers until they got enough volunteers.

This should be the lesson that all carriers take from this incident.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Your first part of your response is the only part that matters. Yes, United can boot him from the plane (though by their company's own admission the security guys at O'Hare didn't follow procedure). Yes, there may be limits on how much they are obligated to offer to incentivize passengers to voluntarily give up their seats. But United has taken a huge PR hit from this incident, and they would have been much better off just bumping up their offers until they got enough volunteers.

This should be the lesson that all carriers take from this incident.

There were 9,000 involuntary bumps from US airlines in the 4th quarter of 2016. All of those ended without an airport (not airline, he wasn't a United employee) security guard who was having a bad day/had a chip on his shoulder deciding a guy needed his skull cracked. That is what I find amazing about this whole incident. If the security guard, who isn't a United employee, didn't decide to go all UFC on the passenger, no one would be talking about this.

[RainMaker]

Not all of them involved a fraudulent doctor who exchanges drugs for sex from patients.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Not all of them involved a fraudulent doctor who exchanges drugs for sex from patients.

His license was suspended, but it wasn't revoked. And he's still practicing.

[RainMaker]

He can practice one day a week in an outpatient facility.

Doesn't change the fact this man traded prescription drugs to addicts for sex. He's a piece of filth.

[murrayyyyy]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

He can practice one day a week in an outpatient facility.

Doesn't change the fact this man traded prescription drugs to addicts for sex. He's a piece of filth.

And usually those are the ones that make a scene whenever they get a chance to. I get why he was upset in the first place but he is the one who chose to go full 3 year old to force the situation.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by cartman

There were 9,000 involuntary bumps from US airlines in the 4th quarter of 2016. All of those ended without an airport (not airline, he wasn't a United employee) security guard who was having a bad day/had a chip on his shoulder deciding a guy needed his skull cracked.

But how many of those passengers who were bumped decided to idiotically make a guaranteed losing stand?

If he doesn't act like a two year old then there's most likely no bleeding involved. That he got a little mussed is a small amount of poetic justice afaic.

[bhlloy]

I'm genuinely pretty torn on this one - on one hand, I despise shitty airlines and their cost cutting measures, and I can't imagine how livid I'd be at getting bumped because they fucked up logistics on their end and had to find spaces for crew once the airplane had already been boarded.

On the other hand, yeah. This guy's an idiot who further delayed the flight and completely brought this on himself. How many people missed connections because of his little stunt? And that's even beyond going into his character and some of the allegations about him.

The tidbit I particularly like that I haven't seen mentioned here is that his wife was one of the 3 other passengers who deboarded the plane peacefully - how much of a self centered asshole do you have to be to decide that you are going to be dragged off the plane unconscious or not at all when your wife is already off?

[Young Drachma]

Changing their tune over at United, as the story goes viral on Weibo (chinese twitter)

United Apologizes for Removing Passenger: ‘No One Should Ever Be Mistreated

United Airlines apologized on Tuesday and said it would review its policies after videos showed a passenger being forcibly removed from a full plane to make room for its own employees, setting off public outrage.

Oscar Munoz, the company’s chief executive, said in a statement that United would take “full responsibility” for the situation and that “no one should ever be mistreated this way.”

He committed to making changes to ensure that the situation would not repeat itself, adding that United would conduct “a thorough review of crew movement, our policies for incentivizing volunteers in these situations, how we handle oversold situations and an examination of how we partner with airport authorities and local law enforcement.”

[murrayyyyy]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

The tidbit I particularly like that I haven't seen mentioned here is that his wife was one of the 3 other passengers who deboarded the plane peacefully - how much of a self centered asshole do you have to be to decide that you are going to be dragged off the plane unconscious or not at all when your wife is already off?

Originally Posted by murrayyyyy

Doesn't make him a saint either. I'm not saying it was right but at the same time you only get to see what happens when someone hits record on their phone. His wife was also taken off the flight so either she agreed and got up before him and exited the plane or she had no problem with her husband getting dragged off the plane.

I did earlier but it got glossed over.

I find it funny how everyone was in a panic about the stock. 5 days ago it opened at 70.25 and it's at 70.77 right now. Could have bought it last June for 37.75 even. They not only survived the shit storm this morning, the stock went up.

[bhlloy]

Originally Posted by Young Drachma

Changing their tune over at United, as the story goes viral on Weibo (chinese twitter)

[/url]

The bit about Weibo is quite interesting - the only people on my FB who are strongly on the side of the Doctor are older Chinese co-workers (or ex co-workers) of mine and in general it's the same article or two being posted by different people.

I've seen this bloc before (the NYPD cop who got fired for accidentally shooting and killing a black teenager comes to mind) - completely anecdotal and United is getting enough pressure that he was probably going to back down and apologize anyway, but it is interesting to me.

[dawgfan]

So United ended up down 1.13%. Small percentage, but still shaved roughly $25M from their market cap.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

So United ended up down 1.13%. Small percentage, but still shaved roughly $25M from their market cap.

And in the next couple days it will undergo a market correction and be back up again. Maybe even as soon as tomorrow. That's Wall Street for you.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

I'm genuinely pretty torn on this one - on one hand, I despise shitty airlines and their cost cutting measures, and I can't imagine how livid I'd be at getting bumped because they fucked up logistics on their end and had to find spaces for crew once the airplane had already been boarded.

On the other hand, yeah. This guy's an idiot who further delayed the flight and completely brought this on himself. How many people missed connections because of his little stunt? And that's even beyond going into his character and some of the allegations about him.

The tidbit I particularly like that I haven't seen mentioned here is that his wife was one of the 3 other passengers who deboarded the plane peacefully - how much of a self centered asshole do you have to be to decide that you are going to be dragged off the plane unconscious or not at all when your wife is already off?

Both people can be wrong in this scenario which I think is the case.

[Umbrella]

Originally Posted by cartman

There were 9,000 involuntary bumps from US airlines in the 4th quarter of 2016. All of those ended without an airport (not airline, he wasn't a United employee) security guard who was having a bad day/had a chip on his shoulder deciding a guy needed his skull cracked.

I wonder how many of these 9000 were actually boarded. I fly way too much, so I've seen these situations dozens of times, and have been involuntarily bumped twice. Never in any of these situations was anybody on the plane yet. That is where the biggest screw up happened.

[PilotMan]

Jesus fucking christ.

I go on vacation for a fucking week and you guys can't let me get away can you? I've already spent too much time on this on fb in the last couple days, been unfriended, and pretty much told I don't know anything.

What little internet anonymity I have is still here, somewhat.

Someone is free to cut/paste what they've seen me write other places. I don't have the time, energy or desire to interrupt my vacation anymore than it has been already.

I'll be back in a few days with more time and less heat.

[NobodyHere]

You sound like you need another vacation.

[CrescentMoonie]

People are trolling United Airlines with these brutal new slogans

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

I'll be back in a few days

Let's just hope you ain't flying United

and too

(I have zero clue who you work for, so if it's United, that's 100% coincidence & was not part of the joke I was trying to make)

[Edward64]

Flew Delta yesterday, lots of jokes/comments to/from flight attendants. I can only imagine on United flights.

[Young Drachma]

They posted the criminal record to the wrong David Dao. The person in this situation isn't the same guy.

Oh man.

[King of New York]

PilotMan:

Enjoy your vacation! You're an invaluable member of this board, and I'm always interested to read your take on things. Hope that you are able to salvage something from what remains of your break.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Young Drachma

They posted the criminal record to the wrong David Dao. The person in this situation isn't the same guy.

Oh man.

Source?