U/A and Dr. Dao (2017)

[PeterNSteinmetz]

It would allow a passenger at the top of the list for being IDBd to "jump the line", so to speak, by boarding the flight early. It would, in affect, change the priority order from that established under 14 CFR 250 to first-come, first-served.

If all the passengers have already been boarded, doesn’t this only become an issue when UA decided to place their employees essentially at the bottom of the list to be IDBd after everyone else was boarded? Does the regulation even deal with that? I didn’t see that in there.
[/QUOTE]

 

[Palmpilot]

Long alleges in the complaint that UA has admitted that they could have reasonably anticipated violence would arise and that it was not the LEOs responsibility. If that is true, it is certainly important in terms of the issues here and would seem to place responsibility, by their own admission, squarely in UAs lap.

Citing a court case before it's been decided is premature.

We know that at least 3 attorneys, not party to the lawsuit, were of the opinion that UA violated its contract for carriage, but I presume that was prior to the DoT decision

Attorneys disagree. In every court case, there's at least one attorney arguing for each side. I'd be interested in knowing what percentage of aviation attorneys agree with those three. Otherwise, it's just anecdotal evidence.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Citing a court case before it's been decided is premature.

Attorneys disagree. In every court case, there's at least one attorney arguing for each side. I'd be interested in knowing what percentage of aviation attorneys agree with those three. Otherwise, it's just anecdotal evidence.

I think this is a bit stronger than that. The complaint (have you read the pertinent parts?, points 44 and 45) alleges that an exhibit shows that UA admitted in writing that it should have known this would require the use of physical force and that UA was responsible.

It would take a very foolish attorney (and there are some) to put that in the complaint and refer to it in an exhibit if it doesn’t pretty much say that.

I would say reasonably good evidence that UA agreed to those things. Some chance it could be false, but not a lot.

In terms of attorney opinions, well, are there any reports of attorneys who would opine the opposite? Of the extant sample, 100% say UA was not on the right side of the law, but that is a biased sample

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Have been looking for the DOT report which has been repeatedly referenced. Did find a letter summarizing the findings of the investigation to a VP of UA. It is here - https://files.constantcontact.com/7a85813b001/3993d68c-6155-4fde-8ea1-58a5c1bdc387.pdf

Let’s all read it and see what we think.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

The letter from the DOT indicates a limited scope of investigation over 1 month confined to whether UA violated any existing regulations. Mostly whether people were chosen properly and if there was any discrimination by race (which was one of Dao’s expressed concerns).

It actually noted that “We are, however, unable to determine whether United followed the requirement in the Department's oversales rule to involuntarily bump passengers only if an insufficient number of volunteers come forward.” which would go to the point of UA exhausting other available more peaceful remedies.

It also does not exonerate or clear UA explicitly in any other way, specifically, whether the carriage contract was violated or if there is any authority to forcibly remove someone. They do not report reviewing the carriage contract at all.

 

[Palmpilot]

In terms of attorney opinions, well, are there any reports of attorneys who would opine the opposite? Of the extant sample, 100% say UA was not on the right side of the law, but that is a biased sample

Every court case has at least one attorney arguing on one side, and another attorney arguing on the opposite side.

Three attorneys is not a statistically significant sample.

 

[Palmpilot]

Have been looking for the DOT report which has been repeatedly referenced. Did find a letter summarizing the findings of the investigation to a VP of UA. It is here - https://files.constantcontact.com/7a85813b001/3993d68c-6155-4fde-8ea1-58a5c1bdc387.pdf

Let’s all read it and see what we think.

You seem to have a lot more time to devote to this than I do.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

You seem to have a lot more time to devote to this than I do.

I like to try and figure out the truth if possible. Habit from being a scientist I guess.

I also, perhaps unfortunately, have experience with differences between regulatory, criminal and civil law that can bite people, so this caught my eye. Practice reading regulations and legal opinions probably also makes it go a bit faster.

Of course I have to limit the number of items I read more deeply on or the time would get out of control. I think I mentioned I have an ongoing project regarding the whole MMR/autism scare and that has definitely consumed some time and will go on for a while yet!

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Every court case has at least one attorney arguing on one side, and another attorney arguing on the opposite side.

Three attorneys is not a statistically significant sample.

Honestly I don’t think this is a particularly good reason to reject the 3 extant opinions.

Unclear exactly how to cast this as a statistical problem, but in general, 3 samples, if one has variation, can be used in hypothesis testing. In this case, they all agree so there is no variation. But the best estimate of the average if one has 3 samples is the mean of those 3 samples.

Dr. Dao’s lawsuit never got close to trial. UA settled soon after the demand to preserve evidence was sent. That strongly suggests that UAs lawyers also thought they were in trouble and would lose. So we don’t even know if UA had any lawyers that thought they could win. May have simply been a PR move but we just don’t know.

So really we have no data here to suggest any lawyers thought UA was in the right.

But of course looking at the actual regulations or statutes or decisions and the facts is better than debating second hand opinions if one really wants to get to the bottom of something.

It does take more time and effort though. But the DOT letter is just two pages. 14 CFR 250 isn’t very long or complicated. The 3 references cited in the Wikipedia article were just a few pages. Have a look if you are interested and have some time.

 

[Palmpilot]

Honestly I don’t think this is a particularly good reason to reject the 3 extant opinions.

Unclear exactly how to cast this as a statistical problem, but in general, 3 samples, if one has variation, can be used in hypothesis testing. In this case, they all agree so there is no variation. But the best estimate of the average if one has 3 samples is the mean of those 3 samples.

Are you sure you're a scientist?

I'm sure that there are a lot more than three aviation attorneys in the U.S. We don't know what percentage of them would agree with these three, because three attorneys are not a statistically valid representation of all the aviation attorneys in the U.S.

A good scientist recognizes when it's necessary to say "we don't know."

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Are you sure you're a scientist?

I'm sure that there are a lot more than three aviation attorneys in the U.S. We don't know what percentage of them would agree with these three, because three attorneys are not a statistically valid representation of all the aviation attorneys in the U.S.

A good scientist recognizes when it's necessary to say "we don't know."

They also don’t engage in logical fallacies like the ad hominem attack. It is not only invalid as an argument, it is rude, particularly in a public forum.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

I'm sure that there are a lot more than three aviation attorneys in the U.S. We don't know what percentage of them would agree with these three, because three attorneys are not a statistically valid representation of all the aviation attorneys in the U.S.

All right, taking that remark seriously, two points:

Is there any data extant in this discussion or elsewhere to suggest there are ANY aviation attorneys who would argue that UA was legally in the right?

There was no case argued in court or in motions by UA. Thus the observation that in any case there are attorneys arguing both sides is not particularly relevant. So far as we know, there were NO such attorneys willing to argue UAs case in court. They are at this point imaginary beings like unicorns.

If such existed, that would give rise to some statistical variation in the observations and then one could run a hypothesis test, yes, even on a sample size of 3. For example, go to http://rddr.io and enter “t.test(1.95,2.05,2.1))”. It provides a valid and significant statistical p-value for that case. The theory of hypothesis testing does not provide any basis for the broad assertion that a sample size of 3 is not a valid sample. Please provide a reference for that assertion. The validity of the sample depends on a lot of factors, including the level of variation in the sample.

But AS I NOTED, it is unclear how one would even properly cast this as a statistical problem with this dataset.

The question arose because of the assertion that a validly conducted opinion poll of aviation attorneys would be convincing. That is fair enough as a statement of what would be persuasive to the speaker, but then raises the question, why demand that standard of evidence?

What evidence, other than the non-existant, larger opinion poll would be convincing? I suggested it might be best to examine the actual exhibits in the Long case, the regulations, and the contract for carriage, to try and see, as a more direct assessment.

But I gather that would take too much time and effort. Fair enough, then perhaps best to just acknowledge that and that one simply doesn’t have the time or energy to fill in that gap in knowledge.

But perhaps what is really meant here is that we don’t really know how this would turn out in court if adjudicated. That is true and I believe has been one of my points. I don’t even really understand , and I don’t believe it has been presented here, what the legal basis for UAs actions were. The available evidence strongly suggests UA may have violated their carriage contract though I also suspect they had a valid grounds under trespass law to ask Dr. Dao to get off the plane.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Just happened to re-read this part today. From the letter describing the DOT investigation:

“It is undisputed that United sought volunteers willing to give up their seats for compensation several times and that one passenger offered to give up her seat for compensation following the initial request from a United agent for Drs. David and Teresa Dao to deplane the aircraft. There is conflicting information regarding whether United then offered Drs. David and Teresa Dao the opportunity for one of them to continue separately on Flight 3411.”

So it is not clear that even after UA was informed they would have one more seat available they could offer to get Dr. Dao to his destination that they made it available. Wow.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

I think this is a bit stronger than that. The complaint (have you read the pertinent parts?, points 44 and 45) alleges that an exhibit shows that UA admitted in writing that it should have known this would require the use of physical force and that UA was responsible.

It would take a very foolish attorney (and there are some) to put that in the complaint and refer to it in an exhibit if it doesn’t pretty much say that.

I would say reasonably good evidence that UA agreed to those things. Some chance it could be false, but not a lot.

Following up on this necro thread based on further research. I have obtained the documents from the Long vs Chicago and UA case in Cook County. The item in the docket which said it was the exhibits referred to in the complaint does not contain the exhibits, but rather a voluntary dismissal with leave to refile. I spoke once with Long's attorney, who said they were going to refile but this has not been done since April of 2019.

I visited the Cook County Clerk's office a few weeks ago and had them search the physical files for these exhibits. It turns out the exhibits were never filed, despite being referenced in the complaint (which is sort of weird the court allowed this to continue in any way.)

I have subsequently tried contacting the plaintiff's attorney again, but received no response. The office address listed for that attorney is an apartment north of Chicago.

So there it stands. Perhaps the attorney did make some groundless claims of what was in the UA settlements or perhaps they reached an out of court settlement with a gag clause. I can't think of any further way to get those alleged statements from UA at this point.

 

[Rgbeard]

didn't cruze all the pages. Has anyone put up "Don't Taze me, Bro!" yet? Haha.

 

[Palmpilot]

Following up on this necro thread based on further research. I have obtained the documents from the Long vs Chicago and UA case in Cook County. The item in the docket which said it was the exhibits referred to in the complaint does not contain the exhibits, but rather a voluntary dismissal with leave to refile. I spoke once with Long's attorney, who said they were going to refile but this has not been done since April of 2019.

I visited the Cook County Clerk's office a few weeks ago and had them search the physical files for these exhibits. It turns out the exhibits were never filed, despite being referenced in the complaint (which is sort of weird the court allowed this to continue in any way.)

I have subsequently tried contacting the plaintiff's attorney again, but received no response. The office address listed for that attorney is an apartment north of Chicago.

So there it stands. Perhaps the attorney did make some groundless claims of what was in the UA settlements or perhaps they reached an out of court settlement with a gag clause. I can't think of any further way to get those alleged statements from UA at this point.

You're certainly digging further into this than the average SGOTI. Any particular reason?

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

You're certainly digging further into this than the average SGOTI. Any particular reason?

Of course you know that I am not the average SGOTI

Basically just curious about this case given the amount of past discussion. I thought the alleged admissions would be quite informative. Disappointing they can’t be tracked down.

 

[Lindberg]

Following up on this necro thread based on further research. I have obtained the documents from the Long vs Chicago and UA case in Cook County. The item in the docket which said it was the exhibits referred to in the complaint does not contain the exhibits, but rather a voluntary dismissal with leave to refile. I spoke once with Long's attorney, who said they were going to refile but this has not been done since April of 2019.

I visited the Cook County Clerk's office a few weeks ago and had them search the physical files for these exhibits. It turns out the exhibits were never filed, despite being referenced in the complaint (which is sort of weird the court allowed this to continue in any way.)

I have subsequently tried contacting the plaintiff's attorney again, but received no response. The office address listed for that attorney is an apartment north of Chicago.

So there it stands. Perhaps the attorney did make some groundless claims of what was in the UA settlements or perhaps they reached an out of court settlement with a gag clause. I can't think of any further way to get those alleged statements from UA at this point.

For a scientist, you're awfully credulous. But my years of dealing with the law and lawyers lead me to conclude that the Duck Rule likely applies here.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

For a scientist, you're awfully credulous. But my years of dealing with the law and lawyers lead me to conclude that the Duck Rule likely applies here.

Actually, people have noted this more generally, often in the context of examining psychics and so on. That generally scientists are not used to their experiments and lab equipment lying to them.

Interesting that with more experience dealing with lawyers, you would think it more likely the lawyer was just making the alleged statements in the exhibits up. If caught doing that, wouldn't it be some kind of contempt of court and a bar violation?

I guess we'll never really know unless we can figure out a way to get the Dao settlement with UA.

 

[James331]

United is really pulling out all the stops at the airline race to the bottom.

 

[Lindberg]

Actually, people have noted this more generally, often in the context of examining psychics and so on. That generally scientists are not used to their experiments and lab equipment lying to them.

For this reason, scientists and engineers often make terrible lawyers. Even worse, for the same reason, they believe they're actually better lawyers.

Interesting that with more experience dealing with lawyers, you would think it more likely the lawyer was just making the alleged statements in the exhibits up. If caught doing that, wouldn't it be some kind of contempt of court and a bar violation?

Maybe. But your experiments and lab equipment won't be able to prove that.

But putting aside lawyers and engineers, it's still possible to evaluate events like this based on common sense and simple human factors.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

But putting aside lawyers and engineers, it's still possible to evaluate events like this based on common sense and simple human factors.

Well, based on such factors do you think UA did or did not admit that they should have expected physical force would be used to remove Dr. Dao, as was alleged in the Long vs. Chicago complaint? And what is your level of subjective certainty in that assessment?

That of course is independent of your own opinion of what might have been reasonable to expect. Though I would be interested to hear more specific reasoning about that as well.

 

[Lindberg]

Well, based on such factors do you think UA did or did not admit that they should have expected physical force would be used to remove Dr. Dao, as was alleged in the Long vs. Chicago complaint? And what is your level of subjective certainty in that assessment?

It would be colossaly stupid for UA to admit this. It would also be very odd based on my understanding of the facts which IIRC, it was not UA employees who called security. But nothing other than having been there will answer the question for certain. Unlike Schrodinger's cat, this either happened or didn't.

But it doesn't matter what they admitted. The use of force by officers is always a possibility when you call the cops on such a situation. It's why you call them. I'd assume that whoever called them expected Dao to comply once police were arrived and expected them to get him off the plane regardless.

That of course is independent of your own opinion of what might have been reasonable to expect. Though I would be interested to hear more specific reasoning about that as well.

The crew behaved reasonably. Dao did not. The police likely used more force than strictly necessary, but it's impossible to know how much more as Dao was clearly determined not to comply. Could Dao's unreasonable behavior be addressed in a different manner? Sure, many. Would that have changed the outcome? I think not given Dao's determination.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

I think I evaluate calling the police a bit differently based on both experience and what I have heard reported elsewhere. But I agree this is a pretty fine judgement call in this case and reasonable parties may disagree.

I would just urge people, including airline and airport employees, to recognize that the police will often use violence when it is not really required (as it is when defending against violence). There are tons of documented cases of them abusing people and even killing them when dealing with non-violent situations or based on erroneous information.

For example, in Maricopa county Arizona the county attorney has justified the use of SWAT team raids to serve warrants on non-violent offenders because the SWAT teams “need the practice”. The use of a SWAT team dramatically increases the odds of a bad or even lethal outcome in such cases.

Admittedly a more general observation, but which does apply to this airline case. As you noted, there were lots of other things UA could have done. Indeed, there is good evidence another party was willing to surrender their seat in order to get Dr. Dao to his appointment, but it was unclear that UA ever offered the seat then to Dr. Dao.

Would that have changed the outcome. I think not given Dao’s determination

Here I guess I have to disagree. But my analysis is predicated on the assumption that UA called airport security or law enforcement (and the prior posts in this thread provide no evidence that someone other than a UA or subcontractor employee called law enforcement. Please correct me with the appropriate citation if that is not the case). Even without the offer of the other seat, they could have adopted the position that they were not moving the plane until Dr. Dao left and that they would hold him responsible, as a breach of contract, for the cost of the delay of the plane and passenger time as incidental damages to that breach, then let him deal with that. They also could have brought up a different plane (admittedly expensive but one could try to hold Dr. Dao responsible as an attempt to mitigate damages) and moved the other passengers and let him sit there. Lots of other more peaceful alternatives than calling law enforcement.

IMO a terrible example of treatment of customers by UA in any case and the reason I avoid flying them. This despite the fact that they have changed their explicit policy. I think the fact this happened shows a bad attitude about customers in their culture.

 

[Palmpilot]

Given the power of Internet searches, it's easy to find anecdotal evidence of excessive force on the part of law enforcement officers, but I think it's the exception rather than the rule. I don't think UA (or rather the Republic Airlines employees who were acting on United's behalf) had any way of knowing that it would occur in this case.

 

[Lindberg]

Even without the offer of the other seat, they could have adopted the position that they were not moving the plane until Dr. Dao left and that they would hold him responsible, as a breach of contract, for the cost of the delay of the plane and passenger time as incidental damages to that breach, then let him deal with that.

No offense, but this is absurd. Dao was asked to leave the plane, he was told to leave the plane, then he was made to leave the plane. A three-year-old child understands this progression. It is entirely unreasonable, as a legal and practical matter, to expect that United would have inconvenienced a plane-load of people or repositioned equipment (which might not even be possible), to account for this adult's temper tantrum.

But let's say a new plane was brought in. So all the other passengers now have to disembark. And you can't move that plane away from the gate with Dao on it, so you need another gate for the new plane as well. Now you have Dao on a plane all by himself and you haven't actually solved anything. How long do you leave him on the plane and let him monopolize the plane, gate, and personnel before you call the police to drag his ass off the plane? I guess in that situation at least you solved the PR problem because there wouldn't be video.

Alternatively, how would the plane just not leaving, solve the problem of the crew that needed to get to their destination now? If you're Dao and your only moves are stay on the plane or get off, you'd stay on. Game theory suggests that if you're Dao, you'd stay on the plane under those circumstances until very shortly before the next plane to your destination, because that's the only leverage you have to possibly negotiation staying on the flight. Of course this totally screws everyone else.

Whether you agree with the laws, regulations, and policies in place at the time, Dao was not being asked to voluntarily give up his seat. And if someone else was willing to give up her seat, the time to do that would have been when the agents asked for volunteers. Any suggestion that there could have been an outcome where Dao stayed on the flight will only result in flawed reasoning.

If it helps at all, you can pretend he was just some guy who didn't have a ticket for that flight, but had someone snuck on because from a legal and regulatory perspective, that's the equivalent situation.

The only "solution" to the "problem" of people like Dao is to eliminate involuntary denied boarding, which is what the airlines are attempting to do with increased incentives for voluntarily being bumped.

 

[Tarheelpilot]

I’m of the opinion that calling law enforcement on someone means you expect whatever level of force they use... I mean. Seriously you are calling someone to the scene that can arrest and use lethal force. If you don’t want someone to be arrested or shot then why call the police ?

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

It is entirely unreasonable, as a legal and practical matter, to expect that United would have inconvenienced a plane-load of people or repositioned equipment (which might not even be possible), to account for this adult's temper tantrum.

Agreed Dr. Dao was essentially having a tantrum and creating huge problems and should have to pay for that.

Now you have Dao on a plane all by himself and you haven't actually solved anything. How long do you leave him on the plane and let him monopolize the plane, gate, and personnel before you call the police to drag his ass off the plane? I guess in that situation at least you solved the PR problem because there wouldn't be video.

True about the lack of video and the PR impact of it. It is also true that with Dao alone, or at least in an isolated section of the plane, you can more easily physically remove him if necessary without injuring either him or others. Probably not a good idea to try dragging Dr. Dao by the arm off the plane amidst a crowd of other innocent people.

Game theory suggests that if you're Dao, you'd stay on the plane under those circumstances until very shortly before the next plane to your destination, because that's the only leverage you have to possibly negotiation staying on the flight.

Speculation of course, but it is also possible that once Dr. Dao was told he would be paying the cost of all this and starting seeing the deboarding of everyone else, that he would have come to his senses - but maybe not.

The only "solution" to the "problem" of people like Dao is to eliminate involuntary denied boarding, which is what the airlines are attempting to do with increased incentives for voluntarily being bumped.

In the long run agreed. In this case, I think UA had better and more peaceful solutions at the time than calling law enforcement and would argue they should have tried them instead.

I think Munoz eventually agreed that they should not be calling the police onto a plane to forcibly eject passengers and they have now made policy changes to try and ensure that. So it seems like not even UA is attempting to say their actions were reasonable or appropriate, isn’t that true?

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Given the power of Internet searches, it's easy to find anecdotal evidence of excessive force on the part of law enforcement officers, but I think it's the exception rather than the rule. I don't think UA (or rather the Republic Airlines employees who were acting on United's behalf) had any way of knowing that it would occur in this case.

The book “Rise of the Warrior Cop” makes the case that such behavior is increasing in frequency. I suspect that the majority of the public is not aware of either this trend or the frequency with which excessive force is used.

For example, most people in Maricopa county whom I discuss this with are both unaware that SWAT teams are used to serve warrants on allegations of non-violent crimes, "for practice", and express outrage about this policy. Limited and selected sample of course.

So I agree most employees who may have been involved in making the decision to call law enforcement likely hadn’t considered this. I agree with @Tarheelpilot that they probably should have. And I am glad UA has now set that in place as policy.

 

[Sluggo63]

Not to wade into this all again... but yet, here I am.

First, I'm assuming although there was always a possibility of an escalation to violence when calling the police in this case, all prior evidence points to the fact that once the police are called, usually the offending passenger complies. Sometimes reluctantly, but in the end, they leave the airplane walking on their own. Since the ubiquitousness of cell phones now a quick YouTube search will show numerous "passengers acting badly" videos where the police board an aircraft to take a drunk/obscene/argumentative passenger off, and none previously ended like Dr. Dao. The passenger would get taken off, most of the time screaming obscenities or professing their innocence, but in the end they would wind up back in the terminal uninjured. I don't see a reason why anyone on the airport or UA staff would reasonably think that this incident would end up differently. Sure, there was that slim possibility, but odds were in favor that once LE arrived, Dao would acquiesce and leave.

Second, UA learned from this incident. With the ability to look back on this incident, dissect it and take away some hard lessons learned, they came up with a plan to avoid this in the future. I believe now gate agents are now allowed to award a much higher dollar amount in compensation than they were previously without having to go to management for approval. And, most importantly, now if there's a problem, the captain just has the whole plane de-board and then re-board. Once the captain asks everyone to grab their personal items and go back to the terminal the next Dr. Dao has one of two choices. Leave the airplane and fight his fight in the term terminal when he is not allowed to reboard, or stay on a now empty airplane and have law enforcement called to have him removed.

The important thing is that UA learned from their mistakes. They were presented with a situation like they had encounter before (removing a belligerent passenger) that didn't go the way it had always gone in the past. The rules needed changing, and they changed it.

Although it is a much larger scale with much larger consequences, this is very much like what happened after the 9/11 attacks. The airlines had faced hijackings before in the past and developed a strategy. After 9/11 they realized their strategy needed to be adapted because what had always worked in the past no longer worked. Learning from your mistakes is key to improving the process.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

And if someone else was willing to give up her seat, the time to do that would have been when the agents asked for volunteers. Any suggestion that there could have been an outcome where Dao stayed on the flight will only result in flawed reasoning.

I broke this out because I think it is very important in this context.

There is good evidence that someone else was willing to give up their seat for the compensation in order to bring the situation to a more rapid and peaceful closure. The only question was whether UA then took them up on that. If UA failed to do so, that was arguably a regulatory violation. There was evidently conflicting information on whether UA did that.

This suggests that UA/Republic had a readily available much more peaceful alternative. They just did not avail themselves of it. The evidence was unclear so they were not actually accused of a regulatory violation, and that is why I qualify this statement with "suggests".

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Not to wade into this all again... but yet, here I am.

The important thing is that UA learned from their mistakes. They were presented with a situation like they had encounter before (removing a belligerent passenger) that didn't go the way it had always gone in the past. The rules needed changing, and they changed it.

Although it is a much larger scale with much larger consequences, this is very much like what happened after the 9/11 attacks. The airlines had faced hijackings before in the past and developed a strategy. After 9/11 they realized their strategy needed to be adapted because what had always worked in the past no longer worked. Learning from your mistakes is key to improving the process.

Agreed on most of this and it is good that they learned. I hope another takeaway for people is that there is a greater chance of violence being used when you call the police than most probably realize. That chance is likely increasing in the present day, though still is small and not even close to a majority of the time in this type of circumstance.

I suppose one could recast the question of the "reasonableness" of UA/Republic employee actions as what chance is it reasonable to take of causing serious injury to someone like Dr. Dao to resolve a contract dispute. 20%, 10%, 1%, 0.1%, 0.01% ?

 

[James331]

What United did was wrong, a good litmus test was simply people’s reaction to it.

But not wrong enough that people don’t still fly that budget airline if their ticket come in one dollar less than the others lol

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

But not wrong enough that people don’t still fly that budget airline if their ticket come in one dollar less than the others lol

A consequence of an oligopolistic highly regulated market? Or just human short-sightedness?

 

[James331]

A consequence of an oligopolistic highly regulated market? Or just human short-sightedness?

Both.

Also just humans being humans, I mean did one person step in to defend the doc during the assault? Nope, but they filmed it.

IMHO this type of thing is going to occur more with the combo of government schools (or “public” school) combined with more kids being raised without fathers in their lives. I mean if that was the 1950s I bet it might have turned out differently

 

[kayoh190]

The important thing is that UA learned from their mistakes. They were presented with a situation like they had encounter before (removing a belligerent passenger) that didn't go the way it had always gone in the past. The rules needed changing, and they changed it.

Exactly. Although I'd like to point out that learning occurred at every airline over this issue. This situation just happened to occur to Republic/United, but easily could have happened to anyone.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Both.

Also just humans being humans, I mean did one person step in to defend the doc during the assault? Nope, but they filmed it.

IMHO this type of thing is going to occur more with the combo of government schools (or “public” school) combined with more kids being raised without fathers in their lives. I mean if that was the 1950s I bet it might have turned out differently

There is evidence that at least one person, when they understood what was happening volunteered to get off the plane so Dr. Dao could get to his destination. Unclear if UA/Republic then offered that to Dr. Dao. But I agree such public spiritedness is sadly rare on today’s airline travel.

The 50s and 60s were a different time for airline travel for sure. Probably a more homogeneous and better off economically group of passengers.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Exactly. Although I'd like to point out that learning occurred at every airline over this issue. This situation just happened to occur to Republic/United, but easily could have happened to anyone.

Interesting question. Do you think Southwest would have acted this way? I suspect not and do think corporate culture played a role - but I also imagine others here have a lot more experience than I do bearing on that question.

 

[Lindberg]

I think Munoz eventually agreed that they should not be calling the police onto a plane to forcibly eject passengers and they have now made policy changes to try and ensure that. So it seems like not even UA is attempting to say their actions were reasonabl

I'm sorry if gave you the impression I was interested in restarting this. I'm not. I'll add just two things and then peace out:

United has made changes to attempt to minimize the need to remove people from planes by force, and to minimize the PR impact when that is necessary. However, United will still call law enforcement to remove anyone who is ordered off a plane and refuses to go. I am certain of that.

You seem entirely fixated on the likelihood that possibly extreme and unnecessary violence would ensue once police were called, and your theory that everyone at United should have anticipated this result. But you don't acknowledge that if excessive violence was the predictable result of law enforcement's participation, Dao as well should have predicted it and gotten his ass off the plane while the getting was good.

 

[Larry in TN]

There is evidence that at least one person, when they understood what was happening volunteered to get off the plane so Dr. Dao could get to his destination.

No Captain is going to close the door and depart with a passenger on board who is defiantly refusing to follow agent, crewmember, and officer instructions. Such a passenger isn't going to fly until he's had time to cool down and a supervisor and the Captain are convinced that he will not create a disruption in-flight.

Do you think Southwest would have acted this way? I suspect not

They have, both before and after the Dao incident.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=southwest+passenger+police