U/A and Dr. Dao (2017)

So, you’re defending PR departments or passengers’ human rights? I don’t get it.
 
That was a PR disaster for UA. I am quite reluctant to fly an airline where their management systems are so bad that the local people thought it was necessary to use that level of violence over that type of dispute.
 
Lachlan said:
So, you’re defending PR departments or passengers’ human rights? I don’t get it.
Click to expand...

Does a poster have to be defending anyone?
Maybe a poster simply makes an observation and wants to hear comments.
I don't get it.
 
Was Dr Dao wrong to not deplane when asked? Yes.

Should he have been beaten severely for it? No.

Was UA wrong to ask him to deplane even though they had the legal right? Yes.

Does UA deserve criticism, derision, etc. for the incident? Hell yes!
 
I never understood if plane was overbooked and was already in seat, how does his ticket take a backseat to someone who is not on the plane yet?? Why didn’t the person sitting at gate get told they are not getting on??
 
benyflyguy said:
I never understood if plane was overbooked and was already in seat, how does his ticket take a backseat to someone who is not on the plane yet?? Why didn’t the person sitting at gate get told they are not getting on??
Click to expand...
United Airlines club member? Just a guess, but I think they do get priority in certain situations.
 
benyflyguy said:
I never understood if plane was overbooked and was already in seat, how does his ticket take a backseat to someone who is not on the plane yet?? Why didn’t the person sitting at gate get told they are not getting on??
Click to expand...

Because they were airline employees needed to deadhead to work another flight without which many hundreds of people would have been inconvenienced. Are we really gonna rehash this thing all over again?
 
dmspilot said:
Because they were airline employees needed to deadhead to work another flight without which many hundreds of people would have been inconvenienced.
Click to expand...

Right they needed to do something, but definitely should have chosen one of the many less violent alternatives. UA paid for it, big time, both in $ and derision, which they richly deserved.
 
benyflyguy said:
I never understood if plane was overbooked and was already in seat, how does his ticket take a backseat to someone who is not on the plane yet?? Why didn’t the person sitting at gate get told they are not getting on??
Click to expand...
The applicable DOT regulation, 14 CFR 250, requires each airline to have an established procedure for determining how they will select the passenger(s) who will be involuntarily denied boarding (IDB) on an oversold flight. At the time, most airlines prioritized by passenger status in the frequent flyer program and fare paid over boarding time. The idea was that your best customers (frequent flyers and those who paid the highest fares) were given the benefit of boarding whenever they wanted without increasing their risk of being bumped.

Many airlines have since changed their priority procedures. Check your airline's website for how they prioritize IDBs. They tend to be similar, but not identical, from airline to airline.

dmspilot said:
Because they were airline employees needed to deadhead to work another flight without which many hundreds of people would have been inconvenienced. Are we really gonna rehash this thing all over again?
Click to expand...
It was four Republic crewmembers, two pilots and two flight attendants. They had been scheduled to deadhead on an earlier flight that was on a maintenance delay. The delay for that flight had reached the point that they were not going to get to Louisville in time to get the required rest before their scheduled flight in the next morning which would require delaying that flight for crew rest. Republic's crew schedulers moved the four crewmembers to Dao's flight after Dao's flight had started boarding in an attempt to still allow the flight the next morning to depart on time.

Normally, the gate agents have some warning on a oversold flight so they can get the volunteers early or, at least, prevent those who are in danger of being IDBd from boarding. In this case, the late change from the delayed flight to Dao's flight was a surprise to the agents working the flight who didn't learn of the four new positive space passengers until the flight was already boarded.

Two of the first changes that UAL made in response to this event was that positive space passengers can not be added to a sold-out flight within 60 minutes of departure (before boarding would have begun) and passengers who have boarded can no longer be involuntarily removed for an oversale. Airlines have also dramatically increased the amount of voucher credit they will issue to get passengers to voluntarily give up their seat. I've seen them as high as $5,000 myself and heard of offers approaching $10,000.
 
Larry in TN said:
Airlines have also dramatically increased the amount of voucher credit they will issue to get passengers to voluntarily give up their seat. I've seen them as high as $5,000 myself and heard of offers approaching $10,000.
Click to expand...

Wow.!! And to think I was giving up a seat for a $500 voucher and a positive seat in first class for a later flight.
 
SkyDog58 said:
Was Dr Dao wrong to not deplane when asked? Yes.

Should he have been beaten severely for it? No.

Was UA wrong to ask him to deplane even though they had the legal right? Yes.

Does UA deserve criticism, derision, etc. for the incident? Hell yes!
Click to expand...
Did UA have reason to believe that the people who removed Dr. Dao were going to beat him? No.
 
I was offered a free beer once, if I'd give up my seat. No.
 
Larry in TN said:
The applicable DOT regulation, 14 CFR 250, requires each airline to have an established procedure for determining how they will select the passenger(s) who will be involuntarily denied boarding (IDB) on an oversold flight. At the time, most airlines prioritized by passenger status in the frequent flyer program and fare paid over boarding time. The idea was that your best customers (frequent flyers and those who paid the highest fares) were given the benefit of boarding whenever they wanted without increasing their risk of being bumped.

Many airlines have since changed their priority procedures. Check your airline's website for how they prioritize IDBs. They tend to be similar, but not identical, from airline to airline.


It was four Republic crewmembers, two pilots and two flight attendants. They had been scheduled to deadhead on an earlier flight that was on a maintenance delay. The delay for that flight had reached the point that they were not going to get to Louisville in time to get the required rest before their scheduled flight in the next morning which would require delaying that flight for crew rest. Republic's crew schedulers moved the four crewmembers to Dao's flight after Dao's flight had started boarding in an attempt to still allow the flight the next morning to depart on time.

Normally, the gate agents have some warning on a oversold flight so they can get the volunteers early or, at least, prevent those who are in danger of being IDBd from boarding. In this case, the late change from the delayed flight to Dao's flight was a surprise to the agents working the flight who didn't learn of the four new positive space passengers until the flight was already boarded.

Two of the first changes that UAL made in response to this event was that positive space passengers can not be added to a sold-out flight within 60 minutes of departure (before boarding would have begun) and passengers who have boarded can no longer be involuntarily removed for an oversale. Airlines have also dramatically increased the amount of voucher credit they will issue to get passengers to voluntarily give up their seat. I've seen them as high as $5,000 myself and heard of offers approaching $10,000.
Click to expand...
Thanks. Never really knew what the back story is. Makes sense just got out of control.
 
PeterNSteinmetz said:
That was a PR disaster for UA. I am quite reluctant to fly an airline where their management systems are so bad that the local people thought it was necessary to use that level of violence over that type of dispute.
Click to expand...

While it was handled completely incorrectly and United rightfully paid substantially for it, it was a highly unlikely situation. 4 last minute, positive space, must ride, deadheads from the operating, as opposed to marketing, carrier on a flight that was already boarded.

The biggest issue is that United's staff weren't empowered enough to offer greater compensation, a lack of empowerment that came from the Continental side of the merger, when needed. Dao would have gotten off if the $1000 in vouchers he was offered had been cash. Hence why the airlines now authorized $2000 in cash or $10000 in vouchers. The other huge issue is that people have a different mentality once they get on the plane. Sitting at the gate, there is some expectation that things can change. Once in your seat, probably belted in, you are thinking the only reason you aren't going is a mechanical issue or severe weather.

benyflyguy said:
I never understood if plane was overbooked and was already in seat, how does his ticket take a backseat to someone who is not on the plane yet?? Why didn’t the person sitting at gate get told they are not getting on??
Click to expand...

The issue was positive space, must ride, deadheads from the operating carrier. That is an issue that is far more complex than most casual travelers understand. Even most frequent flyers don't understand how those processes work, only the ones who have actively sought out bumps for years.

dmspilot said:
Because they were airline employees needed to deadhead to work another flight without which many hundreds of people would have been inconvenienced. Are we really gonna rehash this thing all over again?
Click to expand...

Many hundreds is probably extreme.

Palmpilot said:
Did UA have reason to believe that the people who removed Dr. Dao were going to beat him? No.
Click to expand...

They brought on police to physically intimidate and threaten him, so there is no question that a reasonable person should have known that violence was possible.
 
N1120A said:
They brought on police to physically intimidate and threaten him, so there is no question that a reasonable person should have known that violence was possible.
Click to expand...
Anything's "possible," but the fact remains that the violence was unprecedented for this type of situation. That's why it makes no sense to me to claim that the airline could have anticipated it.
 
Have there been other airlines so lacking in sense as to call the police to remove a passenger over a seating dispute? I suppose it is possible, but the only reason this type of altercation was unprecedented may be that no other airline had ever been that foolish.

But there are plenty of examples off of planes which suggest to reasonable people that calling the police often escalates the level of violence. That is not surprising since basically the police are in the use of force business -- that is what they do for a living.
 
Thinking about this more. Whoever made the decision to call the police and treat this as a criminal trespass was really the person responsible for the problem. Even without having more money to offer, they could have made a lot of other choices. Ask some other passenger to leave -- this would be a violation of their internal policies for prioritization, but that is all. Tell one of the dead heading people they weren't going to be able to make it on this flight - again a violation of UA policy, but that is all. I wonder if there was a sort of wills contest going on and the person making the decision to call the police felt that they had to show that passenger who is boss and that the company owns the plane.
 
This is not an attempt to victim shame or place blame. But you see the police coming down the aisle to see you- you have to know you are boned. Choosing to stand your ground however right you may be is going to end badly.
 
PeterNSteinmetz said:
Have there been other airlines so lacking in sense as to call the police to remove a passenger over a seating dispute? I suppose it is possible, but the only reason this type of altercation was unprecedented may be that no other airline had ever been that foolish.

But there are plenty of examples off of planes which suggest to reasonable people that calling the police often escalates the level of violence. That is not surprising since basically the police are in the use of force business -- that is what they do for a living.
Click to expand...

PeterNSteinmetz said:
Thinking about this more. Whoever made the decision to call the police and treat this as a criminal trespass was really the person responsible for the problem. Even without having more money to offer, they could have made a lot of other choices. Ask some other passenger to leave -- this would be a violation of their internal policies for prioritization, but that is all. Tell one of the dead heading people they weren't going to be able to make it on this flight - again a violation of UA policy, but that is all. I wonder if there was a sort of wills contest going on and the person making the decision to call the police felt that they had to show that passenger who is boss and that the company owns the plane.
Click to expand...

I don't know whether there had been previous cases in which an airline called law enforcement to compel a passenger to get off an airplane for the purpose of seating someone else, and I don't know how to get that information. I do recall hearing about past cases in which law enforcement had been called to arrest airline passengers though, and if they had resulted in a comparable level of violence, I think we would have heard about it. The public furor over this event demonstrates that, I think.

I'm not against changing the rules, but I think it's wrong to use 20/20 hindsight to castigate people for not predicting an unprecedented result of following rules that formerly were in place.
 
PeterNSteinmetz said:
Right they needed to do something, but definitely should have chosen one of the many less violent alternatives. UA paid for it, big time, both in $ and derision, which they richly deserved.
Click to expand...
UA didn’t choose violence. The doctor did. The cops honored his request. That ******* shouldn’t get anything from anyone. Not money nor sympathy
 
Palmpilot said:
Anything's "possible," but the fact remains that the violence was unprecedented for this type of situation. That's why it makes no sense to me to claim that the airline could have anticipated it.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. You bring on someone with physical authority like that and it is foreseeable.

Tarheelpilot said:
UA didn’t choose violence. The doctor did. The cops honored his request. That ******* shouldn’t get anything from anyone. Not money nor sympathy
Click to expand...

Wrong. They could have accepted his offer, or they could have chosen another path to obtain an extra seat.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
The airline did not attack him. The violence occurred because of his choices. You don’t want to accept reality that’s your business.
Click to expand...

He didn't make the choice. They made the choice to steal his seat from him, after he'd already boarded, and to refuse to properly compensate him. They then chose to bring in thugs to attack him.
 
N1120A said:
He didn't make the choice. They made the choice to steal his seat from him, after he'd already boarded, and to refuse to properly compensate him. They then chose to bring in thugs to attack him.
Click to expand...
Lol
You think Elvis is still alive as well.... how about Santa

You have it right.... almost. The violence part you’re wrong. The “victim” in your version is 100% responsible for the violence. Once again just because you feel it’s one way doesn’t make it so.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
You have it right.... almost. The violence part you’re wrong. The “victim” in your version is 100% responsible for the violence. Once again just because you feel it’s one way doesn’t make it so.
Click to expand...

Just because you think you know everything doesn't necessarily mean you're right, either. As far as I'm concerned, you couldn't be more wrong, and I sincerely hope you aren't in a position that allows you to abuse power the way that this lot did. Especially with the bull-headed arrogance of your last posts.

I imagine you're a big fan of things like civil asset forfeiture. It's their fault for having been driving through the territory of an abusive cop shop who decided they'd confiscate all their valuables for no reason, after all...
 
Tarheelpilot said:
UA didn’t choose violence. The doctor did.
Click to expand...

Let me see if I follow this line of thought. How did the doctor choose violence?

Did he do anything violent toward the flight staff, other passengers, or the police? I actually don’t recall the details of his behavior.

Or is the argument here that anyone who commits a misdemeanor trespass (which his refusal to give up his seat at the request of appropriate airline personnel arguably was) and refuses to obey LEOs deserves a physical removal and beating of the type he received?

I say “arguably” regarding the trespass because as noted by others here, the issues of the contract breach, either by Dr. Dao in refusing to follow instructions, versus by UA for taking him out of a seat he was already sitting in, are subtle and were never actually adjudicated because of the settlement.
 
PeterNSteinmetz said:
Whoever made the decision to call the police and treat this as a criminal trespass was really the person responsible for the problem.
Click to expand...
Calling the police to deal with a variety of passenger issues on board is not, and was not, unusual. Check YouTube for an endless supplies of videos of exactly that. The additional authority that the police bring almost always lead to a peaceful, if not voluntarily, removal of the passenger.

There was no expectation by the airline or agent that calling the police would result in violence or injury. Violence occurred because Dao physically resisted and then the officers responded with increased force. The airline expectation was that the police would deescalate the situation, not escalate it.
 
Larry in TN said:
Calling the police to deal with a variety of passenger issues on board is not, and was not, unusual. Check YouTube for an endless supplies of videos of exactly that. The additional authority that the police bring almost always lead to a peaceful, if not voluntarily, removal of the passenger.
Click to expand...

If true, then I suppose part of the issue was the former Daley security force police given a special job at the airport so they could continue their careers. Weren't those the police involved? They may not be the best at de-escalating situations.

The discussion regarding the use of violence by the police then becomes a subset of the broader societal discussion about the level of police violence in society. In that regard, I will stand by my original post above. If you call the police to enter into a dispute, you should expect an increased likelihood of a violent response. Not necessarily a violent response, since as noted by Larry in TN, the additional authority often peacefully resolves the dispute. But it is more likely to end in violence if you do call them than not.

In this case, the airline personnel had other choices which were more peaceful. The person in charge amongst them chose the alternative of calling the police, which will more likely result in violence than the alternatives they had available. The fact that UA had policies and procedures in place which encouraged that choice is what makes me very reluctant to fly with them.
 
The "police" as in Chicago Police Department were not involved. It was airport security.

In fact, four months before the incident, the airport security was ordered to remove the word "police" from their uniforms.

So no I would not expect violence when calling airport security any more than I would expect violence by calling mall security on someone who took a quarter out of a fountain.
 
I believe they were told to take "police" off their uniforms _after_ the incident under discussion here: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/12/us/united-chicago-airport-security.html . Several of them were fired.

And just to be clear, I believe the airport security people were former members of Daley's private security detail which were police then.

I don't know the state of mind of the person making the call for UA that day. Did they think they were calling the police, as Larry in TN's post above would suggest, or did they think they were calling a non-police security force, such as suggested by dmspilot? And what did UA policies call for ? Calling the police or only other security?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top