Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Maybe they violated a contract, but he broke federal law and fought with officers and delayed a flight.

Maybe he just forgot to tell the police "this is no crime, it's just a contract dispute". I'm sure he wouldn't have been interfering with a flight and they would have eacorted him back to his seat.

He fethed himself by escalating a "contract dispute" into interference with the operation of an aircraft and fighting with police.

Maybe they violated a contract,
***Yep

but he broke federal law and fought with officers and delayed a flight.
***refusing to let United breach the contract is not "interfering with a flight" He in no way hampered the flight. He did hamper Unitd's attempt to welsh on a contract and not seat someone in his paid for spot in contravention of the contract.

Maybe he just forgot to tell the police "this is no crime, it's just a contract dispute".
****It wasn't a crime, and it was justa contract dispute. Sicking the police on your clients becuase you don't want to perform a contract-I call bs.

I'm sure he wouldn't have been interfering with a flight and they would have escorted him back to his seat.
***He wasn't interfering with the flight or the crew. He was minding his own business.

He fethed himself by escalating a "contract dispute" into interference with the operation of an aircraft and fighting with police.
***He didn't do the escalation. He didn't call the PoPo. United did.

Was he actually escorted by police or was the initial interaction with security/TSA agents?

The ones dragging him out were federalized PoPo I believe.

 Frazzled wrote:
The ones dragging him out were federalized PoPo I believe.

Did they initiate the head smacking?

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
The ones dragging him out were federalized PoPo I believe.

Did they initiate the head smacking?

Please clarify.

The crew letting you fly or not is a contract dispute. The crew telling you to get off the plane is also a lawful order. It's almost like something can be two things at once, what a legal quagmire.

If you buy a Groupon for "Buy one Dinner, Get one Free on Saturday April 8th, 2017" and show up to the restaurant and they don't want to honor it, you have a contract dispute. If they tell you to get off their property they gave you a lawful order. If they call the police because you ignore them and are now trespassing, that's a legal issue. If you ignore the police because you are an idiot, then it's your own damn fault.

It's not complicated:

If you believe the airline is fething you over, breaking the law is not the answer and will get you nowhere. But it's your choice: comply and sue tomorrow, or be a idiot and get yourself in legal trouble by interfering with the operation of the airplane and fighting police today.

The guy has a history of being an idiot, but on average it seems like 75% of passengers denied boarding on that particular plane know how to act.

It doesnt appear he was actually charged with, or will be charged with a crime.

And this has been popping up on a few feeds and sites in regards to United's contract, specifically section 25 of the contract

https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriage.aspx#sec25

The thing is, while section 25 is fairly comprehensive, there is no wording stating what the contract is (if any) once the customer boards, as all language on there specifies their procedures prior to boarding.

Other than claiming "trespassing" their contract technically doesnt give them a right to remove someone already boarded as none of their contract language applies to someone already boarded.

There were 3,765 cases where United involuntary denied boarding to passengers in 2016. Food for thought.

Also, to a post above, it was a Chicago Aviation Department security officer that physically removed the passenger, not United Airline officials, TSA, etc., Chicago Aviation Police were the authorities responsible for dragging the passenger off the plane.

 BigWaaagh wrote:
There were 3,765 cases where United involuntary denied boarding to passengers in 2016. Food for thought.

Also, to a post above, it was a Chicago Aviation Department security officer that physically removed the passenger, not United Airline officials, TSA, etc., Chicago Aviation Police were the authorities responsible for dragging the passenger off the plane.

But United told them to kick his ass or something.

And I realize that I might come across as a United apologist or something. So just to clarify, I think flying is a miserable experience and the airlines have us bend over and charging us extra for everything, even the lube, because they can. They know it's "here is our gakky contract of carriage, suck it up and agree that we can feth you over whenever we want or enjoy your long drive in the car sucker. And thanks for the money, now line up in an orderly fashion and pray you don't piss off the pilot and crew and don't even look at the TSA funny or they will fondle your balls an extra 5 seconds while maintaining eye contact to establish dominance." I get that, it sucks, and it's bs.

But we agree to that bs. We may do it because we have no better options, but we agree to it nonetheless.

And my stance with gakky actions and possible violations by United is the same as being wrongfully detained or arrested by the police. The time to fight this gak is not while you are physically dealing with the police who are in the process of fething you over. Courts have found (with minor exceptions I think) that you can still be charged with resisting arrest or fighting an officer even if the arrest was not lawful to begin with. Comply with the bs, make sure you remember every detail for the paycheck that is to come, and then call the lawyer with a smile on your face.

Furthermore, when officials tells you to get off the plane, you damn well better get off the plane.

Debates whether that it's right and/or legal can be sussed out at the terminal... but, you are getting off that plane.

Frankly, once that doctor was bumped... that's it. I think that doctor was acting childish at that point.

d-usa wrote:Maybe they violated a contract, but he broke federal law and fought with officers and delayed a flight.

Maybe he just forgot to tell the police "this is no crime, it's just a contract dispute". I'm sure he wouldn't have been interfering with a flight and they would have eacorted him back to his seat.

He fethed himself by escalating a "contract dispute" into interference with the operation of an aircraft and fighting with police.

Maybe he should have offered them a Pepsi?

 whembly wrote:
Furthermore, when officials tells you to get off the plane, you damn well better get off the plane.

Debates whether that it's right and/or legal can be sussed out at the terminal... but, you are getting off that plane.

Frankly, once that doctor was bumped... that's it. I think that doctor was acting childish at that point.

If he had done that we would have known nothing about this. As it is airlines are now having to think seriously about how they treat customers, and law enforcement may have to change.

Frankly I hope the airline get everything that is coming to them. What to get staff somewhere for operational reasons? Plan it properly. If you can't find your own flights then sort out other transport, either with another carrier, charter a light aircraft or in the extreme I'm sure the CEO will have a private jet. Don't go breaching your contract just because the publicity won't do that much damage. One day it will, like this. Or one day someone will be bumped which will lose them their job, or in the case of a doctor someone might die.

 Steve steveson wrote:
If he had done that we would have known nothing about this.

Only if you don't pay attention at all. Overbooking and bumping passengers, whether voluntary or involuntarily, is hardly a secret. If you travel at all frequently you're aware of the situation.

What to get staff somewhere for operational reasons? Plan it properly.

If only the world magically worked that way. In the real world there are weather delays, mechanical problems, etc, that require crew and/or aircraft to be moved on short notice to accommodate unexpected changes. And when there's a choice between bumping a few passengers from one flight or potentially starting a chain reaction of delays and missed flights that will hurt hundreds of passengers the choice is obvious: four people are going to be getting on the next flight to their destination.

Don't go breaching your contract just because the publicity won't do that much damage.

No contract was breached. The contract explicitly gives the airline permission to move you to another flight, with appropriate compensation, whether you like it or not. The only "contract" being breached here is the assumption, made by passengers who don't bother to read the CoC, that they're entitled to a seat on a specific flight at a specific time and the airline can't change it.

Or one day someone will be bumped which will lose them their job, or in the case of a doctor someone might die.

And it would be 100% that person's fault. If you are traveling by air you should be aware that you may not arrive at your destination as scheduled. Aside from overbooking there can be weather delays, missed connecting flights, mechanical problems, etc. The smart traveler makes sure that they have a day or two between their scheduled arrival date and any urgent needs to be somewhere. The stupid traveler books the longest possible vacation, leaving no room for error, and loses their job/lets their patients die/whatever if a thunderstorm shuts down the airport and cancels their flight. Be the smart traveler, not the stupid traveler.

It feels weird being on the same page as Peregrine.

 djones520 wrote:
It feels weird being on the same page as Peregrine.

Tell me about it

Well, as bad as my day was, I can happily say that I can look at myself in the mirror and proudly say "I'm a better person than everybody who sides with United on this one". Thank you for making my day better, Dakka! :thumbs up:

 d-usa wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:
There were 3,765 cases where United involuntary denied boarding to passengers in 2016. Food for thought.

Also, to a post above, it was a Chicago Aviation Department security officer that physically removed the passenger, not United Airline officials, TSA, etc., Chicago Aviation Police were the authorities responsible for dragging the passenger off the plane.

But United told them to kick his ass or something.

Seriously? I didn't read any bit about United comments to that effect. Was it "kick his ass" or "something"? Got a source? I'd love to read about that little tidbit.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Well, as bad as my day was, I can happily say that I can look at myself in the mirror and proudly say "I'm a better person than everybody who sides with United on this one".

It is a complex issue, with different parties producing different information, and patting yourself on the back for pretending to have magical understanding above others seems a bit ludicrous.

From what I've gathered after quite a bit of reading, there have been wrongdoings by both parties. While the guy certainly should not have resisted, and his wrongdoing is quite straightforward and obvious, it's highly abnormal to yank someone off a plane after they're on it. My source is someone finishing up his commercial pilot's license, who is a hell of a lot older and more knowledgable than me. Not sure the extent of your licensing, Peregrine, so I don't mean to discredit you in any way, but the key word is commercial. I digress, denying boarding is supposed to happen before passengers get on (board) the plane, but if that fails and offering incentives for a later flight fails as well, then it is standard to remove the last passengers to arrive at the gate (I presume this bit is meant to encourage punctuality/time management). But all of this could have been avoided if they counted their four employees to the total number of passengers before letting a single passenger on. So their is certainly fault on both sides, the only difference is the doctor isn't losing $1B in worth, so I guess wins (or loses less?)

Oh well. The memes are absolutely hilarious, and I never liked United much anyways.

 Peregrine wrote:
No, it's how contracts work.

It is how this contract works, right now. The assumption you then go on to make, that it is the only way this contract can work... is based in nothing.

Here's an idea: don't fly.

When the response offered as the response to a bad business practice is to not use that business at all, it should be very fething clear to everyone that it is a bad business practice that is only allowed to continue because people are not consciously aware of the practice at the time of purchase.

Anyhow, just to give a brief explanation of how your entire approach to this issue is completely wrongheaded... The idea of contracts in consumer spending is a largely theoretical construct, people simply do not read hundreds of pages of legal text everytime they make a $100 purchase, nor would it ever be practical to do so. As such, consumers are left passively accepting unfavourable clauses, either unaware of them, or not consciously aware of them at the time of purchase.

It becomes clear once we realise the limits of contracts in the routine consumer purchases that we can do a lot better. Industry standard regs, developed between industry and consumer groups, that set a standard form contract for a type of purchase would mean a person could be reasonably confident of fair terms without having to read through a 600 page document every time they buy a plane ticket or buy a new computer game.

 djones520 wrote:
It feels weird being on the same page as Peregrine.

Right there with ya.

I personally hope he recovers a suitable amount of damages in civil court.

I hope United goes under and breaks up. The near monopoly of the airline industry does not serve the consumer interest very well at all.

Well, he's now lawyered up, big time.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/united-faces-more-questions-as-dragged-passenger-hires-high-powered-attorney/ar-BBzJ7GE?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=ASUDHP

Though I see the lawyer has negotiated settlements. To my mind, that wording suggests a lot of Out Of Court stuff.

Of course. There is absolutely no way UA want this going through court regardless of the rights and wrongs. They are in PR damage limitation mode right now.

 BigWaaagh wrote:
Well, he's now lawyered up, big time.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/united-faces-more-questions-as-dragged-passenger-hires-high-powered-attorney/ar-BBzJ7GE?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=ASUDHP

Of course. If I was a medical doctor $100k+ in debt and could only practice medicine 1 day per week following sanctioning for being a naughty doctor, I'd take this for the god send it is...

 CptJake wrote:

Well, it IS TMZ but....

http://www.tmz.com/2017/04/11/united-airlines-doctor-convicted-drugs-sex/

Spoiler:

The passenger who was savagely removed from United flight 3411 is a medical doctor with a sordid history.
Dr. David Dao was charged in 2005 with 98 felony drug counts for illegally prescribing and trafficking painkillers. Prosecutors claimed Dao fraudulently filled prescriptions for hydocodone, Oxycontin and Percocet.
Dr. Dao was also convicted on 6 felony counts of obtaining drugs by fraud and deceit and in 2005 was given 5 years probation.
Dao was also convicted for writing prescriptions and checks to a patient in exchange for sex.
In medical board documents ... Dao denied paying for sex, but indicated he accepted sexual favors from an associate in exchange for reducing a debt that associate owed him.
In February, 2005, Dr. Dao surrendered his license to practice medicine in Kentucky. In 2015 the medical board lifted the suspension and allowed him to practice medicine with some restrictions. Last year, the medical board imposed even more restrictions -- now he can only practice internal medicine in an outpatient facility one day a week.
Interestingly, and relevant to the United incident, one doctor assessing Dao's case said he had interpersonal problems, noting "... he would unilaterally choose to do his own thing."

If accurate, yes he was a doctor, but probably not one you would go to.

Edit: Whether the guy is shady or not, he's about to get paid. Well, his lawyers are, any way. Right Frazz?

From what I have read today, media reports are now saying the flight wasn't actually overbooked either. Which is interesting...

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/united-airlines-says-controversial-flight-was-not-overbooked-ceo-apologises-again/ar-BBzK3pM?li=BBoPWjQ

Oops! Meant to edit, not quote myself.

Bad Kronk!

Whether or not he was shady what did that matter to this event?