FT interview CEO United. The crucial difference

[mngmt mole]

Interesting interview in this weekends FT with Oscar Munoz, CEO of United. And I quote: " I represent the interests of almost 90,000 human beings (employees) in our system" he says. "That's by far my FIRST and FOREMOST commitment".

Note he said the employees are his most important commitment. Not the passengers. He has the maturity to realise that to have happy customers, you must first ensure you have happy employees. Wow, what a concept, in a people business. Who would have thought it?? :ugh:

Welcome to the dark ages in the history of Cathay Pacific.

[pill]

Passengers? CX is all about the share holder. Everything else is an annoyance.

[joblow]

Sorry it's not about the shareholders , it's about the directors bonuses

[geh065]

This week's events have kind of changed things about United eh!

[Freehills]

Well, to be fair, at first he backed his staff up (saying they followed procedure, and that Dr Dao was belligerent)

[joblow]

Doesn't matter if he was belligerent or not , he entered into a contract with united for travel from A to B once he purchased his ticket . Then once seated he had a legal right to that seat . To beat him up and drag him off the aircraft was disgusting and not acceptable . Had united simply kept upping the offer they would soon have found 2 other people willing to give up their seats .
The CEO initially made a half hearted apology to the Dr which he had to reverse a couple of days later , the share price lost $250 million overnight and united has suffered the worst kind of PR nightmare to say nothing of the tens of millions that they will have to pay to this passenger . Personally I don't think that it will get to court because if it goes in front of a jury he will be awarded a lot more money than a confidential settlement .
Had the CEO of united come out immediately and made a heartfelt apology and got ahead of this incident he could have circumvented a lot of the issues he has now . I wouldn't be surprised to see him step down over his handling of this
Co incidentally a family made $11,000 over the weekend by continually accepting compensation for a flight to Florida . I think they got 3 nights in hotels and cash incentives . So had united offered even $5000 someone would have taken it and they would be a lot better off in the long run

[Oasis]

Still... No matter how many tickets you hold for that seat, or how much you paid for that seat; if the crew tells you to get off the plane, you have to get off.

When the police tells you to do something, you better do it, especially in the states. The doctor should've known better, bad judgement.

Police was too aggressive (what else is new), but was out of control of United.

[Starbear]

Still... No matter how many tickets you hold for that seat, or how much you paid for that seat; if the crew tells you to get off the plane, you have to get off.

When the police tells you to do something, you better do it, especially in the states. The doctor should've known better, bad judgement.

Police was too aggressive (what else is new), but was out of control of United.

No not all true at all. Yes, passengers must obey a lawful command from the commander and yes, this can be delegated in many cases to cabin crew but the order MUST be lawful. Too many people readily quote commander is God etc........only in certain defined circumstances.

As to this incident itself, I would bet folding money that this will, in addition to appalling customer service and subsequent PR, boil down to the fact that the gate staff or their immediate manager, were not empowered to offer more than a defined amount to volunteer offloads. Up the ante and you will surely have success.
See any parallels in this neck of the woods?

[ROW_BOT]

No not all true at all.

In the aftermath of 9-11, and the paranoia in the US about another such attack, you would have to be an idiot to resist the direct order of airport security services or the Police.
All of your nicey-nice opinions about 'your rights' reduce to ZERO in the face of a direct order from the Cops. As Dr.Dao found out.
Now, you can debate all you like AFTER you follow the ORDER.
If you refuse....you know the consequences.

[Starbear]

In the aftermath of 9-11, and the paranoia in the US about another such attack, you would have to be an idiot to resist the direct order of airport security services or the Police.
All of your nicey-nice opinions about 'your rights' reduce to ZERO in the face of a direct order from the Cops. As Dr.Dao found out.
Now, you can debate all you like AFTER you follow the ORDER.
If you refuse....you know the consequences.

Not even remotely relevant to my reply. Oasis made the point that once the crew tell you to get off, you must get off. My comments are all about Commander authority (not security) and the oft misunderstood and quoted belief that passengers must follow any crew instructions-any! Simply not true, only lawful ones. If you believe otherwise then good luck when you apply that to the wrong person.

But you indirectly raise another valid point; That since 9/11 airlines and crew especially in the USA think they now have carte blanche to treat their customers any which way they like, under the very guise you highlight. This event, I am sure will go some way to disabuse many of you that hold such views.

[ROW_BOT]

The USA is becoming a police state. That's right.
Your delusion of freedom is clouding your perception.
Remove those rose tinted spectacles, wake up and smell the coffee.
This is the new REALITY.
Deal with it.

[Starbear]

The USA is becoming a police state. That's right.
Your delusion of freedom is clouding your perception.
Remove those rose tinted spectacles, wake up and smell the coffee.
This is the new REALITY.
Deal with it.
Ok I will as long as you promise to go back to school and learn to read what posts actually say and respond accordingly and not to what you think you read/understood they said.
Oh and btw USA always been a police state, in "the land of the free" just tightened up even more.

[Oasis]

I just saw a new video of the doctor in question, before the removal on the airplane.
The guy had it coming, the police were quite patient with him actually.
Maybe it was one of those 'loss of face' situations?
High ego individual vs police, not a good combo.


http://http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4405764/New-video-shows-United-passenger-s-argument-police.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4405764/New-video-shows-United-passenger-s-argument-police.html)

[Dragon69]

I just saw a new video of the doctor in question, before the removal on the airplane.
The guy had it coming, the police were quite patient with him actually.

Now the airline concedes
that the flight wasn't overbooked. When the lawyers are done with United and the city of Chicago will see who exactly had it coming. United just handed a winning lottery ticket to this individual.

I don't care who you are, El Capitan or a Walmart security official, passengers have rights.You can't arbitrarily remove a passenger that has been already issued a seat. What's the difference between being issued keys to your room only to be told midway through your hot shower that you have to vacate your room because the hotel now decided to give your room to one of their staff.

[megan]

Oasis, for the crew to remove a passenger from an aircraft they have to have a valid reason. It's all spelled out in the contract of carriage the reasons you may be removed, and none of the reasons were met in this case. Visit the UA website and read the contract of carriage.

[Oasis]

Oasis, for the crew to remove a passenger from an aircraft they have to have a valid reason. It's all spelled out in the contract of carriage the reasons you may be removed, and none of the reasons were met in this case. Visit the UA website and read the contract of carriage.

They had a valid reason, they needed to uplift crew to operate other flights.

[Oasis]

Now the airline concedes
that the flight wasn't overbooked. When the lawyers are done with United and the city of Chicago will see who exactly had it coming. United just handed a winning lottery ticket to this individual.

I don't care who you are, El Capitan or a Walmart security official, passengers have rights.You can't arbitrarily remove a passenger that has been already issued a seat. What's the difference between being issued keys to your room only to be told midway through your hot shower that you have to vacate your room because the hotel now decided to give your room to one of their staff.

The airline always said that they needed to uplift crew to operate other flights, in that respect, it doesn't 'now concede'.
The police deplaned the pax, not united, police brutality maybe, as they were rough, but that's how they are, ever watch 'cops'?
The captain and law enforcement have the right to deplane any passenger, and frequently do so for even lesser reasons, so in that case it does 'matter who you are'.
Passengers have rights, sure, but there is absolutely no obligation to carry them either.

[Dragon69]

The captain and law enforcement have the right to deplane any passenger,

No they don't, there has to be valid reason in accordance with the carriage of contract. Tell you what, on your next full flight, if you are even a Captain, why don't just offload a passenger to let your wife onboard. Let's see if there will be no consequences, let's see how fast CX will have you packing...bwahahahaha.

The police deplaned the pax,
First of all they weren't police! They were security officials. Second of all they are not judges or there to determine the validity of the instructions given by United. They are robots acting on behest of United. So ultimately it's United that is liable.

Instead of going back and forth, just sit back and watch the lawsuit unfold and see if they had the legal right to remove him for any reason.

http://onemileatatime.boardingarea.com/2017/04/11/united-denied-boarding-illegal/

[Airbubba]

First of all they weren't police! They were security officials.

Actually, they are police officers with the Chicago Department of Aviation.

[Dragon69]

Perhaps, I dunno the details, but every new organization refers to them as security officials.


Man dragged off United flight has concussion, will file suit, lawyer says
By Eliott C. McLaughlin, CNN

Updated 2355 GMT (0755 HKT) April 13, 2017



The officers are supposed to serve as a first line of defense, by assessing and containing the scene before police arrive. The unarmed security officers receive about half the number of standard training hours as Chicago police officers, who are armed.
"If there's no imminent threat, if there's no fight, if there's no danger to the passengers in the plane, then the role of the ASOs is to stay there, contain the situation until CPD (Chicago Police Department) arrives," Jeff Redding, a deputy commissioner overseeing airport security, told the aviation committee of the Chicago City Council on Thursday.
"Our protocol is not to go on the plane if it's a customer service issue," he said.
At least one of the officers in the videos was wearing a jacket emblazoned with the word "police," which officials banned several months ago, City Aviation Commissioner Ginger Evans told the panel.

[Oasis]

No they don't, there has to be valid reason in accordance with the carriage of contract. Tell you what, on your next full flight, if you are even a Captain, why don't just offload a passenger to let your wife onboard. Let's see if there will be no consequences, let's see how fast CX will have you packing...bwahahahaha.


First of all they weren't police! They were security officials. Second of all they are not judges or there to determine the validity of the instructions given by United. They are robots acting on behest of United. So ultimately it's United that is liable.

Instead of going back and forth, just sit back and watch the lawsuit unfold and see if they had the legal right to remove him for any reason.

http://onemileatatime.boardingarea.com/2017/04/11/united-denied-boarding-illegal/

The offload was for operational reasons, not to put someone's wife on board, so that is a bad comparison.
I am sure that the airline can offload someone based on that.

[hyg]

The offload was for operational reasons, not to put someone's wife on board, so that is a bad comparison.
I am sure that the airline can offload someone based on that.

yah for fuel uplift due to weather or weight restriction may be that's the kind of operational reasons that's acceptable.... as much as how the green shark fin has gone downhill all these years, i just cannot see Commercial would allow crew ctrl to demand an eviction of a passenger so they can send crew onboard..... if anything, commercial would probably tell flt ops, 'you guys should've told us earlier, so you screw up, you can buy the boys and girls their tickets out of your budget'

[Dragon69]

RULE 21 REFUSAL OF TRANSPORT
UA shall have the right to refuse to transport or shall have the right to remove from the aircraft at any point, any Passenger for the following reasons:

Breach of Contract of Carriage – Failure by Passenger to comply with the Rules of the Contract of Carriage.

Government Request, Regulations or Security Directives – Whenever such action is necessary to comply with any government regulation, Customs and Border Protection, government or airport security directive of any sort, or any governmental request for emergency transportation in connection with the national defense.

Force Majeure and Other Unforeseeable Conditions – Whenever such action is necessary or advisable by reason of weather or other conditions beyond UA’s control including, but not limited to, acts of God, force majeure, strikes, civil commotions, embargoes, wars, hostilities, terrorist activities, or disturbances, whether actual, threatened, or reported.

Search of Passenger or Property – Whenever a Passenger refuses to submit to electronic surveillance or to permit search of his/her person or property.

Proof of Identity – Whenever a Passenger refuses on request to produce identification satisfactory to UA or who presents a Ticket to board and whose identification does not match the name on the Ticket. UA shall have the right, but shall not be obligated, to require identification of persons purchasing tickets and/or presenting a ticket(s) for the purpose of boarding the aircraft.

Failure to Pay – Whenever a Passenger has not paid the appropriate fare for a Ticket, Baggage, or applicable service charges for services required for travel, has not paid an outstanding debt or Court judgment, or has not produced satisfactory proof to UA that the Passenger is an authorized non-revenue Passenger or has engaged in a prohibited practice as specified in Rule 6.

Across International Boundaries – Whenever a Passenger is traveling across any international boundary if:
The government required travel documents of such Passenger appear not to be in order according to UA's reasonable belief; or
Such Passenger’s embarkation from, transit through, or entry into any country from, through, or to which such Passenger desires transportation would be unlawful or denied for any reason.

Safety – Whenever refusal or removal of a Passenger may be necessary for the safety of such Passenger or other Passengers or members of the crew including, but not limited to:

Passengers whose conduct is disorderly, offensive, abusive, or violent;
Passengers who fail to comply with or interfere with the duties of the members of the flight crew, federal regulations, or security directives;
Passengers who assault any employee of UA, including the gate agents and flight crew, or any UA Passenger;
Passengers who, through and as a result of their conduct, cause a disturbance such that the captain or member of the cockpit crew must leave the cockpit in order to attend to the disturbance;
Passengers who are barefoot or not properly clothed;
Passengers who appear to be intoxicated or under the influence of drugs to a degree that the Passenger may endanger the Passenger or another Passenger or members of the crew (other than a qualified individual whose appearance or involuntary behavior may make them appear to be intoxicated or under the influence of drugs);
Passengers wearing or possessing on or about their person concealed or unconcealed deadly or dangerous weapons; provided, however, that UA will carry law enforcement personnel who meet the qualifications and conditions established in 49 C.F.R. §1544.219;
Passengers who are unwilling or unable to follow UA’s policy on smoking or use of other smokeless materials;
Unless they comply with Rule 6 I), Passengers who are unable to sit in a single seat with the seat belt properly secured, and/or are unable to put the seat’s armrests down when seated and remain seated with the armrest down for the entirety of the flight, and/or passengers who significantly encroach upon the adjoining passenger’s seat;
Passengers who are manacled or in the custody of law enforcement personnel;
Passengers who have resisted or may reasonably be believed to be capable of resisting custodial supervision;
Pregnant Passengers in their ninth month, unless such Passenger provides a doctor’s certificate dated no more than 72 hours prior to departure stating that the doctor has examined and found the Passenger to be physically fit for air travel to and from the destination requested on the date of the flight, and that the estimated date of delivery is after the date of the last flight;
Passengers who are incapable of completing a flight safely, without requiring extraordinary medical assistance during the flight, as well as Passengers who appear to have symptoms of or have a communicable disease or condition that could pose a direct threat to the health or safety of others on the flight, or who refuse a screening for such disease or condition. (NOTE: UA requires a medical certificate for Passengers who wish to travel under such circumstances. Visit UA’s website, united.com, for more information regarding UA’s requirements for medical certificates);
Passengers who fail to travel with the required safety assistant(s), advance notice and/or other safety requirements pursuant to Rules 14 and 15;
Passengers who do not qualify as acceptable Non-Ambulatory Passengers (see Rule 14);
Passengers who have or cause a malodorous condition (other than individuals qualifying as disabled);
Passengers whose physical or mental condition is such that, in United’s sole opinion, they are rendered or likely to be rendered incapable of comprehending or complying with safety instructions without the assistance of an escort. The escort must accompany the escorted passenger at all times; and
Unaccompanied passengers who are both blind and deaf, unless such passenger is able to communicate with representatives of UA by either physical, mechanical, electronic, or other means. Such passenger must inform UA of the method of communication to be used; and
Passengers who are unwilling to follow UA’s policy that prohibits voice calls after the aircraft doors have closed, while taxiing in preparation for takeoff, or while airborne.

Any Passenger who, by reason of engaging in the above activities in this Rule 21, causes UA any loss, damage or expense of any kind, consents and acknowledges that he or she shall reimburse UA for any such loss, damage or expense. UA has the right to refuse transport, on a permanent basis, to any passenger who, by reason of engaging in the above activities in this Rule 21, causes UA any loss, damage or expense of any kind, or who has been disorderly, offensive, abusive, or violent. In addition, the activities enumerated in H) 1) through 8) shall constitute a material breach of contract, for which UA shall be excused from performing its obligations under this contract.

UA is not liable for its refusal to transport any passenger or for its removal of any passenger in accordance with this Rule. A Passenger who is removed or refused transportation in accordance with this Rule may be eligible for a refund upon request. See Rule 27 A). As an express precondition to issuance of any refund, UA shall not be responsible for damages of any kind whatsoever. The passenger’s sole and exclusive remedy shall be Rule 27 A).


Show me where exactly it says that they have the right to remove you for operational reasons. You don't seem to understand that when you purchase a ticket you enter into an agreement or contract with the airline, and they are legally bound (with certain clauses) to get you to your destination.

This is not a case of the passenger being refused boarding at check in counter due no seats being available. This passenger has already been issued a ticket/boarding pass/seat and then refused transport.

Why the hell do you think the CEO quickly made a statement that the passenger was belligerent? He was trying to give some legitimacy into the actions.

You're obviously blindly stating that they have the right without anything to back up your statement.

[Oasis]

Show me where exactly it says that they have the right to remove you for operational reasons. You don't seem to understand that when you purchase a ticket you enter into an agreement or contract with the airline, and they are legally bound (with certain clauses) to get you to your destination.

This is not a case of the passenger being refused boarding at check in counter due no seats being available. This passenger has already been issued a ticket/boarding pass/seat and then refused transport.

Why the hell do you think the CEO quickly made a statement that the passenger was belligerent? He was trying to give some legitimacy into the actions.

You're obviously blindly stating that they have the right without anything to back up your statement.

Thank you for looking that up.
I agree it's a stretch, but it could be force majeure, for disturbance, the catch-all clause similar to what CX likes to use with us: 'unforeseen circumstances'.

Note also that it also says; 'but not limited to', leaving them a lot of leeway, which is what you want as an airline.



It may be a pr disaster, but they were within their rights to deplane the pax.

[Dragon69]

But not limited to" is within the scope of Force Majeur. It is not a Carte Blanche for the airline to do whatever it wants with no legal recourse. Otherwise they would not spend time and effort to outline the rules. They could simply say, "we have the right to refuse a passenger at any time with no reason" PERIOD, But of course that would not be allowed by the authorities.



FFS know what the definition of Force Majeur is.

Force Majeur are acts of God, so unless God himself wanted those four crews to travel ISO of the passenger, I am afraid United doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Force majeure (/ˌfɔːrs/ fors, /ˌfɔərs mɑːˈʒɜːr/ mah-zhur, or /məˈʒɜːr/ mə-zhur; French pronunciation: ​[fɔʁs maʒœʁ]) – or vis major (Latin) – meaning "superior force", also known as cas fortuit (French) or casus fortuitus (Latin) "chance occurrence, unavoidable accident",[1] is a common clause in contracts that essentially frees both parties from liability or obligation when an extraordinary event or circumstance beyond the control of the parties, such as a war, strike, riot, crime, or an event described by the legal term act of God (hurricane, flood, earthquake, volcanic eruption, etc.), prevents one or both parties from fulfilling their obligations under the contract.

NO they do not have the right to deplane for ANY REASON, and soon you will find out.

Sorry but you are really out to lunch.

[stilton]

If you call the cops in the US for a passenger problem it should only be when they are a danger or a potential danger to themselves, the flight or other passengers,
Otherwise this is what happens, these cops have two modes, instructions followed or violence (perhaps death) used to achieve instructions.


Many cops relish the opportunity to use force, airport cops are pretty close to the bottom of the barrel in education and training, couldn't be 'real cops' so they're frustrated from sitting around watching TV, playing video games or whatever


This should have been handled entirely within the airline by a gate supervisor, its a disgrace what happened to this passenger.

[Arfur Dent]

This whole sorry incident smacks of "last minute decision making". The place to deny boarding is at the gate. The crew should have already been on board and sitting in their seats - or the seats blocked off at least. Once passengers are on board it is too late and the crew should have been carried on another aircraft. Why were the crew in the wrong place? That is somebody's fault. Who decided to pick four passengers randomly and tell them to deplane? They nearly got away with it because the other three got off. That is somebody's fault too. This will cost United a huge amount of money in damages and share price. So it should. Talk about a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Should the CEO resign? Absolutely!

[Oasis]

But not limited to" is within the scope of Force Majeur. It is not a Carte Blanche for the airline to do whatever it wants with no legal recourse. Otherwise they would not spend time and effort to outline the rules. They could simply say, "we have the right to refuse a passenger at any time with no reason" PERIOD, But of course that would not be allowed by the authorities.



FFS know what the definition of Force Majeur is.

Force Majeur are acts of God, so unless God himself wanted those four crews to travel ISO of the passenger, I am afraid United doesn't have a leg to stand on.



NO they do not have the right to deplane for ANY REASON, and soon you will find out.

Sorry but you are really out to lunch.

You are getting a little too hot under the collar, Mate.
We're having a discussion here and you're getting all fight or flight on me.
No need to swear or call names.

Back to the discussion:

It says in black and white (your quote, not mine):
"force majeure and other unforseeable conditions"
Unfoseeable conditions as in: gee, the crew can't do their job on the next sector if we don't let them bump some passengers off.

[Dragon69]

Trying to PX four crew members last minute isn't considered unforeseeable when it relates to Force Majeur, to suggest that in court would be laughable.

Unforseeable would be something like a meteor leaving a big crater on the runway and indefinitely suspending operations.

They can't possibly list every single act of god on the contract and hence the wording of " but not limited to" or "unforeseeable". That clause isn't written to grant United operational flexibility by allowing them to remove passengers from a flight.

Of course any contract is open to interpretation, hence why we have lawyers, judges and courtrooms. But the majority of legal experts are fairly certain that United in this instance is liable and at fault.

You seem to think that because an airline has a carriage of contract that they can do whatever they want.. it's simply not true as they are about to find out, but my guess is that this will be settled out of court with a hefty settlement sum.

[404 Titan]

Dragon69

With all due respect you, I and probably most of the others on this thread aren't lawyers but the ones I've seen interviewed on TV over the last few days have all agreed that UA were legally entitled to off load the said passenger. How they went about it is where UA are going to find a world of hurt.

[pilot9249]

Aside from meteor strikes and God his self making desires directly known, force majeure surely includes bad weather.

I appreciate bad weather is more mundane than a meteor strike, it's also rather more common.

We don't know why they needed to transport crew, but bad weather anywhere on their system could be a valid contracted reason to deplane passengers.

I agree what was written upstream. The method of removal is the issue here, not the fact of removal.

[Luggage]

Doesn't matter if he was belligerent or not , he entered into a contract with united for travel from A to B once he purchased his ticket . Then once seated he had a legal right to that seat . To beat him up and drag him off the aircraft was disgusting and not acceptable . Had united simply kept upping the offer they would soon have found 2 other people willing to give up their seats .
The CEO initially made a half hearted apology to the Dr which he had to reverse a couple of days later , the share price lost $250 million overnight and united has suffered the worst kind of PR nightmare to say nothing of the tens of millions that they will have to pay to this passenger . Personally I don't think that it will get to court because if it goes in front of a jury he will be awarded a lot more money than a confidential settlement .
Had the CEO of united come out immediately and made a heartfelt apology and got ahead of this incident he could have circumvented a lot of the issues he has now . I wouldn't be surprised to see him step down over his handling of this
Co incidentally a family made $11,000 over the weekend by continually accepting compensation for a flight to Florida . I think they got 3 nights in hotels and cash incentives . So had united offered even $5000 someone would have taken it and they would be a lot better off in the long run

Everything you say is true however the contract also says UA has the right to remove any passenger from a plane if they need the seats for other people.

Might not seem fair or right but currently thats the law.

[oriental flyer]

I predict that united will settle this out if Court for an undisclosed sum which will be many millions .
The stupid thing is that they could have positioned the crew by road it's only a 4-5 hour drive . From all reports that I have read they were positioning to operate the next day .
Following the 2-3 delay after disembarking the passengers before departure it probably would have been a better course of action . Certainly a lot cheaper
United , we need one more seat 5k no takers, 10k would have done it half the aircraft would have got off

[pilot9249]

I predict that united will settle this out if Court for an undisclosed sum which will be many millions .
The stupid thing is that they could have positioned the crew by road it's only a 4-5 hour drive . From all reports that I have read they were positioning to operate the next day .
Following the 2-3 delay after disembarking the passengers before departure it probably would have been a better course of action . Certainly a lot cheaper
United , we need one more seat 5k no takers, 10k would have done it half the aircraft would have got off

I agree very poor decision making and court victory inevitable.

What this boils down to is United inviting a police officer to come outside of their jurisdiction to drag an old man off a plane because of a civil contract dispute that the police officer would have had no jurisdiction over even if it was in the terminal building they were actually employed to secure.

Shocking for United and shocking for the City of Chicago.

Thank heavens that due to smartphones and stubborn old men, the world might now be a slightly better place.

Wishing Dr Dao a speedy recovery.

[Dragon69]

Everything you say is true however the contract also says UA has the right to remove any passenger from a plane if they need the seats for other people.

Might not seem fair or right but currently thats the law.

Where do you see this?

People have naturally assumed for years that this is the case therefore it most be true and the airlines haven't been legally challenged until now. Seems as if my package on FedEx has more rights.

By United's own Carriage of Contract it is clear that they have separate clauses for Denied Boarding and Refusal of Transport. This gentleman had already been issued a ticket and he had already boarded. Therefore everything relating to overbooking and involuntary denial of boarding does not apply.

It will be up to judge/jury to decide if UAL has breached the Carriage of Contract. Like other posters, I also think that this will be settled out of court to prevent a precedent being set, and opening the door to multitude of lawsuits by other passengers.

[Octane]

Will the poor man dragged off the aircraft become a multi millionare out of this?
If so, the world has gone mad....

[Starbear]

Will the poor man dragged off the aircraft become a multi millionare out of this?
If so, the world has gone mad....

No, if indeed that is the result, it would mean that finally someone has to be held responsible and pay for such reprehensible behaviour. Just possibly, the effects may cascade just a little throughout the industry.

As to calls for the CEO to resign; I think he should actually stay and demonstrate that even people at the top can learn from mistakes by showing some real leadership in sorting this and ensuring the processes are changed/confirmed and subsequently adhered to. This despite his appalling balls up with his first public statement.

[Shep69]

Bad things can happen when someone becomes more interested in preserving their 'authority' rather than solving the problem and task at hand. Humility can be a wonderful quality.

Yes, they have the authority to throw people off the airplane if they want or need to (which is their private property anyway--subject to conditions of carriage and law--which in this case they could). Yes, the cops (or kinda-cops) have the authority to use physical force (level of which depending on the threat) in doing so. But how they do so does matter. The reasons why airlines (and other transport modes) exist in the first place is because people want to go from point A to point B. So the pax are the reason why pilots, f/a's, maintainers, fuelers, schedulers, ground staff, managers, and support staff have a job in the first place. No pax, no airline, no profit, no job.

Plenty of blame to go around. United/Republic for boarding in the first place (and the subsequent decisions they made), pax for not leaving, the City of Chicago's pseudo-cops for dragging an old man around and banging him up.

Good judgment seems harder to come by these days. But good judgment can mean everything in handling even relatively simple situations which can escalate.

It's a PR and litigation nightmare which will cost many times that of a chartered jet for the trip. Everyone gets sued, everyone sues each other, thrown off pax likely gets a hefty settlement from United/Republic and the city. Passenger got banged up, airline and cops get their image badly tarnished, airline and city lose money. People make fun of United on the internet and late night TV. Real losing situation for a lot of people. All over what was a relatively minor incident (made by lower echelon decision makers) escalating.

The lesson learned for me is it's wise to pay for people with good judgment (giving them coherent guidance, training, and leadership for the tasks they might face) and take good care of them because a bad decision in the trenches can cost you a lot of money at the top.

[configsafenot]

Having watched the various footage and read or heard the various statements and the three apologies from Munoz

As a regular pax, I have these questions that I would like clarifying please....

When you have bought your ticket and you are sitting in your seat waiting for the doors to close and the crew come over the tannoy asking of anyone would be willing to be bumped for "x, y, z amount" of compensation, you are not obliged to stick up your hand and say "Yes I will" or are you?

If you choose to stay on board and someone...whether cabin crew, cockpit crew or security...pick you out despite you not volunteering, can they legally force you off the plane even if you have said no and you can prove that getting off would cause you more issues than benefits?

If after you have been rugby tackled out of your seat, having said no to being bumped, and you are manhandled off the plane battered and bloodied, is it then correct protocol for the airline CEO to then accuse you of belligerence, accuse you of being a past criminal, drag your name and your family through the mud in order that it looks better that they treated you worse than a piece of meat?

Why would a CEO send a memo to the effect of congratulating the crew on a job well done, then an apology for that memo, then drag the victim's name through the mud and place all the blame on him and then only when the share price nosedives suddenly apologise a third time for the previous 2 apologies and to the victim for the abhorent treatment that he deserved?

I have heard of moving the goalposts but what Munoz said and did and tried to cover his tail not once but 3 times.....I'm sorry but if I was treated like that on a plane where VOLUNTEERS were requested and when none came forward I was summarily beaten up, dragged off the plane, then have my character assassinated....erm...I think I would take that airline to the cleaners and then some

You kind of expect staff and gate staff to try and cover their behinds with "well he was belligerent" etc but not the CEO

United/Republic brought all the problems onto themselves by the way they handled what should have been a simple situation, if a pax says no I cannot go on the later flight then that should be that, asking for volunteers and then beating a bloke up for not volunteering or agreeing to volunteer is bang out of order and for the CEO to then run a smear campaign against the bloke...well Munoz should not be in that job

Mr Dao would be well in his rights to turn this not to just an assault but possibly even racially motivated...afterall, had Mr Dao been any other nationality, would security have dealt with him in the same way?

Why single him out over everyone else on the plane, I cannot believe that he was the only pax to say "no" when asked to volunteer...

[configsafenot]

Adding insult to injury, apparently the airline failed to take off Mr Dao's checked baggage when he was evicted from the plane.....and then when they did take it off, they couriered it to the wrong address too

If it was not so serious it would be laughable that an airline could stuff things up so completely

[The name is Porter]

If I was United Airlines, I'd be telling Mr Dao to GFH. There are Federal laws that cater for the repositioning of crew regardless of the 'contract of carriage' that if any of you 'he had a right to keep his seat' brigade bothered to read, you'd see that as a passenger you basically have no rights at all.

His behaviour was disgraceful, childish and embarrassing. And the US is a police state is it? Grow up, it's one of the most relaxed places I've been to despite all of the security challenges they've had to deal with over the past 15 years.

[BusyB]

"His behaviour was disgraceful, childish and embarrassing."

Guess you're talking about Munoz!!!!

[Koan]

Ralph Nader Explains Why United Airlines Has "Total Unbridled Discretion to Throw You Off a Plane" (http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/40233-ralph-nader-explains-why-united-airlines-has-total-unbridled-discretion-to-throw-you-off-a-plane)

The internet lawyers say say otherwise. Fine. Even if United was wrong under contract law you don't have the legal right to force the non-compliant party to uphold their promises in contract (by in this case refusing to leave their airplane), you sue them. Dr. Dao should have called Ralph Nader instead of whoever he was calling threatening lawsuits and taunting Police in the video . Nader would have told him to get off the plane.

[Dragon69]

When the bumbling buffoon goes from claiming belligerence to feeling shamed, then taking the unprecedented step of refunding every single passenger on that flight, you can obviously sense the nervousness. All this back peddling isn't because he's had a change of heart, it's because he's been advised by his team of lawyers.

[pilot9249]

If I was United Airlines, I'd be telling Mr Dao to GFH. There are Federal laws that cater for the repositioning of crew regardless of the 'contract of carriage' that if any of you 'he had a right to keep his seat' brigade bothered to read, you'd see that as a passenger you basically have no rights at all.

His behaviour was disgraceful, childish and embarrassing. And the US is a police state is it? Grow up, it's one of the most relaxed places I've been to despite all of the security challenges they've had to deal with over the past 15 years.

I suppose varied reactions to this news item stem from differing perspectives and expectations.

Some would suppose that a seated passenger is expecting that they may be removed and therefore be compliant if it happens.

Some may be expecting that at some point excepting obvious safety issues, the passenger is seated and therefore eligible to fly.

No doubt average US crew member expectations differ from the average customer.

The issue here is that there was no obvious safety issue, just the question of operational convenience of the carrier.

That such a debate should end up in a passenger in an unconscious state, bleeding with broken teeth is surely deeply unfortunate no matter what your expectation.

I think this case will help clarify the relative importance of the operational convenience of the carrier.

That clarity will surely improve the world slightly, not detract from it.

[ROW_BOT]

The safety issue is a refusal to follow crew instructions, which amounts to disruptive behaviour and is a threat to discipline and good order on the aircraft. A common precursor to airborne Air Rage incidents.
I'm really surprised any airline pilot would side with this guy, given your responsibilities if it later goes pear shaped. If you like taking risks on human behaviour then go ahead - I hope I never fly on your aircraft and end up diverting into some hole in the back of beyond on a dark winter night thanks to a 'nice old guy' gone berserk.
Get him off - let him sue. No longer your problem. That's the correct course of action.
The means are his choice.

[BusyB]

They weren't crew instructions. Stop making things up. No safety issue involved apart from the safety of individuals dealing with Chicago Airport Police.