Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

USA Today: UA forcibly remove random pax from flight

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

USA Today: UA forcibly remove random pax from flight

Old 14th Apr 2017, 02:20
  #901 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 4,901
Originally Posted by parabellum View Post
The thug who physically removed the Doctor from the flight was employed by the airport security services, he was an ex policeman and had history. He was not a serving police officer, nor was he a United Airlines employee.
Actually, all three of those guys are police officers with the Chicago Department of Aviation. They are required to stay proficient with firearms but aren't allowed to carry them. They are not part of the Chicago Police Department, maybe that's what got you confused.
Airbubba is online now  
Old 14th Apr 2017, 02:40
  #902 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 357
Originally Posted by WHBM View Post
The injuries are also not particularly consistent with the grab and pull from seat that we saw. To me, they sound more like someone who has been taken round the corner into the jetway and then been given a good "seeing to" by a group of giggling thugs.
When you looked at the video, he was pulled out of his seat, and his face smashed into the armrest on the other side of the aisle. This would be when the broken teeth, nose, blood and his unconsciousness came from. Dragging him along the aisle would have been the only option as he was unconscious from that impact.
p.j.m is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2017, 02:41
  #903 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 357
Originally Posted by parabellum View Post
As the doctor was pulled from his seat his head came down very heavily on an adjacent arm rest and I think you will find that is where the injuries occurred.
yes, that was what I saw in the video too.
p.j.m is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2017, 03:06
  #904 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Mk. 1 desk at present...
Posts: 358
Originally Posted by Basil View Post
The CVR and FDR are for accident investigation and ONLY for accident investigation.
I would hope that pilot unions across the World would threaten strike action if they are used for anything else. (Yes I know they have been)
Would anyone who works in an office permit their every move and comment to be recorded and possibly used against them by their company or the courts? Can you imagine the screams of outrage?
We, magnanimously, permitted CVR and FDR to assist accident investigation and to avoid repeating errors; not for greedy litigation!
I would agree. But there's something you've missed here. The allegations in court are (IMHO; IANAL) very likely to include conspiracy. That the company and/or the security agents and/or a diverse range of United employees etc. conspired to have 'my client' assaulted and wrongfully arrested etc etc.

The CVR may provide important exculpatory evidence for the flight deck crew. And whether the contents are exculpatory or not it would almost certainly have to be produced in any case as part of discovery proceedings. If it still exists of course...
Ranger One is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2017, 03:12
  #905 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 210
Originally Posted by oldtora View Post
There are many situations where PAX inflexibility in face of authority will NEVER work
But in this case, it appears to be working splendidly. Actual change may come of it.
Arguing with authority is invariably a waste of time and effort .
I'm sure that there are large numbers of Indians and African Americans (among others) who would point to the last 75 years or so and take rather strong exception to your position.
Gauges and Dials is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2017, 03:14
  #906 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Mk. 1 desk at present...
Posts: 358
Originally Posted by oldtora View Post
Thanks for the explanation , old carthusian . You point out that I missed the point that he had a ticket . Oh he had a ticket ? Yep , but there are only so many seats , so someone must deplane . The previously efficient UA , now unable to explain to the pax that he is ' it ' , and the pax unable to accept that he is ' it ' , cannot agree .
Except there IS no 'it' because United have no provision in their contract of carriage which allows them to compel an individual passenger to deplane unless certain particular circumstances arise - none of which apply in this case. "someone must deplane" you say. Incorrect. In these circumstances no-one 'must' deplane. As I and many others have pointed out throughout this discussion.
Ranger One is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2017, 03:17
  #907 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 210
Originally Posted by oldtora View Post
MY solution would be to lean across the aisle and tell the PAX that I (myself) volunteer to leave , and that it's all right for him (PAX) to calm down now ; and then I will tell the police that I volunteer
The mass graves of history are jam-packed with the bones of those who shared your perspective.
Gauges and Dials is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2017, 03:24
  #908 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 5,101
The CVR may provide important exculpatory evidence for the flight deck crew. And whether the contents are exculpatory or not it would almost certainly have to be produced in any case as part of discovery proceedings. If it still exists of course...
I do not believe that purely civil tort cases may assume the the CVR has to be produced .

It was designed and installed as a regulatory requirement to serve a specific purpose. To extend that purpose should necessarily require cooperation by the FAA and I doubt that they will accede.

I also don't believe that United can control it's custody either.

The best thing that can happen here is for the CVR to be bulked erased and re-installed for continued use since no restrictions are placed against its reuse by the Feds.

I can't help but think that any court actions (to be filed) would not include the operator of the flight nor it's equipment.
lomapaseo is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2017, 03:49
  #909 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: The land of the Rising Sun
Posts: 161
Thanks for the explanation , old carthusian . You point out that I missed the point that he had a ticket . Oh he had a ticket ? Yep , but there are only so many seats , so someone must deplane . The previously efficient UA , now unable to explain to the pax that he is ' it ' , and the pax unable to accept that he is ' it ' , cannot agree . So the police come , and the pax remains unable to accept that he is ' it ' , and they cannot agree . So what would be YOUR solution ? How would old carthusian resolve the disagreement ? MY solution would be to lean across the aisle and tell the PAX that I (myself) volunteer to leave , and that it's all right for him (PAX) to calm down now ; and then I will tell the police that I volunteer

oldtora

Once again I should remind you we are not talking about the police but airport security - a different bunch of people.

The ticket is an important detail as not only had it been accepted by United and the passenger had been allowed to board but under its conditions he was within his rights to insist that United carry him or offer him adequate compensation. The latter did not happen so he insisted that United carry him for what most would consider quite valid reasons. United themselves have acknowledged this to be the situation (Munoz's most recent statement) and promised that this kind of situation will never happen again. That part of the argument is over. What part of 'United had no right to ask the passenger to leave' do you not understand? As for my solution which no doubt will happen from now on is that the passenger if they do not wish to vacate the flight having already boarded and have a valid ticket is carried.
Old Carthusian is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2017, 04:34
  #910 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Australia
Posts: 317
For you people still saying the Doc was in the wrong. Have you not listened to the CEO apologising? Can you not understand they had no lawfull reason to remove him, therefore everything that followed was illegal?

This man's stubborn behaviour has changed the way SLF are treated for the better. It may cost a couple of dollars more, I personally don't care and will be happy that once I'm on the aircraft as SLF, I'm a bit less likely to be bumped off.
Cloudee is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2017, 04:44
  #911 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Sydney Australia
Age: 69
Posts: 0
Rose-coloured glasses

There have been a few posts mentioning the change in the US since 9/11. Well you can stop looking at the past through rose-coloured glasses - America's descent into authoritarianism had started well before then.

I went to Hawaii with my wife for a holiday in the early 1980's, and I was shocked at the aggressive attitude of the immigration officials. I'm Australian - you know, the country that said "All the way with LBJ", sent troops to Viet Nam, and subsequently to Afghanistan an Iraq. I vowed then never to go back. And it's even worse now:

Mem Fox, Australian author, gets apology after being wrongfully detained at LA airport - Donald Trump's America - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

And I the ineptitude of the UA staff is just breathtaking. By contrast, I remember a Qantas domestic flight a few years ago, where a minor incident was handled very cleverly by experienced and professional CC. An economy class passenger had popped his oversized carry-on suitcase into a Business class overhead locker on his way down to the back of the plane. The steward (with a grin on his face) announced that there was an unidentified bag on the plane, and that in accordance with airline regulations it would taken off unless claimed. Embarassed passenger came up from the back of the plane to collect it. Job done, no drama.

I'm not for one second condoning bad behaviour under any circumstances. But, when you treat paying passengers like why are you surprised when some of them act badly?
rob_ginger is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2017, 05:02
  #912 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: CYYC (Calgary)
Posts: 4,829
WIRED article:
How United Turned the Friendly Skies Into a Flying Hellscape
https://www.wired.com/2017/04/united...CNDID=18840833

Interesting history that I wasn't aware of.
India Four Two is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2017, 05:27
  #913 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sydney
Age: 56
Posts: 356
I'm obviously missing something here. The CEO has apologised and said it was wrong and won't happen again. The CofC don't seem to give an airline the authority to deplane after boarding. The LEO may not even have had jurisdiction.

And plenty of people here saying the guy should have meekly complied to a request which appears to have been unlawful. Sure he could have complied. But don't we remember and celebrate those that have made a stand as a matter of principle. Like sitting in the front of a bus, or standing in front of a tank in Tiananmen Square.

Has US now become the land of the fearful and the home of the downtrodden?
slats11 is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2017, 06:50
  #914 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 10,594
Originally Posted by WingNut60 View Post
It was not the last UA flight home on that day. There was a later flight but Dr Dao was not offered a seat on that later flight, though it seems that he would have been prepared to accept that as an offer.

But in fact, they did not offer him a seat on that later flight. Nor did they offer him a seat on the following morning's flight; nor on the mid/late morning flight.
Nor did they offer to get him on any competitor's flights - probably understandable, but it was an option; to try at least.

That is precisely why and when he dug his heels in. Which is also when UA decided to execute their perceived next-best option.
I was wondering about that, too.

United have 5 ORD-SDF flights most days.

Of course it may just have been that the intervening flights were full, but coincidentally (or not) only 2 of those 5 UAs (the flight the doctor was on and the afternoon one they wanted to bump him onto) are operated by Republic.

The other three are flown by different codeshare partners (1 x Skywest, 2 x Trans States).

Does anyone know if there could have been some revenue-related reason why United would have avoided giving him a seat on, say, the late evening flight ? If so, then we'd be looking at United's inflexibility having started off the whole farrago.

Having said that, even if there were no earlier seats available, it beggars belief that United clearly couldn't care less about the impact of delaying a passenger nearly 24 hours.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2017, 07:06
  #915 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 97
Here's a blogged analysis of the case by a Professor of Law (at Cornell):

Dorf on Law: United Airlines' Own Contract Denied it any Right to Remove Passenger
robdean is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2017, 07:17
  #916 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 4,901
A legal question I have is won't this case end up in federal district court due to diversity and interstate commerce?

Or, can it stay in state court even though Dr. Dao is a Kentucky resident and many of the issues of the deplaning seem to be covered by federal law?
Airbubba is online now  
Old 14th Apr 2017, 07:24
  #917 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 10,594
Originally Posted by Airbubba View Post
A legal question I have is won't this case end up in federal district court due to diversity and interstate commerce?

Or, can it stay in state court even though Dr. Dao is a Kentucky resident and many of the issues of the deplaning seem to be covered by federal law?
There was a reference to which court would have jurisdiction during yesterday's press conference given by Dao's attorney. A county court was mentioned, I think, but I don't recall which one.

United Airlines Passenger David Dao's Attorney Holds Press Conference | TIME
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2017, 07:37
  #918 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 4,901
I think the initial filing for discovery is in the Circuit Court of Cook County. I'm wondering if the case will eventually end up in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
Airbubba is online now  
Old 14th Apr 2017, 07:53
  #919 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Richmond, Ca
Posts: 27
The UA pilots union has weighed in and they place the blame on the Chicago Airport authority. In the opinion of the UA pilots, using ARMED CPD officers would have yielded a different outcome. I happen to agree with the union...Dr. Dao would likely be dead from either multiple tasings, or a GSW. UA's pilots union may be outraged, but their head is clearly up their back passage. The blame is clearly on the UA process. This never should have reached ANY law enforcement authority to resolve what was clearly a company generated problem. As a matter of public policy, I resent like hell ANY corporation using law enforcement to clean up their fark ups. UA, you caused it, YOU own it. Everything else is just noise. When you're already in a hole, you ought to quit digging.
SalNichols is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2017, 08:09
  #920 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Wallisellen, Switzerland
Age: 71
Posts: 145
Originally Posted by SalNichols View Post
This case will indeed go to trial.United may want to settle, hell it's in their best interest to settle. However, Dr. Dao's attorney is the one dictating the terms, including compensatory and punitive damages. Compensatory is easy...hospital and rehab, plus loss of income etc. Punitive damages are up to a jury, and in this case the potential is massive. If you can rx $93M for spilling hot coffee in your groin, imagine what you can rx for fractured sinuses received at the hands of an airline and police to remove you from an airplane that you had boarded and on which you were peacefully waiting to depart.

The absolute disdain that the industry feels for it's clients is displayed right here, and it's evident in the term SLF...Self Loading Freight. It's f-ing arrogant, demeaning and intentionally disrespectful of the people that you are paid to serve. I only have 3.3M miles in the air, mostly on AA, but there is no f-ing way that I would have given up my seat on the plane if it was going to cost me a full days worth of income. A pissant $800 voucher with an expiration date wouldn't make up the difference.

BTW, quite a few of the people you denigrate as SLF...are a lot smarter than you. We not only fly on our own, we designed and built your goddamn planes.
I strongly agree that the term Self Loading Freight has to go. It is arrogant, elitist, and demeaning, and has no place here.
AmericanFlyer is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.