USA Today: UA forcibly remove random pax from flight
It now appears that the smear tactics against the Doctor may have been not only ill-advised, but even totally incorrect.
Apparently the airline grab-and-drag victim's full name is David Thanh Duc Dao, medically registered in New Orleans, LA; whereas the guy named in the Kentucky Board of Medical Licensure letters is David Anh Duy Dao, registered in Elizabethtown, KY.
It's just possible that it's the same guy who's cheekily registered himself in two different states using different spellings of his middle names... or just possibly someone's now due a libel payout on top of all his other compensation...
Apparently the airline grab-and-drag victim's full name is David Thanh Duc Dao, medically registered in New Orleans, LA; whereas the guy named in the Kentucky Board of Medical Licensure letters is David Anh Duy Dao, registered in Elizabethtown, KY.
It's just possible that it's the same guy who's cheekily registered himself in two different states using different spellings of his middle names... or just possibly someone's now due a libel payout on top of all his other compensation...
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It now appears that the smear tactics against the Doctor may have been not only ill-advised, but even totally incorrect.
More (hearsay):
David Thanh Duc Dao, MD vs. David Anh Duy Dao MD
https://www.reddit.com/r/aznidentity...paign_against/
It's not at all obvious that a passenger refusing to move to free up a space committing any offence,
It is an OFFENCE to not follow cabin crew instructions. I have off loaded a passenger in Australia for smoking an E cigarette who was slow to desist when asked by cabin crew. I do not have to tolerate someone on my aircraft who will not follow instructions from cabin crew.
So in the US, he failed to follow their instructions so the police and/or security were called. Pretty clear breach of aviation law.
As to whether he could be removed, what do the terms of carriage say. I can only speak for Australia and the UK where the airlines guarantees to provide NOTHING in return for your booking.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The captain's role and authority is one factor that will be considered in court. It will be far indeed from being the only one.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Victoria
Posts: 468
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Completely in your mind.
It is an OFFENCE to not follow cabin crew instructions. I have off loaded a passenger in Australia for smoking an E cigarette who was slow to desist when asked by cabin crew. I do not have to tolerate someone on my aircraft who will not follow instructions from cabin crew.
So in the US, he failed to follow their instructions so the police and/or security were called. Pretty clear breach of aviation law.
As to whether he could be removed, what do the terms of carriage say. I can only speak for Australia and the UK where the airlines guarantees to provide NOTHING in return for your booking.
It is an OFFENCE to not follow cabin crew instructions. I have off loaded a passenger in Australia for smoking an E cigarette who was slow to desist when asked by cabin crew. I do not have to tolerate someone on my aircraft who will not follow instructions from cabin crew.
So in the US, he failed to follow their instructions so the police and/or security were called. Pretty clear breach of aviation law.
As to whether he could be removed, what do the terms of carriage say. I can only speak for Australia and the UK where the airlines guarantees to provide NOTHING in return for your booking.
why did they not try and find another pax to deplane? Using command authority in this situation was the worst call and will ultimately cost the airline(the commanders employer) dearly!!
Legal instruction relates to safety this was not anything of the sort..
my aircraft( its not yours its your employers)- Please!!!!
Last edited by SW1; 12th Apr 2017 at 10:04. Reason: my aircraft quote
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's an industry that has got the idea in its head that customers only care about low prices, therefore they prioritize cost cutting above everything, customer service included. Overbooking, shipping your deadheading crew as cheaply as possible, limit amount to offer to pax for off-loading, or whatever else, is just a result of this mantra - Be as efficient as possible. It's a dangerous game to play - a race to the bottom. But dark things lie in the bottom of this pit. Things that should keep every CEO up at night.
The captain of that flight is the ultimate authority
Authority, yes. But this authority has limits. Too many people here purporting (and hopefully only purporting) to be pilots don't appear to recognise there are limits. Maybe you have watched "Catch me if you can" too many times.
Surprising that some pilots are rushing to suggest they would accept responsibility for this and that they are in charge and nothing happens without their consent....... Because any sensible person would run as far and fast as possible from any responsibility for this disaster.
Hopefully the PIC was oblivious and doesn't take the fall. Because someone certainly is.
Someone will have already determined that all possible defendants will be joined in this action. That is already locked in. This is legal SOP and necessary if the case goes to trial and some evidence emerges that points the finger at some party - you want that party to be present in court as a defendant. This case isn't going to trial however. But you still want all possible defendants joined - there is a $ figure which will settle this, and the more defendants the less each one has to contribute and the easier to reach that figure.
The LEO know how bad this is - they have already stood someone down pending investigation.
The aviation people have much less situational awareness. In some ways it is not really their fault (although it is now their problem):
1.Airline staff have had a lot of leeway in a post 9/11 world, and they have used (and abused) this. They can be rude and offend and belittle a pax. If the pax becomes belligerent, they are deemed a security issue and dealt with. I think this attitude of power imbalance is cultured at the Flight Attendant factory - and some of the young cabin crew are susceptible to this power trip. For years now, they have got away with behaviour that simply would not be tolerated in any other customer service industry. Be honest here - how many of you would tolerate being treated in a restaurant the way your company treats your pax (the ones that make you profitable)? Every pax understands safety and security and emergencies. And every pax knows these justifications are over-used and abused every day. Every judge and every jury member will have endured over-officious airline staff - and the lawyers involved will know this. Yet another reason this case is never seeing the inside of a court room.
2. Airline staff have not had to deal with their actions being recorded on phones to the same extent as other industries. Police, EMS, teachers etc have all learned this lesson the hard way. Police know that every arrest or altercation will be recorded - and then edited as necessary before youtube. Aviation will catch up and learn this lesson - I suspect this incident was lesson 1.
This was handled extraordinarily poorly by all concerned. You couldn't have made this up 2 days ago.It completely got out of hand and spiralled out of control - because everyone focused on their rights and authority, and overlooked their responsibilities and common decency. And there will now be a very expensive day of reckoning. And this case will be cited as a textbook case of "How not to...." for many decades to come.
If some of you here really are pilots, I sincerely hope you never fly me or my family. Because I won't trust you with that responsibility while you cling to this delusion of absolute power.
Last edited by slats11; 12th Apr 2017 at 10:21. Reason: typo
As all commissioned officers SHOULD know: there is a difference between a LAWFUL and an UNLAWFUL command. Which this was appears to be open to debate.
As has been said: 'Should have a few lawyers salivating'.
As has been said: 'Should have a few lawyers salivating'.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
United is impregnable on many routes - the merger with Continental should never have been allowed to happen. Along with the likes of Walmart, Citibank and Comcast, through the utterly corrupt political system now in place in the USA, trusts are on the rise. Domestic carriers in the USA are now pseudo-trusts.
All this guff upthread about being in a consumer market, people voting with their feet etc, is a fundamental misreading of the situation. Stockholders understand though.
That you can batter one of your customers, have it seen around the world, and your stockholders continue on as if nothing has happened? Citizens United really has made big company's utterly untouchable.
As has been pointed out numerous times, it's only when the instruction is lawful that disobeying is an offence. In this case there is serious doubt the instruction was legal, hence disobeying is not an offence.
Unlike what some here have been postulating, you're not devoid of rights once you enter an aircraft. Quite the contrary, actually.
Unlike what some here have been postulating, you're not devoid of rights once you enter an aircraft. Quite the contrary, actually.
Originally Posted by slats11
If some of you here really are pilots, I sincerely hope you never fly me or my family. Because I won't trust you with that responsibility while you cling to this delusion of absolute power.
I don't think that, in all of my flying career, I met a power-crazed individual. We are busy enough without getting into all that authority stuff for fun; we very occasionally and reluctantly do when there is little or no option.
slats11......
A good summing up........
A good summing up........
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 373
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brilliant and accurate post slats11.
The airline industry, especially in USA, is full of it (and themselves).
because everyone focused on their rights and authority, and overlooked their responsibilities and common decency.
Basil
It has to be a lawful command
It also has to be a reasonable and justifiable command - and there is an implicit assumption such command pertains to safe operation of ship or plane.
I don't think any of these applied in this case.
Anyway, those of you clinging to the LAWFUL part will be confident the defendants will win in court. I wouldn't be so sure.
the Pilot in Command of an aircraft has absolute power UNDER THE LAW and it is a criminal offence to disobey a LAWFUL command.
It also has to be a reasonable and justifiable command - and there is an implicit assumption such command pertains to safe operation of ship or plane.
I don't think any of these applied in this case.
Anyway, those of you clinging to the LAWFUL part will be confident the defendants will win in court. I wouldn't be so sure.
Pilots interpreting the law? Good one. And please lay off the 'my aircraft' guff. The commands have to be lawful to start with. The aircraft is on the gate and belongs to United. I have personally witnessed an over enthusiastic cabin person shouting at a passenger for using the wrong class of toilet ( United). And finishing off with 'haven't you heard of 9/11?' This is a grotesque use of 'power' to invoke such a tragic event to enforce petty rules to back up cabin crew interpretation of the 'law'. The correspondent who said that a backlash in the way customers are treated is on the way is spot on. He / she has recognised that for example a 300 dollar bill paid in a restaurant will have you treated like a king but a 300 dollar airline ticket means treating the customer like dirt. Karma is en route.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: LPPT
Age: 58
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hindsight and all that, let’s assume (bad word choice I know) that the order to deplane IS lawful under those particular circumstances, why not deplane everybody?
Why go after a single seat forcefully (target fixation), when it should have been easier to sort things out at the terminal, and when ALL pax were supposedly under the same obligation to deplane if given the command to do so (as they were later while they had to sanitize the aircraft).
Case study gold material.
Why go after a single seat forcefully (target fixation), when it should have been easier to sort things out at the terminal, and when ALL pax were supposedly under the same obligation to deplane if given the command to do so (as they were later while they had to sanitize the aircraft).
Case study gold material.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can only speak for UK law but, as with the Master of a ship at sea, the Pilot in Command of an aircraft has absolute power UNDER THE LAW and it is a criminal offence to disobey a LAWFUL command.
I don't think that, in all of my flying career, I met a power-crazed individual. We are busy enough without getting into all that authority stuff for fun; we very occasionally and reluctantly do when there is little or no option.
I don't think that, in all of my flying career, I met a power-crazed individual. We are busy enough without getting into all that authority stuff for fun; we very occasionally and reluctantly do when there is little or no option.
121.317 (k) Each passenger shall comply with instructions given him or her by a crewmember regarding compliance with paragraphs (f), (g), (h), and (l) of this section.
§ 125.328, 91.11, 121.580, 135.120 Prohibition on crew interference.
No person may assault, threaten, intimidate, or interfere with a crewmember in the performance of the crewmember's duties aboard an aircraft being operated under this part
No person may assault, threaten, intimidate, or interfere with a crewmember in the performance of the crewmember's duties aboard an aircraft being operated under this part
§ 91.3 Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command.
However, I can't seem to find anything that says the pilot can order Any action. The rules seem very focused on actions relevant to the safe outcome of the flight and the well being of the passengers.
In the particular case at hand, the crew possibly believed the flight was in operation and their duty was to get one more passenger off the aircraft to make room for the crew being re-positioned, making 121.580 relevant. Or possibly, just that they were in a commercial dispute (i.e. not relying on any safety or aircrew duty interpretation) and wished the police to remove their customer from their property.
I can only speak for UK law but, as with the Master of a ship at sea, the Pilot in Command of an aircraft has absolute power UNDER THE LAW and it is a criminal offence to disobey a LAWFUL command.
I don't think that, in all of my flying career, I met a power-crazed individual. We are busy enough without getting into all that authority stuff for fun; we very occasionally and reluctantly do when there is little or no option.
I don't think that, in all of my flying career, I met a power-crazed individual. We are busy enough without getting into all that authority stuff for fun; we very occasionally and reluctantly do when there is little or no option.
Basil
It has to be a lawful command
It also has to be a reasonable and justifiable command - and there is an implicit assumption such command pertains to safe operation of ship or plane.
I don't think any of these applied in this case.
Anyway, those of you clinging to the LAWFUL part will be confident the defendants will win in court. I wouldn't be so sure.
It has to be a lawful command
It also has to be a reasonable and justifiable command - and there is an implicit assumption such command pertains to safe operation of ship or plane.
I don't think any of these applied in this case.
Anyway, those of you clinging to the LAWFUL part will be confident the defendants will win in court. I wouldn't be so sure.
I am not confident of anything which will happen in court and, as I said before, "if as reported, this was a disgraceful assault on a legitimate passenger who had legally boarded the aircraft and was not behaving in a disruptive manner"
Re all this guff about power-crazed captains: I never had a pre-departure incident of this nature in all of my career nor have I witnessed one.
Had it happened, I'd have advised the passenger of my wishes and also that it was much better to deal with me than with the police. As I say, fortunately, that decision never arose.