USA Today: UA forcibly remove random pax from flight
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Between a Rock and a Hard Spot
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More discussion about the airport security force:
The City Council is looking for answers about the embarrassing video that has been seen around the world. At the top of the list of questions is whether the airport officers even had the legal authority to board the plane, said Alderman Michael Zalewski, who leads the council's aviation committee.
"They are allowed in the terminal and baggage area, but my understanding is they may not be allowed on a plane," he said. Zalewski also said that he is not sure if the officers have the authority to make arrests or if they are authorized only to write tickets.
"They are allowed in the terminal and baggage area, but my understanding is they may not be allowed on a plane," he said. Zalewski also said that he is not sure if the officers have the authority to make arrests or if they are authorized only to write tickets.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Discussed before, but irrelevant, because he wasn't "denied boarding." He already boarded.
The alternative course of action to forcing people off an aircraft by bodily hauling them off with a posse of thugs is to simply raise the ante until sufficient "volunteers" are found. Compared to the cost of delays, bad PR, buying alternative flights, etc etc there is almost no figure that is too high; if it had cost $40,000 to get 4 people off that UA aircraft it was still the cheapest solution. And trust me, I could have got 4 volunteers for a lot less than that.
Overbooking was, let's remind ourselves, a necessary evil in the good 'ole days that I knew, when a no-show was accommodated on a later flight, thus losing the carrier some money. Possibly.
Nowadays, THERE IS NO EXCUSE. If all the seats on the flight are sold, they are all paid for, no refunds allowed for a no-show. There is no need whatsoever to overbook to protect the revenue. Overbooking is simply a nasty con-trick to get 110% (or whatever, you know what I mean) of the seats paid for, most of the time. Regulators should get on top of this now, and stop placating the operators by ignoring it.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: PNW
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This incident will make things a whole lot more interesting in the future. Let's imagine an unstable, belligerent passenger who the crew believe is a threat to the safety, conduct or good order of the flight that is about to take place. Unless the law is clarified, you might not get help in the future from local law enforcement officers. Now what? Given a weak crew an entire aircraft and those on the ground might will end up paying the price for an altercation at 30,000'.
The fact that this incident had nothing to do with flight safety is why it blew up the way it did.
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Europe
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Press Conference (Live Stream) with Dr. Daos lawyer and daughter:
LIVE STREAM: David Dao Press Conference On United Airline | Heavy.com
LIVE STREAM: David Dao Press Conference On United Airline | Heavy.com
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Between a Rock and a Hard Spot
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The point is that after boarding, as in this incident, passengers can't be removed solely because the airline desires to seat their employees.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Claybird,
Opening pandora's box? Not going to happen. Will never get to a trial jury. Officers involved weren't federal, just airport employees. The airline and airport authority will settle out of court. Insurance coverage will pay whatever damages are due to the Doctor plus more. 
That also means that the matter can - and should, in my humble opinion - be pursued (on different level, that of passenger liability) based on federal statutes involving disregarding commands by federal officers, declining to act upon crew instructions and disrupting interstate commerce by keeping the aircraft on the ground because of said actions.
Last edited by Turbine D; 13th Apr 2017 at 15:29. Reason: added words
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So he was duffed up even worse than it appears on the films. The lawyer and his daughter were quite articulate in the press conference. I wonder if United will try to settle this out of court? Either way it is going to cost them millions for sending in the boot boys.
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: world
Posts: 3,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Will never get to a trial jury.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Between a Rock and a Hard Spot
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Articulate indeed. Four of his kids are physicians, as is his wife.
Last edited by HEMS driver; 13th Apr 2017 at 15:51.
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: apogee
Age: 69
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunately the lead lawyer keeps on about over-booking and a need to get a handle on its practice (not intrinsic to the case) and even expanded his comments to the need for universal "service with a smile" in all industries.
...Let's imagine an unstable, belligerent passenger who the crew believe is a threat to the safety, conduct or good order of the flight that is about to take place. Unless the law is clarified, you might not get help in the future from local law enforcement officers. ...
What won't happen is the 67-year disabled mother who is flying to see an ailing relative and minding her own business getting dragged off because someone decided the seat was needed for crew.
Safety won't be compromised at all.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was curious about the Chicago Aviation Security Officers and found that the city has openings for 9. Among their duties:
https://www.cityofchicago.org/city/e...s/jobsnow.html
- Arrests and detains individuals found violating or suspected of violating city, state and federal laws, restraining individuals using handcuffs or other restraining devices
- Contacts and coordinates with Chicago Police Officers for the transfer, transporting and processing of arrested or detained individuals
- Responds to incidents and disturbances including family and civil disputes occurring on airport grounds, assessing the situation to identify safety factors, securing the area and requesting needed backup and assistance
- Establishes and maintains working relationships with airport tenants to address security issues and concerns and follows up with tenants regarding the status of complaints
- Ability to exert muscle force and use appropriate control holds to apprehend, subdue and restrain individuals
- Requires at least 60 semester (or 90 quarter) hours of credit from an accredited college or university OR a certificate from a military, federal, state or local Law Enforcement Officer’s Training Program OR two (2) years of Law Enforcement experience.
- New employees must successfully complete the minimum standards set forth by the Illinois Local Law Enforcement Officer's Training Board and be certified by the State of Illinois as a Law Enforcement Officer
https://www.cityofchicago.org/city/e...s/jobsnow.html
Last edited by sardak; 13th Apr 2017 at 15:52. Reason: missing word
The City Council is looking for answers about the embarrassing video that has been seen around the world. At the top of the list of questions is whether the airport officers even had the legal authority to board the plane, said Alderman Michael Zalewski, who leads the council's aviation committee.
"They are allowed in the terminal and baggage area, but my understanding is they may not be allowed on a plane," he said. Zalewski also said that he is not sure if the officers have the authority to make arrests or if they are authorized only to write tickets.
"They are allowed in the terminal and baggage area, but my understanding is they may not be allowed on a plane," he said. Zalewski also said that he is not sure if the officers have the authority to make arrests or if they are authorized only to write tickets.
So we have damning video substantiated by an objective list of personal injuries sustained
The airline CEO has said the pax was not to blame
There is some legal opinion that the CofC did not allow involuntary deplaning
And now the City Council is wondering whether the officers had jurisdiction and authority
I bet whoever threatened LEO didn't realise the ice they were standing on was this thin.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Insurance coverage will pay whatever damages are due to the Doctor plus more.
Are you sure? This damage was not an accident. Could it not be c,aimed that there was contributory negligence on the part of the insured? This is like throwing a brick through your own window in a rage and claiming on your insurance it was an accident.
Are you sure? This damage was not an accident. Could it not be c,aimed that there was contributory negligence on the part of the insured? This is like throwing a brick through your own window in a rage and claiming on your insurance it was an accident.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: the City by the Bay
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I maintain that manhandling a 69 year old frail man in such a manner for no good reason is criminal.
I think United won't be able to avoid being in court, even if the Doc settles, because there are other issues that have been brought to the forefront. Godzilla (the govt) has awakened .
I think United won't be able to avoid being in court, even if the Doc settles, because there are other issues that have been brought to the forefront. Godzilla (the govt) has awakened .
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The point is that after boarding, as in this incident, passengers can't be removed solely because the airline desires to seat their employees.
But you are right, I had missed the point about the incident arising because they wanted the seats for crew. Even more inexcusable, and I stick by my post that they should simply have upped the ante until volunteers appeared. If the choice is that or a charter for the crew it's a no-brainer.
And even if over-booking was not the problem in this instance, it's still a pernicious practice which should be stamped on by the regulators. I know there will always be no-shows, but no money is lost because of them. If a carrier wants to gamble and overbook anyway, think of the excess revenue against the occasional need to spend $1,000s to "volunteers" to get them out of the hole they've dug.
I get the impression that they simply ordered these people off without any good offer being tried first, and assaulted them when they objected. But I suppose someone will tell me I'm wrong about that.
Let's not forget, too, that this incident is in the context of the accelerating tendancy of passenger contact staff in the air and on the ground to believe that their role is a disciplinary one, combining a contempt for passengers with abusing them at every opportunity. Of course, as air travel has become relatively cheaper to the point of stupidity, so have passengers become more badly-behaved and disruptive.
This leads me inexorably to the conclusion that the cure lies in charging much higher prices, and paying a lot more for good passenger contact staff. But I don't expect PPRuNe to agree.
Last edited by Capot; 13th Apr 2017 at 16:19.