remove 400kg
 

Don T, quite right. for the uninitiated, if you took off 1000kg of baggage or indeed any amount, you still cannot carry four extra pax because THERE ARE NO SEATS for them.

Which airline employee in his/her right mind thinks it's ok to offload a pax without considering how this affects his wife? Oh she will get off with him.......that gives us a spare seat...

There is a good reason that the "Police Forces" in the UK were re-christened "Police Services" some years ago. The moniker "Law Enforcement Officer" has a certain vibe to it which some protagonists seem to interpret over zealously.

Every elderly non-frequent flier will now be very concerned that they may be roughed up to the point of unconsciousness on United. I suspect that there will be a significant drop in that type of traveler booking with United where they have a choice.

Indeed had Dr Dao been thrown just a little bit harder at that armrest, United could be accessories to a second degree murder charge. This cannot be let pass as 'just an incident'. Everything done after the Dr's legal refusal to deboard should not have happened. A minor issue with Ops failing to block 4 seats on a flight then the 4 non-revs turning up late led to this so both Ops and all those flying non-rev must also learn real lessons. Those sheeple SLF you disparage so easily will be voting with their wallets and avoid United wherever possible.

Apparently, acceptance of that cash refund (the bait) requires the pax to 'hold United harmless' and not take any subsequent legal action. United are not capable of rational thought it would seem.

It's probably fair to say the good Dr. stand to receive a handsome compensation in a court, in the multiple of millions probably. United could, and probably will, try to dissuade him from taking them to court, and will thus have to come up with a sizeable offer indeed.

I have no doubt the lawyers of UA will make it clear to the beancounters of same, that offering an obscene amount of money will, in the long run, be the cheaper option.

What I'm hoping for however, is that a 69-year old doctor will be satisfied with whatever a court will award him, even if it's likely to be lower than what UA offers out of court.

In which case there's nothing UA can do, but brace itself for a round of court proceedings that's likely to cause lots of headlines all around the world, with the possibility of repercussions which may have a lasting, and positive, effect on the way airlines treat its passengers.

My comment was in response to the unforeseen scenario where an upload of fuel was required.

$6 million for being bumped (and, allegedly, racially discriminated).

Makes Dr Dao's case look like 100's of millions . . .

One has to wonder if the teacher with the 7 students (or the 7 students along with their parents) would ever choose to fly UA again. Same for the father who took his crying 8 year old daughter off. And I don't think they were alone in feeling absolutely horrified at the treatment of a fellow passenger based on the look of other pax faces in the video. There are other airline options.

DaveReidUK,
Don't look for anything to happen very soon regarding what Dr. Dao may do or not do. He and his lawyers have two years to decide. They will be watching what happens in the O'Hare airport security personnel situation.

As the three security personnel have been suspended resulting from their actions, the Cook County District Attorney will decide on possible criminal charges and if there is enough evidence to submit to a grand jury. The grand jury only decides based on the evidence submitted as to whether or not the case should go to trial. If it goes to a jury trial, I would think Dr. Dao's lawyers will hold off, looking for criminal convictions. This would enhance Dr. Dao's position to recover maximum damages from the city and airport management.

The same can be said for the United/Republican situation once it is unraveled as to who did what, when.

I doubt that the public will wait for any clarity in the courts of right and wrong anymore than waiting in vain to hear any details of a sealed out-of-court settlement.

I'm quite afraid in individual self serving actions by other airlines (Delta sic) trying to soothe their public and to set themselves aside.

What is needed is clarity from the government of passenger rights and means of enforcement.

I don't wish to water down the necessity for the Captain to maintain a safe flight condition, but maybe for other cases fines against either party might be adjudicated in a calmer situation.

During the press conference, Dao's lawyer stated that, while they do indeed have two years in which to act, they didn't anticipate taking anything like that long to put their case together.

There is a hearing in Chicago court on Monday, I would imagine that must be about the emergency evidence preservation request.

If you recall they have asked for pax/crew lists, CVR (although we seem to have already established this is probably not possible), the policy being used to remove pax from the aircraft, names of the "police" officers involved, as well as other things.

Yup.

And the best would be that the airlines simply don't overbook. You bought the seat, whether you ride in it or not, you pay for the seat whether you ride in it or not, and the airline does not try to sell the seat twice early in the process.

If, 5 minutes before gate closure, you're not in it, and nowhere to be found running toward it, a standby passenger, who has no guarantee of getting on that flight, might get the seat that you paid for and missed.

30 years ago, that's how we did things at the airline. When the little paper sticky tab was pulled off the seat chart for that flight, that seat was assigned to a passenger who had a boarding pass in their hand - with that sticky on it! That seat could not be resold. It was simple.

I am not a lawyer, but I understand what can happen in consumer abuse cases because my father was in the middle of one that is somewhat analogous to this one. This was in the days prior to cell phones and social media, so the problem for United is much larger now.

My father would have played the role of poor Dr. Dao. His situation was as follows. He checked into a Hotel/Casino in Nevada for the night and was given a discount coupon for one of the restaurants. My father ate dinner and attempted to pay using the coupon which was NOT honored by the restaurant staff. The staff called security who took my father into a back room and roughed him up (injuries were no where near as severe as poor Dr. Dao's). They made him cough up the money then made him sign a statement saying they had done nothing wrong. He gladly signed it knowing it would never hold up in court because the signature was obtained under duress.

The next morning he went to an attorney who did a little discovery and found that the practice of denied vouchers was widespread. The subsequent class action lawsuit put the Casino out of business.

There is no need for the Feds to involved and might make things much worse. Delta leading the way in the right direction for themselves and the industry. Congress is very likely to make a hash of it--no overbooking at all, water down the cabotage rules, create fines in addition to the cash to the customer deal.

It must be stressed - repeatedly - that this was not an overbooking issue. Overbooking procedures are completely irrelevant to this case.

It is a far more important issue to face. Once passengers have boarded with a valid ticket and are not a hazard (to be defined in great detail) to the safe operation of the aircraft, does the Airline have any right to eject them from the flight for their administrative convenience.

In this case to make the next day's operations more efficient, UAL decided to eject 4 peaceful boarded passengers and replace them with 4 non-rev DH crew who had not bothered to reserve seats and had not bothered to arrive before boarding commenced.

THEN

Given that the passenger who refused to deboard was completely within his rights according to UAL's conditions of carriage and FAA CFR 250 under what rule were UAL operating to call 'law enforcement' and what law gave 'law enforcement' the authority to cause grievous bodily harm (it was luck that the passenger was not killed) to a passenger who was acting within his rights?

I repeat that this is nothing to do with overbooking - that is a pivot being made to avoid the far more egregious physical assault on a passenger for UAL's administrative convenience and to recover from errors made by UAL Ops and by the DH non-revs.

If anyone is to make any rules they should be to make it absolutely and completely plain to the passengers, the gate agents and the flight crews (including the more authoritarian commenters on here who think everything was done correctly) what the law is and what the rights of a passenger are. Including right of redress that I would suggest is more than the top limit that Delta is offering when the airline decides to void its side of the contract of carriage. This should include similar amounts to pax bumped by the 'clever scheme' of faked mechanical problems then bumping them on reboarding.

If the airlines do not sort out bumping to carry non-rev DH crews, then I expect DoT or Congressional decisions that will be indeterminate and likely to be far more damaging to the airlines. As causing grievous bodily harm to a 69 year old man has removed all sympathy or empathy with the airlines. The more 'coastal' comments made on here the less sympathy there is for the airlines' case. Remember that it is UAL that was caught out now but the lack of sympathy will be across all airlines - your jobs may become far more difficult and I would suggest everyone stops digging because climbing out of this hole is going to be painful for the industry.

As I said earlier, the industry needs to get out in front of this predicament early. If not, congress will do it for them, and it won't be pretty. The airlines are on a short timetable for this since Mr Munoz has been "invited " to appear before a congressional committee in about a week.

But why should the passenger trust the airlines to get it right when this incident showed that lower level interpretation was against the passenger big time?

The Delta press release doesn't address this question in spite of dangling $$$$ for all to see

Why? If I entrust the airline with my and my family's lives to transport me somewhere; it's not too much to expect to be treated with respect and a modicum of kindness. I'm a million-miler with Brand D and a former airline pilot, so I know all too well-stuff happens. It's how they handle stuff that matters.

The other option is bring in more competition--let the ME3, NAI, the lot fly domestic and see if the US carriers survive with the present state.

The aviation lawyer said, on live TV, that the captain was the one in charge. That was a clear statement which was made.

While I think the chain of command on the ground at the gate is unclear, I cannot see how the answer can be anything else.