# Do you want to fly with this airline?



## Beaver101

http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/news/2017/04/10/united-airlines-faces-fallout-after-viral-video.html?ana=yahoo&yptr=yahoo


----------



## 5Lgreenback

I saw that earlier. Although your link added that the removed passenger was allowed back on the aircraft (in rough shape). 

It was also stated he was removed to allow United employees to take his spot so they could get a connecting flight they were scheduled to work. 

So, barring any further details that we may not have yet, I would certainly have been just as pissed off as that customer!


----------



## none

In the star alliance!


----------



## james4beach

I fly with United a lot but my coworkers say I am playing with fire... United is generally hated at the office.

I'd better stop flying with United. They also introduced a new trick a few months ago. The lowest fare class of United now only allows one carry-on bag (instead of the usual two). If you bring a second carry-on, they will charge you a high fee for it.


----------



## 5Lgreenback

I wonder how they would have handled the situation had the passenger been a female? Certainly not in the same manner.


----------



## Beaver101

5Lgreenback said:


> I saw that earlier. Although your link added that the removed passenger was allowed back on the aircraft (in rough shape).
> 
> It was also stated he was removed to allow United employees to take his spot so they could get a connecting flight they were scheduled to work.
> 
> So, barring any further details that we may not have yet, I would certainly have been just as pissed off as that customer!


 ... I'm not sure why they would let him back on after being dragged and bloodied ... looks more like an assault than a "rough" up. Of the 4 passsengers mandated to volunteer to give up their seats, he was the only one to be "randomnly" picked .... so that this UA employees can connect a flight ... right. They couldn't assaulted a better passenger ... than a doctor. Man, UA can't wait to get a jumbo lawsuit ram up their ***.


----------



## Beaver101

5Lgreenback said:


> I wonder how they would have handled the situation had the passenger been a female? Certainly not in the same manner.


 ... doesn't matter on the gender in this case. Does UA have a "policy" to "forcibly" eject passengers?


----------



## Beaver101

^ .... "forcibly" eject passengers (full-fare-paying, law abiding) who don't want to volunteer their seats?


----------



## james4beach

Yes, they physically assaulted him. I hope he sues them for millions -- plus, he's a doctor with a skilled trade to perform. The PR alone would be beautiful.

These things matter. Every few weeks I decide who to fly with. I will avoid United now.


----------



## Eclectic12

Beaver101 said:


> ... Man, UA can't wait to get a jumbo lawsuit ram up their ***.


Given that those doing the roughing up are reported to be law enforcement/security officers ... while I suspect UA will be included, I suspect the enforcement/security agency and the particular officers will have the bigger lawsuit.


Cheers


----------



## james4beach

They're probably rent-a-cops. Would love to see a big lawsuit against rent a cops + United.


----------



## Eclectic12

It will be interesting to see ... some reports say a plain clothes police officer, where United is quoted as saying they called Chicago PD.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/10/business/united-flight-passenger-dragged.html?_r=0

Others talk about Chicago airport police.
https://patch.com/illinois/chicago/united-airlines-drags-passenger-plane-ohare-airport

Others talk about "guards" in vague terms.


Cheers


----------



## james4beach

Man, just about all news out of Chicago is disastrous.


----------



## jargey3000

and i thought Air Canada was bad!


----------



## ykphil

The employees in question were "dead-heading" to operate another flight. On most airlines, they usually have priority over paying customers. This doesn't excuse the poor handling of the situation by United. Definitely, their decision to remove a passenger, even if justified, will cost them a lot more in the end than finding alternate arrangements for their crew. And I hope the poor guy who was dragged out of the plane is recovering from minor injuries. Regardless of who was in the right, I am sure there will be an out-of-court settlement, and I am pretty sure someone will fly free on United for the rest of his life.

This being said, I am surprised nobody volunteered to give their seat. I am usually the first one to raise my hand. Whenever I must fly, I even tell the customer service agents that I am willing to give my seat in case the flight is overbooked. The last time it happened, the airline (Air Canada) put me on a flight four hours later, gave me taxi and meal vouchers for the 4-hour delay, upgraded me to business class, and issued a $800 voucher for future travel. Not bad.


----------



## mrPPincer

OK, sorry to be repetitive folks, but you all know what this calls for ..
Some Sons of Maxwell!! 
Queue.. Dave Carroll in United Breaks Guitars ..


----------



## 5Lgreenback

Beaver101 said:


> ... doesn't matter on the gender in this case. Does UA have a "policy" to "forcibly" eject passengers?


I agree, but his profession is irrelevant as well. Though it gets mentioned regularly. If this person were a Bartender, the public would likely be less sympathetic.


----------



## Eclectic12

ykphil said:


> ... This being said, I am surprised nobody volunteered to give their seat. I am usually the first one to raise my hand. Whenever I must fly, I even tell the customer service agents that I am willing to give my seat in case the flight is overbooked.
> 
> The last time it happened, the airline (Air Canada) put me on a flight four hours later ...


YMMV ... if I did not have arrangements to met relatives, I would have taken a similar deal from AC, who was looking for four people to get off the plane. Two went after seeing the lack of response then finally another two went, messing with the landing window on the other end.

When I had a better schedule, I was only 50:50 ... selected twice but on one of the times AC told me "never mind ... someone didn't show".


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12

5Lgreenback said:


> I agree, but his profession is irrelevant as well ... If this person were a Bartender, the public would likely be less sympathetic.


Actually his profession IMO is maybe not the most important factor but a strong one driving the outrage.

It is at least semi-reasonable that a doctor would have a need to make the flight. Then too, people are likely sympathetic to the doctor as they've probably not been able to schedule appointments when ever they preferred.


A bar tender or mechanic arguing they should stay wouldn't have much sympathy.


Cheers


----------



## mrPPincer

2009, eight years ago. Looks like United Airlines has not become any more customer friendly in that time.
2 of 3 ..


----------



## mrPPincer

and.. 3


----------



## NorthKC

If I've got a connection to make, I'm not going to give up my seat. The way they did this was not right and I'd be going for lawsuit as well.


----------



## Eclectic12

Interesting ... never worried about connections in the decision making process - just the end destination and any requirements at that end. 

Maybe because I've usually had connections at major hubs with large city final destinations where I would not expect any issues for later flights.


Cheers


----------



## NorthKC

My designations are usually small airports where the later flight would be next morning resulting in me being late for work. I've actually ran into that issue once where they asked me to give up my seat heading to a major airport but once I explained that I only have one flight available to said small city after making this connection, they've rescinded their offer.

Still, for most travellers, they've had a long day of travelling and they just want to get home. If they've paid for their fares fair and square, why should they give up their seats? This overbooking issue needs to be rectified. What happens if that gentleman had a medical problem and they've aggravated that with that assault there? That's just asking for trouble.


----------



## m3s

Air Canada regularly over books flights and also offers $850 "voucher" when everyone happens to show up.

I've had colleagues show up a day late due to being bumped from over booked Air Canada flights which was pretty annoying. I've also accepted the $850 voucher before to hang out in Montreal during F1 weekend, hotel and meals paid by Air Canada. Even though work paid for the flight I got the voucher, and was able to book my gf on a flight with it.

Some airlines ask if you would consider volunteering to be bumped on check in. For $850 voucher I would, so long as it's the weekend and/or a decent location to hand out for awhile. The Airlines are just trying to maximize the seats which makes sense imo. Statistically they know that x number of people likely won't make the gate on time

They royally screwed up by boarding everyone before the priority crew.. If they hadn't, this would be a non issue..


----------



## Nelley

m3s said:


> Air Canada regularly over books flights and also offers $850 "voucher" when everyone happens to show up.
> 
> I've had colleagues show up a day late due to being bumped from over booked Air Canada flights which was pretty annoying. I've also accepted the $850 voucher before to hang out in Montreal during F1 weekend, hotel and meals paid by Air Canada. Even though work paid for the flight I got the voucher, and was able to book my gf on a flight with it.
> 
> Some airlines ask if you would consider volunteering to be bumped on check in. For $850 voucher I would, so long as it's the weekend and/or a decent location to hand out for awhile. The Airlines are just trying to maximize the seats which makes sense imo. Statistically they know that x number of people likely won't make the gate on time
> 
> They royally screwed up by boarding everyone before the priority crew.. If they hadn't, this would be a non issue..


It seems like 800-850 bucks is way too low usually-probably if the hassle payment was $1500 they could have had volunteers.


----------



## Nelley

5Lgreenback said:


> I wonder how they would have handled the situation had the passenger been a female? Certainly not in the same manner.


This quack sounded like an infant.


----------



## My Own Advisor

Horrific #united.


----------



## OhGreatGuru

I smell a nice juicy lawsuit coming up. 
Or another viral video "United Breaks Doctors".


----------



## twa2w

I think all parties handled it badly.
United should not have boarded the plane until they sorted it out ie ask for volunteers, then if none, chosen at random and advised passengers prior to boarding and worked out details. Initial comp offered was 400, then bumped to 800.00. Not a long flight. Only a 5 hour drive so flight less than 2 hours. So pretty decent comp.

The passenger should have gotten out of his seat and gone to the flight attendants and explained his situation. When security did arrive he should have gone peacefully then and tried to make his point. Still no confirmation he is a really a Dr.

Security/Police. Tough situation to be in. How do you remove someone who refuses to leave. They had a lawful request ( or they had to assume it was) from the airline to remove a passenger who refused to leave. How much force is too much?
No easy answers.


----------



## Nelley

twa2w said:


> I think all parties handled it badly.
> United should not have boarded the plane until they sorted it out ie ask for volunteers, then if none, chosen at random and advised passengers prior to boarding and worked out details. Initial comp offered was 400, then bumped to 800.00. Not a long flight. Only a 5 hour drive so flight less than 2 hours. So pretty decent comp.
> 
> The passenger should have gotten out of his seat and gone to the flight attendants and explained his situation. When security did arrive he should have gone peacefully then and tried to make his point. Still no confirmation he is a really a Dr.
> 
> Security/Police. Tough situation to be in. How do you remove someone who refuses to leave. They had a lawful request ( or they had to assume it was) from the airline to remove a passenger who refused to leave. How much force is too much?
> No easy answers.


This useless quack has no more right to a seat on this flight than any other passenger-after seeing the piece of garbage squeal like a little piggy it is nauseating to think that guy practices medicine.


----------



## james4beach

I'm glad the passenger stood his ground. I just saw the video... wow, they really cut him up. Disgusting!

At our company I've purchased about $5,000 worth of United flights in the last year and I am stopping, will not buy any more United fares.


----------



## james4beach

Nelley said:


> It seems like 800-850 bucks is way too low usually-probably if the hassle payment was $1500 they could have had volunteers.


I agree. And with caveats on vouchers (e.g. only applicable to base fare), I'd reason it this way. An 800 "dolla" voucher is only worth about 75% of that, and then halve the value because you're stuck booking with that airline instead of cash which would be applicable everywhere.

So in my views an 800 "unit" voucher is only worth about $300 real dollars and no, I will not disrupt my travel plans and miss work or vacation for $300

For me that threshold is more like $500 or even $600 real dollars, which would require a 1600 "unit" voucher


----------



## olivaw

Volkswagen: we got caught cheating on emissions tests
United: hold my beer


----------



## heyjude

Nelley said:


> This useless quack has no more right to a seat on this flight than any other passenger-after seeing the piece of garbage squeal like a little piggy it is nauseating to think that guy practices medicine.


That is a horrible, prejudiced comment. You don't know the first thing about this gentleman.


----------



## james4beach

This incident has caused outrage in China as it's perceived to be discrimination against a Chinese man.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/11/asia/united-passenger-dragged-off-china-reaction/

Bye-bye Chinese customers!


----------



## wraphter

heyjude said:


> That is a horrible, prejudiced comment. You don't know the first thing about this gentleman.





After he was dragged out,he was back on the plane ,bleeding from the mouth. He was incoherent,running back and forth in the aisle,repeatedly saying --"I have
to go home,I have to go home" He was completely disoriented and appeared out of touch with reality. 
He also resisted being removed in the first place.
So we know a bit about this "gentleman".


----------



## wraphter

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/worl...om-plane-disruptive-and-belligerent-1.3044939



> The chief executive of United Airlines has described the passenger who was forcibly removed from an overbooked plane as “disruptive and belligerent”, and told the airline’s employees that they “followed established procedures”.
> 
> ................
> 
> Our employees followed established procedures for dealing with situations like this. While I deeply regret this situation arose, I also emphatically stand behind all of you, and I want to commend you for continuing to go above and beyond to ensure we fly right.”
> Mr Munoz added that when crew members first approached the passenger to tell him to leave, he “raised his voice and refused to comply”, and each time they asked “he refused and became more and more disruptive and belligerent”.


----------



## Ag Driver

james4beach said:


> I'm glad the passenger stood his ground.


As crew, nothing upsets me more then non compliance and unruly pax. I don't march into your workplace and tell you how to do your job and stand my ground when you give me an instruction. Why **** on my crew? 

The reality is that the airline must still operate to it's maximum efficiency. I hate to break it to you, but as a passenger, the world does not revolve around you -- you revolve around the world. Figuratively and literally. There has to be a healthy balance, and no matter what, it will be at the expense of either the airline or customers. You can't win em all. Sometimes this means cancelling a full flight that could very well have made it to it's destination, such that it doesn't disrupt 5 or 10 other flights. An inconvenience of 72 pax or greater, is better then 720 or greater. In this exact case, sometimes 4 pax being delayed is better than 74 pax getting cancelled and creating a snow ball effect. The public doesn't see the bigger picture of running an airline. Is this fair? No. But guess what. Life isn't fair, and we have a business to run and we must take a look at the big picture. That being said, the Customer Service Representative that boarded the aircraft DID drop the ball and loaded too many pax, but this does not entitle pax to become unruly and non compliant. 

Attitudes and actions such as this are unacceptable. If you are given instructions from crew on an aircraft, you comply. Non compliance of any instruction becomes a safety issue at this point. Non compliance is usually not taken into the air, as it is too risky and potentially dangerous. It all comes down to the fact that the pilot in command of the aircraft is considered a peace officer when operating, and you must comply with instructions under federal law. 

What is not show is the entire process that led up to this point. Likely, there were 3 or 4 PA's given by the Flight Attendant and/or Captain for volunteers. At which point a Customer Service Representative would then be notified of the lack of volunteers. A decision is made to remove pax by selection. Typically this is done in order of the lowest bidder -- If you got your ticket through Groupon which connected you with www.dirtbagtickets.ca to get your ticket at 86.8% off face value last minute, then guess what -- you're at the bottom of the pecking order. You are asked to be removed by the CSR. If you decline, you are then asked to be removed by the Purser/Flight Attendant. If you decline, you are then asked to be removed by the Captain, whom is a Peace Officer. If you decline, you are not only being a very shitty person, but you are now breaking Federal Law. The authorities are then contacted to remove the pax -- no if's, and's, or but's about it. When it reaches this point, typically you are not staying on the aircraft and you may get some hefty fines and potentially jail time vs your Meal Vouchers, Hotel Rooms, Ticket Vouchers, etc. I typically advise making money on your ticket purchase and taking the delay, vs sleeping on a cement slab and using the toilet paper roll as your pillow for the evening. 

This isn't occupy wall street, this isn't occupy United. Once you boarded that aircraft, you no longer have the right to decline orders and instructions pertaining to the safe operation of the flight. 

This isn't a United issue. This is a social issue. When given an order on an aircraft. Comply. Plain and simple. (Pun intended)


----------



## Nelley

Ag Driver said:


> As crew, nothing upsets me more then non compliance and unruly pax. I don't march into your workplace and tell you how to do your job and stand my ground when you give me an instruction. Why **** on my crew?
> 
> The reality is that the airline must still operate to it's maximum efficiency. I hate to break it to you, but as a passenger, the world does not revolve around you -- you revolve around the world. Figuratively and literally. There has to be a healthy balance, and no matter what, it will be at the expense of either the airline or customers. You can't win em all. Sometimes this means cancelling a full flight that could very well have made it to it's destination, such that it doesn't disrupt 5 or 10 other flights. An inconvenience of 72 pax or greater, is better then 720 or greater. In this exact case, sometimes 4 pax being delayed is better than 74 pax getting cancelled and creating a snow ball effect. The public doesn't see the bigger picture of running an airline. Is this fair? No. But guess what. Life isn't fair, and we have a business to run and we must take a look at the big picture. That being said, the Customer Service Representative that boarded the aircraft DID drop the ball and loaded too many pax, but this does not entitle pax to become unruly and non compliant.
> 
> Attitudes and actions such as this are unacceptable. If you are given instructions from crew on an aircraft, you comply. Non compliance of any instruction becomes a safety issue at this point. Non compliance is usually not taken into the air, as it is too risky and potentially dangerous. It all comes down to the fact that the pilot in command of the aircraft is considered a peace officer when operating, and you must comply with instructions under federal law.
> 
> What is not show is the entire process that led up to this point. Likely, there were 3 or 4 PA's given by the Flight Attendant and/or Captain for volunteers. At which point a Customer Service Representative would then be notified of the lack of volunteers. A decision is made to remove pax by selection. Typically this is done in order of the lowest bidder -- If you got your ticket through Groupon which connected you with www.dirtbagtickets.ca to get your ticket at 86.8% off face value last minute, then guess what -- you're at the bottom of the pecking order. You are asked to be removed by the CSR. If you decline, you are then asked to be removed by the Purser/Flight Attendant. If you decline, you are then asked to be removed by the Captain, whom is a Peace Officer. If you decline, you are not only being a very shitty person, but you are now breaking Federal Law. The authorities are then contacted to remove the pax -- no if's, and's, or but's about it. When it reaches this point, typically you are not staying on the aircraft and you may get some hefty fines and potentially jail time vs your Meal Vouchers, Hotel Rooms, Ticket Vouchers, etc. I typically advise making money on your ticket purchase and taking the delay, vs sleeping on a cement slab and using the toilet paper roll as your pillow for the evening.
> 
> This isn't occupy wall street, this isn't occupy United. Once you boarded that aircraft, you no longer have the right to decline orders and instructions pertaining to the safe operation of the flight.
> 
> This isn't a United issue. This is a social issue. When given an order on an aircraft. Comply. Plain and simple. (Pun intended)


 What is mind boggling is all these bubblehead snowflakes whining about the manner in which they removed this idiot-how exactly would they like it done? Are they supposed to cover the guy in a rug first like they are moving a couch? I thought the cops were more than restrained with this garbage.


----------



## carverman

Beaver101 said:


> ^ .... "forcibly" eject passengers (full-fare-paying, law abiding) who don't want to volunteer their seats?


I believe that the media said he was "standby" and accepted the overbooked seat. After he boarded, the airline found 4 more passengers
that were paying full fare..or maybe company employees who were allowed to use that flight to get there fast.

CEO Munos in an attempt to respin the story for damage control to United:



> In recounting the sequence of events, Munoz told employees that the passenger “refused” to deplane and “became more and more disruptive and belligerent” and faulted him for “running back onto the aircraft in defiance of both our crew and security officials.”


The passenger was clearly injured with blood running down his face. He claimed he was a doctor and had patients to see the next morning so would not vacate his seat. Whether that was true or not, the crux of this story gone viral, is the heavy handy "Nazi stormtrooper" handling of the passenger dragging him down the isle of the plane as seen in the video was not a good move by the security police.

He had done nothing wrong except being beligerent to the flight crew when they asked him to vacate.

Even Canadian airlines can make an emergency landing to remove a passenger forcibly if they are
perceived as a safety threat to the plane. While the passenger has some rights to be compensated
if he has been bumped, he has to maintain a civil attitude. 

Not good PR for United , however. 

OTOH, had the passenger left his seat voluntariily, he would have been entitled to compensation up to $800 by United and a chance to get on the next flight to his destination.
Now there's a change he may sue the airline and the airport security police for the rough handling and get a personal injury court award of several thousand or million dollars and an apology from United.

Imagine if the passenger had been a woman who refused to give up her seat and the airport security dragged her kicking and screaming down the isle of the plane?


----------



## carverman

Nelley said:


> And you are a complete idiot-the guy was screaming like a 3 year old child.


I heard a little piggy on board screaming like it was a stuck pig..was that the 'good doctor" that refused to give up his seat?
Good grief!


----------



## Ag Driver

carverman said:


> He had done nothing wrong except being beligerent to the flight crew when they asked him to vacate.


Surly you meant to say, he had done nothing wrong except for the _minor fact_ that he broke federal law that could result in jail time. Right?


----------



## kcowan

Nelley said:


> It seems like 800-850 bucks is way too low usually-probably if the hassle payment was $1500 they could have had volunteers.


We have experienced the escalating offer. Low at first $500 credit and finally $2000 credit plus 1st class hotel and meal.

Why United did not do this remains a mystery and would seem very cheap now, compared to what this has and will cost them. And yes, doing it after boarding implies that they did not know about these crew until too late. Plus it is the Easter window when deferrals are more costly.:frown-new:


----------



## Just a Guy

Overselling seats was the issue, there was no safety issue. They needed 4 seats to transport their crew, again no safety issue. 

They did poor planning, that is a business decisions. Trying to cram 4 extra crews onto a plane is a safety issue, also a poor business decision.

Asking paying customers to give up their seats because you overbooked was a poor business decision, not a safety decision. 

Physically forcing a paying customer to give up their seats is a very poor business decision, and is now a safety decision, though not for the airline, but rather the passengers who did,or may have received injury. 

Face it, united screwed up big time by overbooking and it's going to cost them. Had they been smart, they would have continued to up the offer until someone gave in, they didn't. Instead they reached their internal threshold of costs to rectify, then became physical...never a good business decision. Now united will pay a lot more for their business mistake (either in lost revenue from passengers, even short term as people will probably forget, or in compensation as they will have to "make this right" in the eyes of the public). 

If it was truly about ticket prices, the seats would probably been at the back of the plane in coach (usually the cheapest seats).

True, there are federal laws to protect the majority of people on a plane, however, they aren't there to cover up stupid business decisions made by the company.


----------



## Eclectic12

NorthKC said:


> My designations are usually small airports where the later flight would be next morning resulting in me being late for work.


Worst that I overheard was while in line to talk to someone at about midnight in Chicago. This was the flight that AC needed four people to get off. The weather had been bad all day in Chicago so that the woman who saw the United clerk at 1am said "I've been here since 9am yesterday, that's great that I have a flight out at 3pm".

While waiting, a guy from Toronto who was going to a small California town was on his cell phone. If the schedule had held, his original plan was to land in California late on Thursday then fly back on Monday. He was rather distressed that the next available flight to his destination was Tuesday.




NorthKC said:


> ... Still, for most travellers, they've had a long day of travelling and they just want to get home.


No idea what was the case for this flight ... for my flight, the plane hadn't left so it was the start of the journey, from a non-hub.




NorthKC said:


> ... If they've paid for their fares fair and square, why should they give up their seats? This overbooking issue needs to be rectified.


True.


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12

Nelley said:


> It seems like 800-850 bucks is way too low usually-probably if the hassle payment was $1500 they could have had volunteers.


Won't it depend on what was paid for the ticket?

As usual, the US requires more (though it seems airlines will try to pay less) at 200 per cent of the one-way fare including taxes (to a maximum of $650) for a shorter delay and 400 per cent (to a maximum of $1,300) for a longer delay. 

Canadian airlines have had complaints force their payouts up but there does not seem to be a defined formula and it is apparently at the airline's discretion.
http://business.financialpost.com/entrepreneur/bumped-from-a-flight-heres-what-youre-entitled-to
http://globalnews.ca/news/3368663/rights-overbooked-airline-flight/


Cheers


----------



## carverman

Ag Driver said:


> As crew, nothing upsets me more then non compliance and unruly pax. I don't march into your workplace and tell you how to do your job;


Wow! Too much information AG.



> What is not show is the entire process that led up to this point. Likely, there were 3 or 4 PA's given by the Flight Attendant and/or Captain for volunteers. At which point a Customer Service Representative would then be notified of the lack of volunteers. A decision is made to remove pax by selection. Typically this is done in order of the lowest bidder -- If you got your ticket through Groupon which connected you with to get your ticket at 86.8% off face value last minute, then guess what -- y*ou're at the bottom of the pecking order.
> *
> This isn't a United issue. This is a social issue. When given an order on an aircraft. Comply. Plain and simple. (Pun intended)


What if he HAD to be there on that flight for some reason?..
..but then he would have booked his seat at regular price.


----------



## wraphter

> Asking paying customers to give up their seats because you overbooked was a poor business decision,


And the passenger,did he make the right decision?


----------



## wisdomlight

I always side with the airlines, but not on this one. They did not get four volunteer passengers to be moved to another flight despite of $800 offer to each plus hotel if needed; so they decided to start forcing four computer selected passengers off the plane. It was not the passengers' fault that the airline overbooked. What United should have done was to find another flight for the four important crewmembers they needed sent to Louiville. I see lawsuit coming...


----------



## Just a Guy

Businesses, like united, are based on supply and demand, not the price of the original item.

It doesn't matter what the original person paid, it's a matter of what the next person is willing to take to give it up.

We don't legislate that airlines can only make $X of profit, you can't legislate that a paying customer must give up their seat for $X of compensation. 

United's attempt to reduce costs and maximize returns backfired on them, now they will pay a lot more than they would have had they kept upping the bid.

If a business screwed up, should we have legislation in place where they could come back with more charges so that they could make a profit? Or maybe they could come in to your home, beat you up, and then seize your stuff to pay for their bad business decisions. Businesses make mistakes all the time, forcing many out of business...this legislation could help save hundreds, if not thousands.


----------



## heyjude

Nelley said:


> And you are a complete idiot-the guy was screaming like a 3 year old child.


Personal attacks have no place on this forum. You may disagree with my opinion, but kindly refrain from calling me names.


----------



## Ag Driver

Just a Guy said:


> Overselling seats was the issue, there was no safety issue. They needed 4 seats to transport their crew, again no safety issue.
> 
> They did poor planning, that is a business decisions. Trying to cram 4 extra crews onto a plane is a safety issue, also a poor business decision.
> 
> Asking paying customers to give up their seats because you overbooked was a poor business decision, not a safety decision.
> 
> Physically forcing a paying customer to give up their seats is a very poor business decision, and is now a safety decision, though not for the airline, but rather the passengers who did,or may have received injury.
> 
> Face it, united screwed up big time by overbooking and it's going to cost them. Had they been smart, they would have continued to up the offer until someone gave in, they didn't. Instead they reached their internal threshold of costs to rectify, then became physical...never a good business decision. Now united will pay a lot more for their business mistake (either in lost revenue from passengers, even short term as people will probably forget, or in compensation as they will have to "make this right" in the eyes of the public).
> 
> If it was truly about ticket prices, the seats would probably been at the back of the plane in coach (usually the cheapest seats).
> 
> True, there are federal laws to protect the majority of people on a plane, however, they aren't there to cover up stupid business decisions made by the company.


A few points. The safety issue was the non-compliance. 

The practice of overselling (though in my opinion isn't right) is a business strategy to ensure full loads. Right or wrong this happens millions upon millions of times a year here in Canada. I bet you didn't complain the last time, when you "sneaked in" with only 2 seats remaining on the fire seat sale...when in fact it was over booked, and you got lucky that some poor smuck got caught up in security and missed their flight when you got on.

Crew deadheads or not a surprise. They are booked a month in advance. 

Yes, the CSR dropped the ball and accidentally loaded 4 more pax on board. Did they do this intentionally? No. **** happens. Could they have handled it differently? Sure -- there are a ton of ways to skin a cat. They chose to ask the pax to be removed -- this is a great option and there should have been no issues when giving an order backed by federal law.

Seat location, aside from VIP, rarely has a correlation with prices. It directly relates to weight and balance and cost efficiency. The cheap seats are not in the back, in fact most seats have the same price at most airlines. We try to load aft heavy in order to save money. I won't bore you with the physics of weight and balance and how it effects cruise...but you fly faster when you put people in the back. 

Face it. When ordered to exit the aircraft, whether you feel it is right or wrong, and you do not comply -- you are breaking the law. 

I usually agree with you on finances, but you're a bit out to lunch on the airline industry.


----------



## Ag Driver

carverman said:


> Wow! Too much information AG.
> 
> 
> What if he HAD to be there on that flight for some reason?..
> ..but then he would have booked his seat at regular price.


Too much info? Is it too much to ask to be respectful of each other? Treat others with dignity and respect? 

Unfortunately, with today rules and practices regarding overbooking -- no one HAS to be on any flight. That is how the industry is run, right or wrong. Do I agree with it? No. I am also not the one that has to penny count at the end of the day to see if the airline goes tits next week or doesn't pay out or answer to it's share holders.


----------



## Eclectic12

Just a Guy said:


> ... If it was truly about ticket prices, the seats would probably been at the back of the plane in coach (usually the cheapest seats).


From the video, there's two seats, aisle and two seats. 
The reports have said it's an Embraer, where tracking the United flight number, it is the 170 model so that is coach. Or to put it another way, there's no business class.


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12

Just a Guy said:


> Businesses, like united, are based on supply and demand, not the price of the original item.
> It doesn't matter what the original person paid, it's a matter of what the next person is willing to take to give it up ...


It seems to ... the ones picked to be removed are reported to have no ties to the airline and have paid the least for their seat. 
Something about not wanting to upset loyal customers. :biggrin:


Cheers


----------



## SMK

Ag Driver said:


> When given an order on an aircraft. Comply. Plain and simple. (Pun intended)


Would have been less than thrilled, but what I would have done. The article said 4 passengers were removed, and that names were selected at random by computer. I doubt discrimination played any part in this case.


----------



## carverman

Just a Guy said:


> Overselling seats was the issue, there was no safety issue. They needed 4 seats to transport their crew, again no safety issue.
> 
> True, there are federal laws to protect the majority of people on a plane, however, they aren't there to cover up stupid business decisions made by the company.


I understand your point, the airline screwed up and used heavy handed tactics to forcibly eject what they say was an unruly and unco-operative passenger. because of the perceived injury, it is going to cost them a lot more than offering a $800 -$1300 cash voucher for a United flight anywhere in the US and a booking on the next flight to the destination. Somebody on the plane would have volunteered
for that kind of offer, even if the 'good doctor" refused to co-operate.

This wasn't done at the passenger terminal prior to boarding. The passengers were already boarded
and the flight held back prior to takeoff.

Now it's probably a legal issue involving federal rules vs passenger injury by the airline...plus any jury award to the passenger.


----------



## carverman

SMK said:


> Would have been less than thrilled, but what I would have done. The article said 4 passengers were removed, and that names were selected at random by computer. *I doubt discrimination played any part in this case*.


It's hard to second guess what transpired prior to the guy being dragged out kicking and screaming.
Random selection would also depend on what fare was being paid for those 4 seats. If the 4 United employees that eventuall ocuppied those seats flew for free,
then that could be a case of discrimination.


----------



## Ag Driver

carverman said:


> It's hard to second guess what transpired prior to the guy being dragged out kicking and screaming.
> Random selection would also depend on what fare was being paid for those 4 seats. If the 4 United employees that eventuall ocuppied those seats flew for free,
> then that could be a case of discrimination.


This wasn't leisure travel for staff. This was an operational requirement likely booked a month in advance when their schedule for the month was generated. They work for the airline. They are not passengers. It is their workplace.


----------



## Beaver101

carverman said:


> ... Imagine if the passenger had been a woman who refused to give up her seat and the airport security dragged her kicking and screaming down the isle of the plane?


 ... with that CEO's business acumen, she would be treated no differently. Afterall UAssLine got all angles covered now from, sexism, discrimination, violence, etc... 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/26/us/united-airlines-leggings.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FUAL%20Corporation&action=click&contentCollection=business&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=6&pgtype=collection

*After Barring Girls for Leggings, United Airlines Defends Decision*


----------



## heyjude

Nelley said:


> Then don't call people "prejudiced"-idiot.


My original post:



heyjude said:


> That is a horrible, prejudiced comment. You don't know the first thing about this gentleman.


I did not call you prejudiced. I called your comment prejudiced.


----------



## Beaver101

Nelley said:


> And you are a complete idiot-the guy was screaming like a 3 year old child.


 ... according to Nelly, the non-volunteering pig passenger wasn't forced on or assaulted enough to be put into a comatose such that he was able squeal for help. Otherwise Nelly can then call him a brain-dead sheep for complying.


----------



## carverman

> Sunday’s incident came weeks after another public relations controversy for the airline. In late March, United was accused of sexism for refusing to allow a 10-year-old girl to board for violating its dress code for “pass riders”. T*he girl was wearing leggings.*


*Fly on the wall:*
United Embraier flight to Louisville Ky.
*Captain: * Ah Ladies and gentlemen, it appears that we MAY have overbooked our flight, so we need some of you to give up your seats to accomodate four of our employees.
*Flight attendents;*'anybody? c'mon peeple, we need 4 seats...ok, then let our computer make the choices who will be giving up their seats.
*United passengers:* grumbling...and muttering under their breaths..
3 selected randomly leave the plane..
4th one (the good doctor) refuses to budge.
*Flight crew*" Sir, you have to leave your seat!
Passenger: Why? 
*Flight crew"* Because we said so..this is an order!
Passenger: Well, I paid for this seat and I ain't leaving.
Flight crew: Ok,then we have to call airport security!
*Airport security*: 3 burly officers with guns and billy sticks
AS: Sir, you have to leave NOW, you are holding up departure
Passenger; No way, I paid for my seat and I ain't [email protected]#[email protected]^&
AS; Raising his billy club, "Grab his arms so we can yank him out of his seat..wait, I'll give him a little wack to persuade him to help himchange his mind."
Passenger, yanked forcibly out of his seat and dragged out by his heels, squealing..

*CEO of United:* We had to do this,the passenger was unruly and beligerent, we have to show the other passengers that when
we give them direct orders..we mean it.

*Captain: *" Ah..ladies and gentlemen, we are finally departing Chicago..have a good flight and THANKYOU FOR FLYING UNITED!


----------



## carverman

Beaver101 said:


> ... with that CEO's business acumen, she would be treated no differently. Afterall UAssLine got all angles covered now from, sexism, discrimination, violence, etc...
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/26/us/united-airlines-leggings.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FUAL%20Corporation&action=click&contentCollection=business®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=6&pgtype=collection
> 
> *After Barring Girls for Leggings, United Airlines Defends Decision*


Yes, I forgot about that incident;

Should I do another "Fly on the wall" parody spoof on that incident?

Sorry, I couldn't resist this incident.

United Airlines: (seeing two girls wearing leggings) 
What the H**! That is entirely inappropriate wear for passengers to wear in our aircraft.
checks his United operations manual for inappropriate wear..
bare arms..no
high heels..no
yaramulkas..no
hijabs ..no
niqabs..definitley NO!

leggings...no..ok that's it! They are in violation of United rule number<x>
kick them off the plane!


----------



## Beaver101

Ag Driver said:


> As crew, nothing upsets me more then non compliance and unruly pax. I don't march into your workplace and tell you how to do your job and stand my ground when you give me an instruction. Why **** on my crew?
> 
> The reality is that the airline must still operate to it's maximum efficiency. I hate to break it to you, but *as a passenger, the world does not revolve around you *...


 .. no it doesn't. In fact it revolves around ALL passengers, including kids. Guess UAssline couldn't care less. Here's a posting from Twitter on a passenger that witness the incident, disturbing.


----------



## SMK

Too much hysteria these days about everything and not enough when appropriate. 

The good old days. https://www.bostonglobe.com/lifesty...-air-travel/D2tH33b60WzmIkKPmUQMBP/story.html


----------



## Beaver101

Ag Driver said:


> This wasn't leisure travel for staff. This was an operational requirement likely booked a month in advance when their schedule for the month was generated. They work for the airline. They are not passengers. It is their workplace.


 ... right, now UAssline can keep their planes to themselves like this:


----------



## Nelley

heyjude said:


> My original post:
> 
> 
> 
> I did not call you prejudiced. I called your comment prejudiced.


OK-fair enough-you are a genius-you are Einstein, Tesla, whatever-YOUR COMMENTS ARE IDIOTIC.


----------



## Beaver101

carverman said:


> *Fly on the wall:*
> United Embraier flight to Louisville Ky.
> *Captain: * Ah Ladies and gentlemen, it appears that we MAY have overbooked our flight, so we need some of you to give up your seats to accomodate four of our employees.
> *Flight attendents;*'anybody? c'mon peeple, we need 4 seats...ok, then let our computer make the choices who will be giving up their seats.
> *United passengers:* grumbling...and muttering under their breaths..
> 3 selected randomly leave the plane..
> 4th one (the good doctor) refuses to budge.
> *Flight crew*" Sir, you have to leave your seat!
> Passenger: Why?
> *Flight crew"* Because we said so..this is an order!
> Passenger: Well, I paid for this seat and I ain't leaving.
> Flight crew: Ok,then we have to call airport security!
> *Airport security*: 3 burly officers with guns and billy sticks
> AS: Sir, you have to leave NOW, you are holding up departure
> Passenger; No way, I paid for my seat and I ain't [email protected]#[email protected]^&
> AS; Raising his billy club, "Grab his arms so we can yank him out of his seat..wait, I'll give him a little wack to persuade him to help himchange his mind."
> Passenger, yanked forcibly out of his seat and dragged out by his heels, squealing..
> 
> *CEO of United:* We had to do this,the passenger was unruly and beligerent, we have to show the other passengers that when
> we give them direct orders..we mean it.
> 
> *Captain: *" Ah..ladies and gentlemen, we are finally departing Chicago..have a good flight and THANKYOU FOR FLYING UNITED!


 .. UAssline is setting the bar higher and here're the new mottos to accompany that:


----------



## Nelley

Beaver101 said:


> .. no it doesn't. In fact it revolves around ALL passengers, including kids. Guess UAssline couldn't care less. Here's a posting from Twitter on a passenger that witness the incident, disturbing.
> 
> View attachment 14585


The video was really disturbing-it was like a remake of the Piggy scene from Deliverance.


----------



## 5Lgreenback

And now the Canadian government is going to make legislation because of public outrage around this incident. Great, instead of letting the market decide the government will get there nose in it and further increase airfares in Canada and negatively impact market at the cost of taxpayers. Maybe they should create a whole new branch of government just to deal with this? You know, job creation and such. The branch of "Citizens Rights on Aircrafts."


----------



## heyjude

Nelley said:


> OK-fair enough-you are a genius-you are Einstein, Tesla, whatever-YOUR COMMENTS ARE IDIOTIC.


Thank you.


----------



## Eclectic12

SMK said:


> ... The article said 4 passengers were removed, and that names were selected at random by computer.


Some reports say three complied and this was the one that didn't.




SMK said:


> ... I doubt discrimination played any part in this case.


Not that people who want it to be discrimination will notice. :wink:


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12

carverman said:


> ... Now it's probably a legal issue involving federal rules vs passenger injury by the airline...plus any jury award to the passenger.


Say what?

Since when are injuries by cop actions assigned to the party that called the cops?




carverman said:


> ... Random selection would also depend on what fare was being paid for those 4 seats. If the 4 United employees that eventuall ocuppied those seats flew for free, then that could be a case of discrimination.


I don't understand the logic ... if the employees being shuttled to their place of work at the company's requirement "flew for free" there's discrimination?


Cheers


----------



## Nelley

5Lgreenback said:


> And now the Canadian government is going to make legislation because of public outrage around this incident. Great, instead of letting the market decide the government will get there nose in it and further increase airfares in Canada and negatively impact market at the cost of taxpayers. Maybe they should create a whole new branch of government just to deal with this? You know, job creation and such. The branch of "Citizens Rights on Aircrafts."


If the airline had simply said we are going to pick 4 White Males at random this could have been totally avoided-the snowflakes give cops lots of leeway in manhandling white males.


----------



## Daniel A.

Publicly paid police should not be taking marching orders from corporations, the police should have made themselves fully aware of both sides in the dispute and then attempt to resolve it in a reasonable manner.
In my opinion what happened was extremely heavy handed.


----------



## andrewf

I have been hearing a lot of people complaining about overbooking. The reality is that overbooking is implicitly the preference of passengers to the alternative: higher prices. Airline have razor thin margins and without overbooking and other revenue optimization tools, they could not be profitable without raising prices.


----------



## james4beach

kcowan said:


> We have experienced the escalating offer. Low at first $500 credit and finally $2000 credit plus 1st class hotel and meal.
> 
> Why United did not do this remains a mystery and would seem very cheap now, compared to what this has and will cost them.


That's the thing... it's because United is _so incredibly_ cheap and greedy. It's why they only allow 1 carry on bag now, it's why they are constantly running late, way overbooked, etc.


----------



## james4beach

Ag Driver said:


> As crew, nothing upsets me more then non compliance and unruly pax. I don't march into your workplace and tell you how to do your job and stand my ground when you give me an instruction. Why **** on my crew?


Actually, at my business the customer _can_ march into my workplace and tell us how to do our job -- if we're way out of line. They are the paying customer.

Get your priorities straight. You've lost perspective.

This isn't a military aircraft with soldiers. These are paying customers. When they stand up to something that is universally agreed as being ridiculous, *they are right*.


----------



## Ag Driver

james4beach said:


> Actually, at my business the customer _can_ march into my workplace and tell us how to do our job -- if we're way out of line. They are the paying customer.
> 
> Get your priorities straight. You've lost perspective.
> 
> This isn't a military aircraft with soldiers. These are paying customers. When they stand up to something that is universally agreed as being ridiculous, *they are right*.


There is a time and a place. This was an innapropriate time and place to "stand your ground". There are alternative methods vs breaking the law. You can certainly contact the support line and likely get even more compensation with your concerns among MANY other options. Just because you and I don't like the rules, does not mean we can discount them entirely. I think you are a bit out of touch with reality. You the break rules, you reap the repercussions. It all boils down to a Peace Officer requesting he gets off the aircraft, and the person declines. You are now breaking the law....how is this difficult to understand. 

Sure, I agree -- this isn't all smelling of roses and everyone walks away happy. I would be delusional to think so. However, at this point in time, this is how the airline industry operates. Overbooking is an approved practice and has gone on for many many decades. This isn't something new. 

The only thing new here is that CHICAGO PD, not United, handling things to the point where injuries were incurred. Now it has spiraled into a hate parade on United when any other airline would have handled the situation the exact same way.


----------



## olivaw

^I don't think there is any doubt that United reserved the legal right to have a paying customer dragged off the plane. It's more about morality and human decency.


----------



## humble_pie

ag driver sounds strict but i believe he's right. As we all know, ag is a career pilot himself.

once airborne, any aircraft can turn into a terrorist battleground, an explosion or a lethal disaster in a split second.

a flight captain has to have the power to ensure that all parties on board his plane are orderly, law-abiding & peaceful before he or she takes off. That should be the priority imho. No doubt that is why federal regulations giving flight captains command of their aircraft were drafted in the first place.

of course, the other side of the story goes that United conducted itself in a foolish & heavy-handed manner. Parties on here pointing out that the airline could simply have raised its cash offer until the 4th & final volunteer rose to collect the bonus have a wise point of view, imho.

some doubts are also surfacing as to whether the dragged passenger was really a doctor who urgently needed his seat on the flight so he could get back to work as an MD. In my mind, the doubts are pinned to the fact that this passenger had bought an ultra-cheap standby ticket.

idk, does ultra-cheap standby sound like a highly-paid MD rushing back to his critical job saving lives in a louisville hospital? me i'm left thinking maybe he was no doctor. On the other hand, he might be a doctor who is super ultra frugal, cmf style.


.


----------



## heyjude

humble_pie said:


> idk, does ultra-cheap standby sound like a highly-paid MD rushing back to his critical job saving lives in a louisville hospital? me i'm left thinking maybe he was no doctor. On the other hand, he might be a doctor who is super ultra frugal, cmf style.


I'm afraid you are stereotyping doctors. Many of us are frugal.


----------



## My Own Advisor

There are two guilty parties here for sure but I don't condone the officers in what they did. This was an assault. It doesn't matter what he did for a living, if he was a man, or a woman, or a child. Nobody should be treated that way.

Sadly this is the sign of our times and it won't get better soon.


----------



## Beaver101

^ Yeha, maybe he wasn't a doctor, but a passenger who bought a cheap ticket.... and that he didn't bite the $800 or even a royal $1600 bribe to give up his seat to end up getting pulped. Why didn't UAssline CEO offer his private jet for those 4 airline employees? Or if profits are really short at UAssline, transport his employees on his limo. No jet, no limo ... there's Uber.


----------



## humble_pie

heyjude said:


> I'm afraid you are stereotyping doctors. Many of us are frugal.



jude you are a good researcher. Can you find out for sure whether he was an MD rushing back to duty on call or not?

i don't believe i'm stereotyping doctors. It just does not seem logical to me that any highly-paid professonal rushing back to an urgent, critical job would deliberately buy a lowest-cost standby ticket. Going on vacation, such a party's frugal side might take over. But rushing back to work, it seems less likely that one so highly placed would risk not even getting a seat on the plane in standby.


.


----------



## heyjude

humble_pie said:


> jude you are a good researcher. Can you find out for sure whether he was an MD rushing back to duty on call or not?
> 
> i don't believe i'm stereotyping doctors. It just does not seem logical to me that any highly-paid professonal rushing back to an urgent, critical job would deliberately buy a lowest-cost standby ticket. Going on vacation, such a party's frugal side might take over. But rushing back to work, it seems less likely that one so highly placed would risk not even getting a seat on the plane in standby.
> 
> 
> .


I do not have access to the schedule at his hospital, or to the clinic appointment list. However, I did conduct a physician search on the website of the Kentucky Board of Medical Licensure and verified that he does have a current licence to practice medicine. The website was very slow to respond, no doubt because many other are doing the same search. 

http://kbml.ky.gov/physician/Pages/Physician-Profile-Verification-of-Physician-License.aspx


----------



## SMK

My Own Advisor said:


> Sadly this is the sign of our times and it won't get better soon.


You're right. What's also a sign of our times is how individuals behave, which also deserves attention.


----------



## Eclectic12

Daniel A. said:


> Publicly paid police should not be taking marching orders from corporations, the police should have made themselves fully aware of both sides in the dispute and then attempt to resolve it in a reasonable manner.
> 
> In my opinion what happened was extremely heavy handed.


While I agree ... it seems clear it was a section of the Chicago PD that were doing the deed. 


Cheers


----------



## james4beach

Eclectic12 said:


> While I agree ... it seems clear it was a section of the Chicago PD that were doing the deed.


Do Chicago police not wear uniforms any more? What a casual, flaky city.

As far as passengers being required to follow all instructions from crew members?

No. If a crewmember asks the passenger for a french kiss, the passenger is not obliged to do so. If the crew member asks the passenger to cluck like a chicken for his amusement, the passenger is not obliged to do so. If in this situation the flight attendant asked the man to cluck like a chicken, and he refused, and was forcibly removed -- he'd have a legit lawsuit.

My point is, it is not a *carte blanche* -- which is important. So what are the passengers required to do?

Take a look at the FAA code. It's about safety, not business reasons.
http://fsims.faa.gov/WDocs/8900.1/V03 Tech Admin/Chapter 33/03_033_006.htm

This is based on safety considerations. Paragraph A says "if a passenger does not comply with the safety regulations and/or interferes with a crewmember". The next part goes on to describe examples of disturbances, with a focus on alcohol.

Did the passenger interfere with a crew member? A judge might say 'no'... he was minding his own business. He wasn't intoxicated, he wasn't fighting or causing trouble.

I totally disagree that the airline is justified in assaulting passengers who are minding their own business, not interfering in anything, and are demanded to leave due to overbooking. There is not a blanket requirement that passengers follow ALL crew directions. Only that they follow all safety directions, and don't interfere with the operation of the flight. Our pilot friend is wrong.


----------



## Eder

Ag Driver said:


> This isn't occupy wall street, this isn't occupy United. Once you boarded that aircraft, you no longer have the right to decline orders and instructions pertaining to the safe operation of the flight.
> . (Pun intended)



Thanks for typing this up...it's unbelievable most here have no clue about your rights on airlines. The guy was a super dick holding up the rest of the flight...I would have been cheering as they hauled his butt off.


----------



## Eclectic12

heyjude said:


> ... However, I did conduct a physician search on the website of the Kentucky Board of Medical Licensure and verified that he does have a current licence to practice medicine ...


Interesting ... he is also alleged to have multiple drug charges.
http://www.wave3.com/story/4301599/elizabethtown-doctor-indicted-on-98-drug-charges
http://www.syracuse.com/us-news/index.ssf/2017/04/united_passenger_identified_david_dao.html


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12

james4beach said:


> Do Chicago police not wear uniforms any more? What a casual, flaky city.


The photos I have seen look like uniforms, albeit different from a patrol officer on the beat.




james4beach said:


> ... I totally disagree that the *airline is justified in assaulting passengers* who are minding their own business, not interfering in anything, and are demanded to leave due to overbooking ...


The airline called the police ... the police did the assaulting.


Cheers


----------



## carverman

Beaver101 said:


> ^ Yeha, maybe he wasn't a doctor, but a passenger who bought a cheap ticket.... and that he didn't bite the $800 or even a royal $1600 bribe to give up his seat to end up getting pulped. Why didn't UAssline CEO offer his private jet for those 4 airline employees? Or if profits are really short at UAssline, transport his employees on his limo. No jet, no limo ... there's Uber.


Uber's starting to operate aircraft? If so, United will be in trouble.:smile:

Now, about those LULULEMON tights called "leggings"..my goodness..how crass of the little girls to wear those on an aircraft. That's like women wearing low cut tank tops...totally inappropriate fashion for airlines.:barbershop_quartet_

Will we be hearing more stories from United/ Wasn't there a baby kicked off one of their flights a while ago for crying?


----------



## heyjude

Casey Neistat, one of the most influential YouTubers and a frequent flier on United, has said that he will no longer fly with them until this has been "made right". 

https://youtu.be/PqBbqjM_pKE

Their stock lost about $1 billion today, though it recovered somewhat. The CEO has now issued a third statement, with an apology. I guess the damage control consultants have been called in.


----------



## james4beach

Ag Driver said:


> As crew, nothing upsets me more then non compliance and unruly pax.


Tough nuts. Passengers are not required to comply with ALL instructions you give them. Only with instructions pertaining to the safe operation of the flight and safety of the aircraft and fellow passengers.



> If you are given instructions from crew on an aircraft, you comply. Non compliance of any instruction becomes a safety issue at this point.


Incorrect. As crew, you cannot approach a passenger and demand a french kiss from them, nor can you demand that a passenger recites a verse from the Old Testament before the flight takes off.

You have an incorrect understanding of what the crew is empowered to do.


----------



## humble_pie

eclectic's link to the syracuse media shows that dr. david dao had a troubled history with multiple charges that were sufficient to cause medical licensing authorities to severely restrict his practice.

from syracuse dot com:



> Dao was allowed to continue practicing medicine again in 2015 under limited conditions. He and his wife, Teresa, have an office together in Elizabethtown.
> 
> TMZ reports the medical board imposed more restrictions last year, only allowing him to practice internal medicine in an outpatient facility one day a week. A doctor said Dao had interpersonal problems and would often "unilaterally choose to do his own thing."



.


----------



## heyjude

Look, Dr. Dao may be a douchebag. That does not excuse how United managed the situation.


----------



## RCB

I am not surprised at how people have reacted to this event, and how they have attacked the airline involved. Flying customers have been under attack from various directions for years, and are quite frankly, fed up with ALL of it.

As a flying customer, you book your flight, then have to start forking out more cash to select your seat (so you're not bumped), pay extra for luggage, etc. You are REQUIRED to waste time at the airport for 2-3 hours, prior to boarding. This AFTER having been treated rudely and aggressively by security staff, sometimes pulled out for added swipes and searches (this is me...every time, MWF, middle -aged). Then you are illogically loaded (not rear to front), and get to your increasingly shrinking seat, with no leg room...especially annoying for international, red-eye flights. The flight attendants can't help but bash you with their carts, due to aisle downsizing, while serving three-peanut bags as a snack, and assorted vile "food". Finally, you are treated to a low-oxygen flight, which makes you even testier, only to land where more guns are surveilling you, only to learn your luggage is in another country, or has disappeared altogether. Yes, Delta, Air Canada, and Ryanair, I'm talking to you.

What's not to love about flying these days? After all this, why the hell would people WILLINGLY give up their seats for crappy vouchers?

(If anyone has a recommended, QUALITY airline that flies Toronto to Edinburgh, I'd love to hear it. I have to book again for next summer, and AC last summer was abysmal.)


----------



## humble_pie

heyjude said:


> Look, Dr. Dao may be a douchebag. That does not excuse how United managed the situation.




no argument here. There's blame on all sides. The airline. The CPD. The passenger.

one thing i'd never realized until seeing this thread. When we board a plane as commercial passengers, we are in fact entering a zone of martial law. The flight captain has quasi-military command.

ag driver has made this clear. Me i don't care for the regime but i believe ag driver. As pilot, he's flying with responsibility for the life of every soul he carries on board. If we want to fly safe as passengers, we have to sit when the captain says Sit. Git when the captain says Git.

_(roll-eyes Via Rail ad) "Why don't you take the train"_


.


----------



## Nelley

Eder said:


> Thanks for typing this up...it's unbelievable most here have no clue about your rights on airlines. The guy was a super dick holding up the rest of the flight...I would have been cheering as they hauled his butt off.


But they wouldn't hear you cheering-he was squealing too loud-just the guy you want working on you in the operating room.


----------



## olivaw

Sometimes satire is the best response:


----------



## Nelley

humble_pie said:


> eclectic's link to the syracuse media shows that dr. david dao had a troubled history with multiple charges that were sufficient to cause medical licensing authorities to severely restrict his practice.
> 
> from syracuse dot com:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .


Bring the Quack to Kathleen Wynne's Ontario-he will fit in well-probably they will have Dr. Dao running a hospital.


----------



## Nelley

RCB said:


> I am not surprised at how people have reacted to this event, and how they have attacked the airline involved. Flying customers have been under attack from various directions for years, and are quite frankly, fed up with ALL of it.
> 
> As a flying customer, you book your flight, then have to start forking out more cash to select your seat (so you're not bumped), pay extra for luggage, etc. You are REQUIRED to waste time at the airport for 2-3 hours, prior to boarding. This AFTER having been treated rudely and aggressively by security staff, sometimes pulled out for added swipes and searches (this is me...every time, MWF, middle -aged). Then you are illogically loaded (not rear to front), and get to your increasingly shrinking seat, with no leg room...especially annoying for international, red-eye flights. The flight attendants can't help but bash you with their carts, due to aisle downsizing, while serving three-peanut bags as a snack, and assorted vile "food". Finally, you are treated to a low-oxygen flight, which makes you even testier, only to land where more guns are surveilling you, only to learn your luggage is in another country, or has disappeared altogether. Yes, Delta, Air Canada, and Ryanair, I'm talking to you.
> 
> What's not to love about flying these days? After all this, why the hell would people WILLINGLY give up their seats for crappy vouchers?
> 
> (If anyone has a recommended, QUALITY airline that flies Toronto to Edinburgh, I'd love to hear it. I have to book again for next summer, and AC last summer was abysmal.)


I know-but OTOH you are crammed in a small space with people just like this Dr. Dao garbage-and you can't blame the airline for that.


----------



## 5Lgreenback

olivaw said:


> Sometimes satire is the best response:


Lol. 

"United Airlines, the only airline where you board as a doctor, and leave as a patient."


----------



## Ag Driver

james4beach said:


> Tough nuts. Passengers are not required to comply with ALL instructions you give them. Only with instructions pertaining to the safe operation of the flight and safety of the aircraft and fellow passengers.
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect. As crew, you cannot approach a passenger and demand a french kiss from them, nor can you demand that a passenger recites a verse from the Old Testament before the flight takes off.
> 
> You have an incorrect understanding of what the crew is empowered to do.


To quote myself:



> This isn't occupy wall street, this isn't occupy United. Once you boarded that aircraft, you no longer have the right to decline orders and instructions pertaining to the safe operation of the flight.


I can tell you 100% that I am correct because it is my job. Thanks for taking my information out of context to meet your needs. Your irrational response stops my discussion with you right there. French kissing, and reciting versus? Really?


----------



## wraphter

heyjude said:


> I'm afraid you are stereotyping doctors. Many of us are frugal.


The frugal Dr. Dao.


http://www.tmz.com/2017/04/11/united-airlines-doctor-convicted-drugs-sex/



> The passenger who was savagely removed from United flight 3411 is a medical doctor with a sordid history.
> Dr. David Dao was charged in 2005 with 98 felony drug counts for illegally prescribing and trafficking painkillers. Prosecutors claimed Dao fraudulently filled prescriptions for hydrocodone, Oxycontin and Percocet.
> Dr. Dao was also convicted on 6 felony counts of obtaining drugs by fraud and deceit and in 2005 was given 5 years probation.
> Dao was also convicted for writing prescriptions and checks to a patient in exchange for sex.
> In medical board documents ... Dao denied paying for sex, but indicated he accepted sexual favors from an associate in exchange for reducing a debt that associate owed him.
> In February, 2005, Dr. Dao surrendered his license to practice medicine in Kentucky. In 2015 the medical board lifted the suspension and allowed him to practice medicine with some restrictions. Last year, the medical board imposed even more restrictions -- now he can only practice internal medicine in an outpatient facility one day a week.
> 
> Interestingly, and relevant to the United incident, one doctor assessing Dao's case said he had interpersonal problems, noting "... he would unilaterally choose to do his own thing."


----------



## olivaw

Nelley said:


> I know-but OTOH you are crammed in a small space with people just like this Dr. Dao garbage-and you can't blame the airline for that.


Most (if not all) of the passengers who witnessed it first hand were on Dr. Dao's side. 

It's kinda like when the *police arrest and taunt a guy for speeding to the hospital with his pregnant wife* (video). You don't care if the guy was a sinner or a saint. You don't care if the cop had the authority to humiliate the guy like that. 

You only care about the abuse of authority and the staggering lack of common decency. Then you wonder how far things have to go before every one of us gets to experience violence at the hands of the police.


----------



## olivaw

Nelley said:


> Typical braindead sheep comment-the stupid crowd is always right. Jeez.


Impartial first hand witnesses are probably more right than an Internet conspiracy theorist of questionable gender.


----------



## wraphter

heyjude said:


> Look, Dr. Dao may be a douchebag. That does not excuse how United managed the situation.


The physical altercation was with the police, not the airlines. When a police officer tells you to do something ,you should do it or face the consequences which can be quite physical. Dao's prior history indicates he is not a law-abiding person. He is someone who likes to break the law. He is someone who resists authority ,which is exactly what he did on the plane. 

His past antagonism to the law came to the fore in this episode. if a police officer tells a doctor to get out of his Bentley and he doesn't the police officer can use a certain measure of force to get compliance.


----------



## ian

After a career of business and personal travel in North America and internationally I can say that United has been at the bottom end of my airline of choice for many years. Always a last resort. I thought things might change with the Continental merger. Our experience is that they stayed the same. As an Aeroplan member sometime we have to fly on United in order avoid excessive add on costs when booking reward tickets on other airlines. Not great, but better than paying an extra 500 or 600 bucks for a so called free flight.


----------



## Nelley

olivaw said:


> Impartial first hand witnesses are probably more right than an Internet conspiracy theorist of questionable gender.


Your comment is a Hate Crime in Wynne's Ontario-we have 84 different genders here and now.


----------



## m3s

olivaw said:


> It's kinda like when the *police arrest and taunt a guy for speeding to the hospital with his pregnant wife* (video). You don't care if the guy was a sinner or a saint. You don't care if the cop had the authority to humiliate the guy like that.


Wait. Ag Driver used to be a cop?

[video]https://youtu.be/XbebjUYItKw?t=7s[/video]

Seriously though this entire incident would have been easily avoided if United didn't *overboard* the flight

Overbooking flights is standard practice and it makes sense imo.

Humiliating passengers does not.


----------



## olivaw

m3s said:


> Wait. Ag Driver used to be a cop?


Just want to clarify: My comment was not about Ag Driver. Heck, I don't know what an Ag is, let along how to drive one. 

I was talking about the use of physical force and the humiliation of Dr Dao by the Chicago PD. 

South Park satire can be insightful sometimes.


----------



## carverman

Apparently United's stock has taken a hit this afternoon after the video went viral.



> The CEO had to tweet an apology for the "re-accommodation" of the passenger in question.
> 
> “This is an upsetting event to all of us here at United,” CEO Oscar Munoz said in a statement. “I apologize for having to re-accommodate these customers. our team is moving with a sense of urgency to work with the authorities and conduct our own detailed review of what happened. We are also reaching out to this passenger to talk directly to him and further address and resolve this situation.”


Jimmy Kimmel late night monologue:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwPdWEdbgxY


----------



## Just a Guy

Still confused as to the safety issue Ag keeps referencing...

They knew about the deadheading probably months in advance, yet loaded the plane to capacity without keeping the 4 seats available.

That's a mistake on the loading staff.

Overbooking, was a mistake by the booking agents.

Would the plane be in danger if these staff members didn't get on? I don't see it. 

I see shortsightedness, poor judgement, bad business decisions, but no safety issues...unless you were the passenger.

What if the random selection had chosen a single parent's seat that was travelling with a child who was not selected? Should the parent leave willingly for "safety" reasons?

In my businesses, if I, or my staff, screw up then I'm the one paying for it, even if it's inconvenient for me. I don't get to beat up my customers because of it. Why didn't they book their staff on a different airline, on the next flight, send them on the bus, call in extra staff at the destination to cover for the ones who get left behind, etc.


----------



## none

There are a lot of unknowns with this story. At a minimum though this thread has taught me that Nelly is one serious *******.


----------



## Nelley

none said:


> There are a lot of unknowns with this story. At a minimum though this thread has taught me that Nelly is one serious *******.


Somebody call the Thought Police and lead me to my safe place-I feel triggered.


----------



## mrPPincer

thug in grimy blue jeans: Thunk! Thunk! Thunk! Stop resisting!
asian doctor: ahhhh!
thug in grimy blue jeans: direct hit, knockout yah, take that to the brain 'dokter', ok boys, lets drag this bleeding ***-sack out, (and lose track of his whereabouts in the terminal so he can run back into the plane) and call it a day, I need a beer.

btw he was travelling with his wife. They aren't supposed to separate travelling companions in such situations either I hear.

Cheap-*** airline was offered the fourth spot by another customer for a few dollars more and said customer was scoffed at.

This is just one more incident that descibes United Airline's corporate personality to their clientele and it will end up costing them a hell of a lot more.

I would see it as karmic justice if this scumbag operation goes under.


----------



## Parkuser

carverman said:


> Apparently United's stock has taken a hit this afternoon after the video went viral.


On the other hand, United got subcontracted to remove Bashar al-Assad from Syria. You loose some, you win some.


----------



## Nelley

mrPPincer said:


> thug in grimy blue jeans: Thunk! Thunk! Thunk! Stop resisting!
> asian doctor: ahhhh!
> thug in grimy blue jeans: direct hit, knockout yah, take that to the brain 'dokter', ok boys, lets drag this bleeding ***-sack out, (and lose track of his whereabouts in the terminal so he can run back into the plane) and call it a day, I need a beer.
> 
> btw he was travelling with his wife. They aren't supposed to separate travelling companions in such situations either I hear.
> 
> Cheap-*** airline was offered the fourth spot by another customer for a few dollars more and said customer was scoffed at.
> 
> This is just one more incident that descibes United Airline's corporate personality to their clientele and it will end up costing them a hell of a lot more.
> 
> I would see it as karmic justice if this scumbag operation goes under.


Technically that is Asian Felon Junkie Doctor.


----------



## mrPPincer

Parkuser said:


> On the other hand, United got subcontracted to remove Bashar al-Assad from Syria. You loose some, you win some.


LOL nice one


----------



## none

Here's a similar story - the guy has white skin so this might make it a bit harder for Nelly,

http://www.latimes.com/business/laz...ed-low-priority-passenger-20170412-story.html


----------



## Parkuser

mrPPincer said:


> LOL nice one


Stolen; could not resist.


----------



## mrPPincer

https://imgur.com/99dgkTs


----------



## heyjude

The latest CNN story quotes another passenger reporting that the doctor, when first approached, offered to leave the plane, but changed his mind when he was informed that the next flight was not scheduled till the following afternoon. 

Backlash erupts after United passenger gets yanked off overbooked flight
http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/11/travel/united-customer-dragged-off-overbooked-flight/index.html

I keep asking myself what I would have done in the same situation. If I needed to be at work the next morning I would certainly have tried to persuade the crew not to eject me. But obviously, in Trump's America, the storm troopers always win. One more reason to stay away.


----------



## Ag Driver

Just a Guy said:


> Still confused as to the safety issue Ag keeps referencing...
> 
> They knew about the deadheading probably months in advance, yet loaded the plane to capacity without keeping the 4 seats available.
> 
> That's a mistake on the loading staff.
> 
> Overbooking, was a mistake by the booking agents.
> 
> Would the plane be in danger if these staff members didn't get on? I don't see it.
> 
> I see shortsightedness, poor judgement, bad business decisions, but no safety issues...unless you were the passenger.
> 
> What if the random selection had chosen a single parent's seat that was travelling with a child who was not selected? Should the parent leave willingly for "safety" reasons?
> 
> In my businesses, if I, or my staff, screw up then I'm the one paying for it, even if it's inconvenient for me. I don't get to beat up my customers because of it. Why didn't they book their staff on a different airline, on the next flight, send them on the bus, call in extra staff at the destination to cover for the ones who get left behind, etc.


A non compliant passenger is a safety issue. When given instructions from crew, and you say no -- this is a safety issue. Period. Full stop. You don't go flying. It could be something as simple as taking your ear buds out during take off and landing, or blatantly using your cell phone cruising the internet while in taxi. You do not take non compliance into the air, as this potentially can turn into a very dangerous situation. 

Yes, the CSR's screwed up when loading. No overbooking was not a mistake as overbooking is intentional in order to achieve a full load. 

The deadhead was likely booked a month in advance -- no more. We don't deadhead on any other airline but our own and if as an alleged business man, you can not understand why this is .... then I can't for see you being a good business man. Why no next flight, bus, extra staff? Because this was likely booked a MONTH in advance. That and we only deadhead on our own carrier for obvious reasons. We don't cab, but, train, taxi for obvious reasons. Some of the thing you may not be aware of are the tight deadlines between flights for crew, the number of turns in a pairing, and the legal flight/duty regulations we must adhere to. Paying an entire crew to ride the bus makes ZERO business sense. 

You clearly are ignoring the fact that airline operations are a HUGE network where MANY things must line up otherwise irregular operations are a result and many cancelled flights occur. It's not as simple as just catching the next flight. This isn't leisure travel ... we aren't taking the city bus to work here. We are running a very specific, time sensitive operations. 

I am not saying United handled things to perfection, but they certainly took one option that was reasonable and it gave an unfavorable outcome. 99% of the time, you don't get an injury when being escorted off an airplane. In fact, most walk off like civilized people.

I would also like to make it perfectly clear that in no way, shape or form is this the crews fault. This is purely a SALES issue. We, as crew, do not barter, we do not choose who stays or goes, we do not load the plane, and we don't make operational decisions until the parking brake is released. The crew was informed that a removal was occurring. The crew was following instructions from the company. They have no say in the matter and follow directions.


----------



## Ag Driver

For those asking earlier. No I'm not a cop. I fly for a major regional airline in Canada, so I do know more then the average consumer when it comes to airline operations.


----------



## Just a Guy

If things are so tight on timeline, and so crucial to get right, why were they the last to board and not the first? From what I read it was a last minute decision, but even if it wasn't, I'd have them on first thing if it was a vital part of my business operation, but then again why would a HUGE opereation, with MANY things which need to line up perform a SIMPLE thing like that to ENSURE it would actually work properly. After all, it's something that someone with poor business sense would have done automatically.

True, I didn't expect you to deadhead on another airline, but the company could pay to send you on it. You're using the law to cover up for incompetence. Using the law in a way it was never intended to be used. As people have pointed out, the crew could ask rediculous things and many customers would become belligerent or non-compliant in that circumstance, the law wasn't meant for an abuse of power. They screwed up big time, they solved it the wrong way. This isn't a safety issue at all, this is a screw up and now your hiding behind a law that was never meant to be used in that fashion.

If the pilot suddenly told people to strip down or we'd beat you to a pulp for non-compliance, I'd bet the pilot would be the one found at fault, not the passengers. The law wasn't meant for that purpose, and I bet many people would object outright and be belligerent. If you want to prove me wrong, try it on your next flight and let's see who's right. My bet is, you know who'd get into trouble, and would never consider trying it. I noticed you ignored the parent forced to abandon a child example I originally gave as a more reasonable example.

Btw, how's that drunk pilot we heard about a few weeks ago doing? How he ever got on board a plane is a real safety concern...


----------



## Nelley

heyjude said:


> The latest CNN story quotes another passenger reporting that the doctor, when first approached, offered to leave the plane, but changed his mind when he was informed that the next flight was not scheduled till the following afternoon.
> 
> Backlash erupts after United passenger gets yanked off overbooked flight
> http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/11/travel/united-customer-dragged-off-overbooked-flight/index.html
> 
> I keep asking myself what I would have done in the same situation. If I needed to be at work the next morning I would certainly have tried to persuade the crew not to eject me. But obviously, in Trump's America, the storm troopers always win. One more reason to stay away.


Einstein: Like you say-Trump's fingerprints are all over this operation-no way would this felon junkie quack have a problem if Crooked Hillary was running things.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

Ag Driver said:


> ... I am not saying United handled things to perfection, but they certainly took one option that was reasonable and it gave an unfavorable outcome. 99% of the time, you don't get an injury when being escorted off an airplane. In fact, most walk off like civilized people...


Oh give me a break. 

I think most of us understand your explanation regarding the importance of following crew instructions on an aircraft. 

What I cannot understand is why you appear to be defending the bad management and yes bad United staff judgement and handling of this issue. 

There is no way it should ever reach the point of sending security on board to remove paid sitting passengers solely because of an overbooked flight - that is simply gross negligence all down the line. Your saying it is 'purely a sales issue' is either naive or willful deceit.

As I recall, you are fairly new to this gig. Consider whether your attitude is a bit overbearing in defending the airline and discounting paying passengers in this case. 

If your attitude is, "the customer is always wrong", then I'm sure some of us would like to know who you fly for so we can book on the competition. 

You and your airline are only as viable as your reputation. Right now United's reputation is a dark steaming brown.


----------



## andrewf

This is one of those situations where everyone gets their helping of blame:

-the airline & its employees: a lapse in process/controls leading to the flight being overboarded. Humans are fallible and make mistakes. If observers are horrified by accidentally overboarding a plane, they should definitely not do any digging into the bloodbath taking place in hospitals due to mistakes & bad processes.

-the passenger, for not responding to a shitty situation like an adult. Yes, it was a shitty situation, but responding to an agent of the law threatening to use physical force against you with resistance is really silly. This is how a lot of young black men get killed in the US. Any injury this man sustained is due, in large part, to his decision not to comply with the request for him debark the plane.

-the police, for not using appropriate escalation of force. I've heard they dragged the passenger over other seated passengers. This makes no sense, the other passengers should have been cleared.


----------



## Eder

Actually for those that don't check the facts the 4 people that boarded the plane were to replace a crew that had a long lay over & were unable to fly. So we ground a plane of 450 people and even more down the chain because a drug push....err doctor is having a delusional experience?


----------



## RCB

Eder said:


> Actually for those that don't check the facts the 4 people that boarded the plane were to replace a crew that had a long lay over & were unable to fly. So we ground a plane of 450 people and even more down the chain because a drug push....err doctor is having a delusional experience?


I think we're all pretty clear in that the flight crew bumping passengers were needed for a flight at the destination...which news reports stated was flying THE NEXT DAY.

Once again, as has been mentioned, United could have easily increased the amount offered to be bumped until a willing individual accepted. No need to forcefully remove a paying, seated passenger, whether a doctor, a teacher, a homemaker, a porn star, or a pusher. United cheaped out, and clearly has terrible business practices, and this mess is the result. End of story.


----------



## carverman

RCB said:


> Once again, as has been mentioned, *United could have easily increased the amount offered to be bumped until a willing individual accepted.
> *


*

This what should have happened. FAA rules indicate that compensation up to $1350 can be offered to persuade any passenger to voluntarily give up their seat, if the doctor didn't want to vacate his seat.




No need to forcefully remove a paying, seated passenger, whether a doctor, a teacher, a homemaker, a porn star, or a pusher. United cheaped out, and clearly has terrible business practices, and this mess is the result. End of story.

Click to expand...

Regardless of who the passenger was, they targetted him as a non desirable (re-accomodation), after he refused to give up his seat.

What was not captured on the video is what transpired before hand, the flight crew trying to persuade him to leave his seat, or the storm trooper tactics dragging out of his seat forcibly (window seat?-presumed here), over another seated passenger in a horrible display of what can go wrong when human emotions get to that point.

United is mostly to blame for this publicity fiasco which is not going to help them win any new customers.
Perhaps they should adopt a new slogan to replace the their existing slogan.."Fly the friendly skies of United"?

The doctor is recovering in a Chicago hospital. When the lawsuit starts, United will have wished they hadn't used the heavy handed tactics to eject a seated passenger who had paid for his ticket and up to the point of confrontation, was sitting quietly awaiting takeoff.

I'm sure that other airlines will remember this unfortunate overbooking incident and take notes..they all do it to keep their planes full.*


----------



## SMK

RCB said:


> I think we're all pretty clear in that the flight crew bumping passengers were needed for a flight at the destination...which news reports stated was flying THE NEXT DAY.


The next day, but keep in mind the minimum rest requirements and duty period limitations.


----------



## Eclectic12

Ag Driver said:


> ... Yes, the CSR's screwed up when loading. No overbooking was not a mistake as overbooking is intentional in order to achieve a full load.
> 
> The deadhead was likely booked a month in advance -- no more ...


It seems weird to me that overbooking would include deadhead, airline crews. It makes me wonder if there was a weather issue or crew issue elsewhere that this particular crew being parachuted onto this flight became a last minute arrangement.

Having had to wait extra hours during a weather disturbance for a crew to arrive hours after a plane was parked at the gate - this makes more sense to me than overbooking a small regional jet.

I am not sure that this info will be made available though.




Just a Guy said:


> If things are so tight on timeline, and so crucial to get right, why were they the last to board and not the first?
> From what I read it was a last minute decision ...


Which lines up with a weather or other issue that caused a last minute need for a crew to be on this particular plane versus it being a run of the mill setup that was booked well in advance.




Just a Guy said:


> ... I'd have them on first thing if it was a vital part of my business operation ...


Which I have seen United Express do before ... which again leads to believe it wasn't setup in advance. It is possibly the personnel at the gate or the info provided to them that messed it up but I doubt it.




Just a Guy said:


> ... They screwed up big time, they solved it the wrong way.


Could more have been done to entice volunteers? Sure.

If you told a tenant you are selling the house and the tenant refused to leave, you'd call the police at some point, right?
Or would you keep offering more and more money until they left?




Just a Guy said:


> ... If the pilot suddenly told people to strip down or we'd beat you to a pulp for non-compliance, I'd bet the pilot would be the one found at fault, not the passengers. The law wasn't meant for that purpose, and I bet many people would object outright and be belligerent.


Similar has happened for police use of excessive force yet I have yet to hear of blame for those calling the police.

Where's the calls to prosecute whomever called the police for Robert Dziekanski being tazered to death?
Surely being friendly to him and locating an interpreter would have been a better solution, right?


Cheers


----------



## SMK

carverman said:


> United is mostly to blame.


I disagree, andrewf summarized it well.



andrewf said:


> This is one of those situations where *everyone gets their helping of blame:*
> 
> -*the airline & its employees:* a lapse in process/controls leading to the flight being overboarded. Humans are fallible and make mistakes. If observers are horrified by accidentally overboarding a plane, they should definitely not do any digging into the bloodbath taking place in hospitals due to mistakes & bad processes.
> 
> -*the passenger,* for not responding to a shitty situation like an adult. Yes, it was a shitty situation, but responding to an agent of the law threatening to use physical force against you with resistance is really silly. This is how a lot of young black men get killed in the US. Any injury this man sustained is due, in large part, to his decision not to comply with the request for him debark the plane.
> 
> -*the police*, for not using appropriate escalation of force. I've heard they dragged the passenger over other seated passengers. This makes no sense, the other passengers should have been cleared.





carverman said:


> Perhaps they should adopt a new slogan to replace the their existing slogan.."Fly the friendly skies of United"?
> 
> The doctor is recovering in a Chicago hospital. When the lawsuit starts, United will have wished they hadn't used the heavy handed tactics


UA does not need to change their slogan, they were right about the "Friendly Skies" - it's the airline that's unfriendly.  

The doc. was hospitalized for what, physical or mental trauma? I have a feeling that it's not only UA that's having regrets now. I wouldn't want to be a patient of the doc., who was allegedly more than a drug pusher.


----------



## Ag Driver

Just a Guy said:


> If things are so tight on timeline, and so crucial to get right, why were they the last to board and not the first? From what I read it was a last minute decision, but even if it wasn't, I'd have them on first thing if it was a vital part of my business operation, but then again why would a HUGE opereation, with MANY things which need to line up perform a SIMPLE thing like that to ENSURE it would actually work properly. After all, it's something that someone with poor business sense would have done automatically.
> 
> True, I didn't expect you to deadhead on another airline, but the company could pay to send you on it. You're using the law to cover up for incompetence. Using the law in a way it was never intended to be used. As people have pointed out, the crew could ask rediculous things and many customers would become belligerent or non-compliant in that circumstance, the law wasn't meant for an abuse of power. They screwed up big time, they solved it the wrong way. This isn't a safety issue at all, this is a screw up and now your hiding behind a law that was never meant to be used in that fashion.
> 
> If the pilot suddenly told people to strip down or we'd beat you to a pulp for non-compliance, I'd bet the pilot would be the one found at fault, not the passengers. The law wasn't meant for that purpose, and I bet many people would object outright and be belligerent. If you want to prove me wrong, try it on your next flight and let's see who's right. My bet is, you know who'd get into trouble, and would never consider trying it. I noticed you ignored the parent forced to abandon a child example I originally gave as a more reasonable example.
> 
> Btw, how's that drunk pilot we heard about a few weeks ago doing? How he ever got on board a plane is a real safety concern...


If it was last minute, so be it. There are a multiple decisions that could have been made. This isn't simple as you may thing. Aircraft go serviceable, crew are unfit to fly, weather deteriorates, system outages....I've seen a fair chunk already even in my short time. If things were so simple as you suggest, then maybe you should fire up the first airline that always runs with 100% on time performance, compensated employees to the point that they stay with the company, and run profits enough to pay yourself and keep the company a float. Or should I direct you to the list of defunct airlines in Canada? The list is long if you have a while to read it.

You don't use the law to cover up incompetence. The Company elected to make a decision. There are a number of what if's, they could have, or they should have just's. You could have up'ed the anti. To what limit? $400? $1500? $1M? Everyone says no. Ok, we move on to the next decision. What I am getting at is at some point you have to make a rational decision with what you think is the best thing to do. Option 1 failed, so they moved on to a more aggressive Option 2 and made a decision to keep the operation moving. The Option they elected for is a VERY common option. Where they screwed up royally was boarding the airplane. Whether you are in the lounge, at the gate, or in your seat is irrelevant. The show must go on. 

Now I don't want to quote myself once again, but it is clear I must. 



> Once you boarded that aircraft, *you no longer have the right* to decline orders and instructions *pertaining to the safe operation of the flight.*


We aren't talking about abuse of powers, french kissing or anything. What I can tell you is this. Try stripping my crew and pulling a FA's skirt down, try taking pictures up her skirt, try grabbing her ***, try standing up during taxi and declining to take a seat. Between my crew and you -- I can tell you who will make it to the destination and who gets to stay home. THESE ARE REAL LIFE EVENTS PEOPLE. I have witness and we have removed passengers for these AND a number of different events. When we say stop, don't, or get off the plane -- we are doing it for a reason. The majority all love their jobs, love customers, and fully support customer service and try our best to get as many people to their destination, family, friends, funerals, holidays as possible. This is in our best interest. We don't to to rain on your parade for no reason. Typically, there is a much bigger picture. Just because you think shutting your phone off is silly -- doesn't mean the interference in my headset, causing a loss of communication resulting in a runway incursion isn't a serious issue. 

As for the parent and the child scenario. I ignored it, because outlandish responses deserve no response. If the operation relied solely on computers, you would likely not walk away from your flight or worse, be pushed out in a body bag. Allowing for rational decision making from humans is a key competent to the operation. If a CSR ran a computer and it elected to remove the mother, but the child with a booked seat stays. A couple things come to mind. The CSR would automatically move on to the next person, or (because we are already deeming this CSR incompetent at this point) the CSR screws up again, asked the mother to be removed things can go a number of different ways...but they have every right to allow for the following to unfold.

PAX: "NO! I have a child, I am not going anywhere!"
CSR: "I understand your concern ma'am, we can accommodate the two of you on the next flight."

Something along those lines and insert phrases as you please.

As for the safety issue. I will spell it out for your one more time. Nothing was unsafe *up until the point at which the passenger becomes non compliant*. The company elected to make a decision that resulted in an unfavorable outcome. Sure, they could have offer Dr. Drug Man $1M and this would have been a more favourable outcome -- but realistically, at some point, a line must be drawn. The company made a decision that typically is a non event and elected to remove a passenger. Favourable outcome? No. Lesser of all evils? It could very well have been .... if he was compliant. Did the company know, when making the decision, that the man was going to be in non compliance? Did this normal human being try and outweigh the pro's and con's and attempt to make what they thought was the best decision given the scenario....probably. 

Kind of like when you risked going under an electric fence on the farm. Could it be an unfavourable outcome? Probably. Might get a good licking on your *** from electricity. Did it happen last time? Well no. Should we try it again vs walking 5km's around the fence and being late? Sure. 

I'll give some coles notes for you:
-This was not the crews fault and has nothing to do with the crew
-The CSR screwed up and he should have been informed and removed at the gate, along with the other 3 individuals
-The company had every right to remove pax once boarded
-The pax was in the wrong when he declined to be removed from the flight. He was breaking the law.
-The company could have provided more funds to trigger volunteers
-The pilot in command has the authority to have you removed
-The pilot in command will not depart with non compliance, regardless of the politics of the situation.
-The entire flight could have been canceled, collapsing a part of the network
-Removing of pax due to over booking happens every day, and I would also venture to guess that non-event police escorts happen often too. It just seems that once the police show up, everone becomes compliant. 

I can add a few more notes when it comes to mind. 

I am NOT supporting the company stating it was THE BEST DECISION EVER and I am NOT saying everyone walked away happy and the pax should have seen it coming! I am NOT saying he deserved every beating he got.


----------



## Eclectic12

RCB said:


> ... Once again, as has been mentioned, United could have easily increased the amount offered to be bumped until a willing individual accepted. No need to forcefully remove a paying, seated passenger, whether a doctor, a teacher, a homemaker, a porn star, or a pusher. United cheaped out, and clearly has terrible business practices, and this mess is the result. End of story.


Interesting ... makes me wonder why no one seems the least bit concerned about whomever called the RCMP when they tazered Robert Dziekanski to death. After all, calling the police make one responsible for what the police do, right?


Cheers


----------



## Ag Driver

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> Oh give me a break.
> 
> I think most of us understand your explanation regarding the importance of following crew instructions on an aircraft.
> 
> What I cannot understand is why you appear to be defending the bad management and yes bad United staff judgement and handling of this issue.
> 
> There is no way it should ever reach the point of sending security on board to remove paid sitting passengers solely because of an overbooked flight - that is simply gross negligence all down the line. Your saying it is 'purely a sales issue' is either naive or willful deceit.
> 
> As I recall, you are fairly new to this gig. Consider whether your attitude is a bit overbearing in defending the airline and discounting paying passengers in this case.
> 
> If your attitude is, "the customer is always wrong", then I'm sure some of us would like to know who you fly for so we can book on the competition.
> 
> You and your airline are only as viable as your reputation. Right now United's reputation is a dark steaming brown.


Where was I defending bad management? I was defending making a rational decision. A legal, an respectable decision. You can't please them all as I have previously discussed.

I agree it should have never reached this point (the point of boarding). This was human error. I'm not sure how many people on both ends have stated that the CSR dropped the ball. This IS a sales issue, a CSR being a part of the sales team. The crew is an entirely difference entity. I am making it a clear disconnect between CREW and SALES. 

Read every single one of my posts and stop pulling what you want out of it. I outright state that I disagree with overbooking, but understand the reason behind it. Keep pulling things out of your ***, will you?

In scenarios pertaining to the safe operation of the flight, the Captain has the authorities. When did I say the customer is always wrong? Go pound sand will you?


----------



## Ag Driver

andrewf said:


> This is one of those situations where everyone gets their helping of blame:
> 
> -the airline & its employees: a lapse in process/controls leading to the flight being overboarded. Humans are fallible and make mistakes. If observers are horrified by accidentally overboarding a plane, they should definitely not do any digging into the bloodbath taking place in hospitals due to mistakes & bad processes.
> 
> -the passenger, for not responding to a shitty situation like an adult. Yes, it was a shitty situation, but responding to an agent of the law threatening to use physical force against you with resistance is really silly. This is how a lot of young black men get killed in the US. Any injury this man sustained is due, in large part, to his decision not to comply with the request for him debark the plane.
> 
> -the police, for not using appropriate escalation of force. I've heard they dragged the passenger over other seated passengers. This makes no sense, the other passengers should have been cleared.


Man alive! Someone with some reason. Thank you for seeing it from a number of different angles.


----------



## Ag Driver

Eclectic12 said:


> It seems weird to me that overbooking would include deadhead, airline crews. It makes me wonder if there was a weather issue or crew issue elsewhere that this particular crew being parachuted onto this flight became a last minute arrangement.
> 
> Having had to wait extra hours during a weather disturbance for a crew to arrive hours after a plane was parked at the gate - this makes more sense to me than overbooking a small regional jet.
> 
> I am not sure that this info will be made available though.
> *
> ** SNIP SNIP SNIP to cut down post size ****
> 
> Where's the calls to prosecute whomever called the police for Robert Dziekanski being tazered to death?
> Surely being friendly to him and locating an interpreter would have been a better solution, right?
> 
> 
> Cheers


I cut your post down, but agree with all of it. Thank you for your input. As you have demonstrated in the past, once again you don't fail to produce a valid overall perspective.

Some things I will add: I kept stating likely booked -- as I don't claim to know their schedule. DH's are usually on your schedule, but there are certainly re-positioning fights to accomodate operational requirements. I have had my schedule changed mid pairing to accommodate operational requirements, and as more info does come out, it appears this was likely the case. Trying to make the best of a bad situation by re positioning crew.


----------



## humble_pie

heyjude said:


> I keep asking myself what I would have done in the same situation. If I needed to be at work the next morning I would certainly have tried to persuade the crew not to eject me.



but that's the thing. Medical doctors nearly always behave well in public life. One would expect a physician with a call to be on duty the very next morning to purchase a regular ticket at regular price, which would have guaranteed him a seat on the flight. 

this doctor had only purchased a standby ticket. It seems unlikely that he had to be at work in his clinic the following day, as the licensing authority had suspended his license for years, then allowed him to practice only one day a week. Or - if the following day was his only work day that week at the clinic - it seems highy irresponsible on his part to have purchased a standby ticket to get home.

another mystery is the wife, since she was rumoured to be on board the same aircraft. Where is missus dao in this story? particularly when doKtor dao runs back onto the plane in spite of his injuries, where is his wife trying to help him? 

btw, when doKtor ran back onto the aircraft, was he not once again the extra passenger with no seat? evidently they got him off the plane a 2nd time, since he's said to be recovering in a chicagoland hospital. 

too many loose ends in this story

.


----------



## SMK

Though his medical license is not related to this incident, I have to wonder given his criminal history, why his license was reinstated, even for one day a week? Were his patients aware of all this?


----------



## Nelley

SMK said:


> I disagree, andrewf summarized it well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UA does not need to change their slogan, they were right about the "Friendly Skies" - it's the airline that's unfriendly.
> 
> The doc. was hospitalized for what, physical or mental trauma? I have a feeling that it's not only UA that's having regrets now. I wouldn't want to be a patient of the doc., who was allegedly more than a drug pusher.


His lawyers admitted the quack in to the hospital (probably for "observation")-already building their case.


----------



## SMK

Nelley said:


> already building their case.


Was my impression as well.


----------



## humble_pie

Just a Guy said:


> As people have pointed out, the crew could ask rediculous things and many customers would become belligerent or non-compliant in that circumstance ... If the pilot suddenly told people to strip down or we'd beat you to a pulp for non-compliance, I'd bet the pilot would be the one found at fault, not the passengers.



puzzled here. Why are people introducing inanities into the discussion, like what if a pilot ordered passengers to strip naked. Or what if a pilot ordered passengers to start french kissing. Or to recite poetic verse.

as this incident has made us all aware, for safety reasons a pilot has quasi-military authority. Passengers entering his aircraft are entering a zone that could be compared to martial law. Certain freedoms will inevitably be curtailed.

one used to be able to say that 99% of passengers were compliant. Nowadays, what with terrorism & hijackings plus rising levels of public aggression everywhere, the passenger compliance ratio is probably noticeably lower. Flightbound passengers should be grateful, not critical, that pilots remain hyper vigilant.

.


----------



## Just a Guy

Well, I can see the airlines pushing for new legislation soon...

No more cell phones on airlines (I believe they are already banning laptops and tablets, so this won't be much of a stretch). Of course this will be for SAFETY issues...so people will stop catching their behaviour on video and endangering the SAFETY of their profits.

AG, don't get me wrong, I understand the spirit of the law and agree with it completely however your original arguement came across as a "holier than thou", airline did nothing wrong, defence to me. I appreciate you acknowledging that they screwed up and, even though you still seem to think that kind of behaviour was probably the preferable solution, I'll agree to disagree. I admit there is probably more to this story than we know. 

With one of my consultancy businesses, one of our jobs is to go into companies and explain how they are seen from an outside view. Most companies have blinders on, this is the way they do things, this is how it's done, it needs to be done this way...etc. My company comes in and shows them the other side of things, we work with them to develop new policy, procedures, systems, etc. To resolve similar instances from happening before they happen.

Many employees, all the way up the chain, are often so indoctrinated from drinking the company koolaid that they can't see any other way and are very resistant at first...nothing to see here folks, everything is fine...until they go too far (which they don't even realize and usually write it off as the customer's fault) and are genuinely surprised at the public backlash.

To me, with my personal background, I see many ways this issue could have been nipped in the bud long before it escalated to this nightmare for united. From what I see, your a typical customer of ours who thinks it's justifiable. Like AA (not the airline), the first step is admitting there is a problem...now you have a choice, do you fix the problems or do you continue on saying this was a fluke, too rare to worry about, etc. Or do you look to change.

From past experience, I can tell you what happens to companies who go down both paths. I can also tell you that perception is WAY more important than being right, but then again I'm probably not qualified to comment on your industry as you say...


----------



## Nelley

humble_pie said:


> but that's the thing. Medical doctors nearly always behave well in public life. One would expect a physician with a call to be on duty the very next morning to purchase a regular ticket at regular price, which would have guaranteed him a seat on the flight.
> 
> this doctor had only purchased a standby ticket. It seems unlikely that he had to be at work in his clinic the following day, as the licensing authority had suspended his license for years, then allowed him to practice only one day a week. Or - if the following day was his only work day that week at the clinic - it seems highy irresponsible on his part to have purchased a standby ticket to get home.
> 
> another mystery is the wife, since she was rumoured to be on board the same aircraft. Where is missus dao in this story? particularly when doKtor dao runs back onto the plane in spite of his injuries, where is his wife trying to help him?
> 
> btw, when doKtor ran back onto the aircraft, was he not once again the extra passenger with no seat? evidently they got him off the plane a 2nd time, since he's said to be recovering in a chicagoland hospital.
> 
> too many loose ends in this story
> 
> .


Yeah right-as a profession medical doctors aren't accountants-doctors are well known for breaking the law-often seriously.


----------



## humble_pie

Nelley said:


> Yeah right-as a profession medical doctors aren't accountants-doctors are well known for breaking the law-often seriously.




imagine how fast nelley-the-troublemaker would get thrown off a plane during boarding

too bad there's no pilot on cmf forum each:

.


----------



## Just a Guy

> If you told a tenant you are selling the house and the tenant refused to leave, you'd call the police at some point, right?
> Or would you keep offering more and more money until they left?


Actually there are a lot of checks and balances in the system. It would take months to get the legal rights back to my own property. Depending on the province, it can be a nightmare for me...but then I have to deal with it and the costs. In the ultimate, last ditch, reviewed by courts several times circumstance, I can hire a sherif to perform the removal, but he isn't allowed to physically beat the people up to remove them either.


----------



## Nelley

humble_pie said:


> imagine how fast nelley-the-troublemaker would get thrown off a plane during boarding
> 
> too bad there's no pilot on cmf forum each:
> 
> .


If we only knew we could get millions of dollars for squealing like a little piggy on a plane we would have all done it-Humble could work the camera.


----------



## Ag Driver

Just a Guy said:


> Well, I can see the airlines pushing for new legislation soon...
> 
> No more cell phones on airlines (I believe they are already banning laptops and tablets, so this won't be much of a stretch). Of course this will be for SAFETY issues...so people will stop catching their behaviour on video and endangering the SAFETY of their profits.
> 
> AG, don't get me wrong, I understand the spirit of the law and agree with it completely however your original arguement came across as a "holier than thou", airline did nothing wrong, defence to me. I appreciate you acknowledging that they screwed up and, even though you still seem to think that kind of behaviour was probably the preferable solution, I'll agree to disagree. I admit there is probably more to this story than we know.
> 
> With one of my consultancy businesses, one of our jobs is to go into companies and explain how they are seen from an outside view. Most companies have blinders on, this is the way they do things, this is how it's done, it needs to be done this way...etc. My company comes in and shows them the other side of things, we work with them to develop new policy, procedures, systems, etc. To resolve similar instances from happening before they happen.
> 
> Many employees, all the way up the chain, are often so indoctrinated from drinking the company koolaid that they can't see any other way and are very resistant at first...nothing to see here folks, everything is fine...until they go too far (which they don't even realize and usually write it off as the customer's fault) and are genuinely surprised at the public backlash.
> 
> To me, with my personal background, I see many ways this issue could have been nipped in the bud long before it escalated to this nightmare for united. From what I see, your a typical customer of ours who thinks it's justifiable. Like AA (not the airline), the first step is admitting there is a problem...now you have a choice, do you fix the problems or do you continue on saying this was a fluke, too rare to worry about, etc. Or do you look to change.
> 
> From past experience, I can tell you what happens to companies who go down both paths. I can also tell you that perception is WAY more important than being right, but then again I'm probably not qualified to comment on your industry as you say...


Where you tripped up and literally had me laugh out loud and when you assumed a, I quote "simple" solution for the crew. That along tells me you have no idea what you are talking about. You can comment, and provide opinions all you want. You likely would do very well with large chunks of the operation that directly impact on time performance. Customer service, baggage, ramp ... all things that have serious issues and impact departures. But, I am sorry. You do not see the entire picture....and quite frankly, I don't get to see the entire picture either, so don't feel bad.

Believe me. I don't drink KoolAid. Airlines in general are poorly managed and run. This is why their is a laundry list of airlines that have gone tits up. I fly the airlines for the schedule, not because I enjoy the airlines. There is a hell of a lot of aviation jobs out there that are more fun.


----------



## heyjude

SMK said:


> Though his medical license is not related to this incident, I have to wonder given his criminal history, why his license was reinstated, even for one day a week? Were his patients aware of all this?


Just as being jailed for a crime does not always result in a life sentence, physicians who are disciplined are not always stripped of their licences indefinitely. Dr. Dao's licence was suspended in 2005, twelve years ago. Every jurisdiction has medical remediation programs with supervisors who work with physicians who are disciplined until they meet certain conditions, at which time their licence to practice may be reinstated. Dr. Dao's licence was reinstated several years ago.


----------



## carverman

humble_pie said:


> imagine how fast nelley-the-troublemaker would get thrown off a plane during boarding
> 
> *too bad there's no pilot on cmf forum* each:
> 
> .





> If we only knew we could get millions of dollars for squealing like a little piggy on a plane we would have all done it-Humble could work the camera.


somebody asking for a pilot? I can fly a kite..should be good enough for this forum as captain.

Now for a slogan for CMF airline maybe?..."Fly the opinionated skies of CMF'?

CC: (Captain Carver) "Ok what has trouble maker Nelley done on this thread?
Nelly, you really have to behave yourself, otherwise we will rip yer a** off this virtual plane thread.

As captain, I will take whatever brutal force needed to kick all of yous off this hear plane.
There's a spare parachute somewheres....

and for yous ladies flying with us today..
1. No leggings..lululemon or otherwise..I don't want to see any exposure
2. No insulting the other "passengers"
3. No swearing
4. No jib-jabbering nonsense
5. No long posts (except mine of course)..if ya have something to say, ...say it in 25 words or less!
that is all...over and out. 
We will begin our departure now from the gate


----------



## SMK

heyjude said:


> Dr. Dao's licence was reinstated several years ago.


But to only one day a week? What does that say? As a patient, I wouldn't want a doctor with such restrictions on his medical license, and in place for several years already.


----------



## Just a Guy

AG, you misquoted me, I never said there was a simple solution for the crew. There are simple solutions that could have been implemented long before the passengers got on the plane so that the incident would never have happened in the first place. 

There was no simple solution for the crew because the issue grew into a major problem, through a series of compounding mistakes. By the time it got to them, they were screwed and left in a bad situation where company policy probably left them with a no-win situation.

Humble, as to your question about the rediculous examples, it comes from redicoulous statements like the pilot's word is law, no matter what. Both are to extreme to be correct.


----------



## wraphter

> Dr. Dao's licence was reinstated several years ago.


How many is "several"?

About 2.

http://people.com/human-interest/david-dao-united-airlines-flight/



> Dao was arrested in 2003 as part of an undercover operation. Two years later, Dao was convicted on six felony counts of obtaining drugs by fraud and deceit and in 2005, he was sentenced to five years probation. Dao was also convicted for writing prescriptions and checks to a male patient in exchange for sexual favors.
> 
> In February 2005, Dao surrendered his license to practice medicine in Kentucky.
> 
> n response, the state medical licensing board issued a suspension that was lifted in 2015. But the board has since placed severe restrictions on Dao’s ability to practice internal medicine, which will be lifted on Feb. 28, 2018, according to documents obtained by PEOPLE.
> 
> State records indicate the board believes Dao’s practices are outdated.
> 
> 
> Last year, the medical board imposed restrictions on his right to practice. He can only practice internal medicine in an outpatient facility one day a week.


An outstanding member of the medical profession!


----------



## sags

Rather than offer customers more money to entice them to give up their seat voluntarily, the end result of the fracas was.........

United airlines reputation suffered.

United airlines CEO reputation suffered.

Police reputation suffered and possible terminations.

Doctor involved reputation suffered.

Good job by everyone involved......not. No common sense exhibited by anyone.


----------



## humble_pie

Just a Guy said:


> Humble, as to your question about the rediculous examples, it comes from redicoulous statements like the pilot's word is law, no matter what.



it's not "rediculous." Spelling is "ridiculous."

here's what's ridiculous: folks who don't understand that a licensed pilot's word on a commercial aircraft carrying members of the public *is* law.

maybe to compare to the captain of a ship at sea, then you might get it? risks in the air or at sea are far greater than life on the ground, which is why a licensed captain with known ranked experience has to take charge.

blithering on about what-if-flight-captain-orders-stripping-naked-or-french-kissing is wildly irrelevant imho


.


----------



## heyjude

Everyone has a price that will incentivize them to give up their seat. United just didn't work hard enough to find it. 

United Airlines overbooking fiasco should never have happened
http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/11/opini...asco-simple-solution-opinion-moore/index.html


----------



## Ag Driver

Nelley said:


> If we only knew we could get millions of dollars for squealing like a little piggy on a plane we would have all done it-Humble could work the camera.


For some reason I feel like Nelley wouldn't get tossed. 

I feel like Nelley would check in and complain about his aisle seat, not get moved by the CSR due to weight and balance restrictions. He would be informed of the reason and it is for safety concerns. He would ***** and complain all the way to his seat. Once airborne he would say "this is bullshit" get up and move him self. A flight attendant would kindly inform him to return to seat. He says "screw you, that aisle seat is bullshit". The FA, being in customer service and a part of a team in charge of safe operation of the flight, smiles and says "Ok, Sir, I will check in with the Captain and see if we can accomodate your request".

The FA who is dealing with this typical nonsense flight after flight calls up and requests. The Captain, who doesn't give a **** where you sit so long as a dot falls inside a box on a chart, checks his weight and balance in an attempt to provide great customer service to this rude pax. Unfortunately, upon arrival due to fuel burns this seat change can not be accomodated. The Captain says "put him back in his seat, as he can not move due to safety reasons. This move puts us out of weight and balance." 

The FA, returns with a smile on her face and states "the Captain would like you to return to your seat for weight and balance reasons as this will put us in unsafe landing configuration if you remain in this seat."

Nelley exclaims "Quit being a *****! I'm not going anywhere!".

The FA returns to the Captain and informs him of the situation. 

The Captain makes a PA or confronts Nelley personaly and states "Sir, We have two options. You can either comply with the instructions or we can retrain you and return you to your seat, divert back to our departure, and have the authorities ready to greet you on the airplane. Would you prefer the hard way or the easy way?".

Nelley mumbles around cursing and swearing, giving rude hand gestures but ultimately is compliant and returns to his seat. 

He then gets a complimentary beer for his unrest, and, well, you know Nelley -- starts bitching and complaing that it's not cold enough. The FA with a smile returns to the galley and offers and ice cold beer. Of course​ this is not good enough.

At the end of the flight Nelley, though a pain in the *** and a rude customer...He got to the finish line. Why? Compliance. As Nelley alluded to very early on - do as your told and we will get you to the finish line. Might have been with a little less tact, but he's right.

Being rude is one thing. Being non compliant is another. Nelley would make it to the finish line. 

The fun story of Nelley continues with Part 2 how he treats our call centre like **** in order to get a refund and a credit. Stay tuned! 

Regards remove the PA and Captain getting up, as the FAs usually only have to inform the pax once or twice about repercussions .... And there you have it folks. A regular weekly occurence on an aircraft.


----------



## SMK

sags said:


> United airlines reputation suffered.
> 
> United airlines CEO reputation suffered.
> 
> Police reputation suffered and possible terminations.
> 
> Doctor involved reputation suffered.


As a professional, the doc's reputation was already low - as a passenger, he seems to have contributed to his own humiliation. There were 3 other passengers that were removed without incident.

In the end, only 1 of the 4 "sufferers" might end up being rewarded for bad behaviour.


----------



## peterk

Just a Guy said:


> Humble, as to your question about the rediculous examples, it comes from redicoulous statements like the pilot's word is law, no matter what. Both are to extreme to be correct.


Suggesting that a pilot's word is anything other than the voice of God might get you into hot water on this forum. :wink: But I concede I was probably wrong on the subject.

Obviously this story mainly gained traction because the man was purportedly a Doctor. The video evidence shows a shrieking man, some light man-handling, a fall, a dragging, and wailing women, which is all very dubious when trying to present the passengers as calm and reasonable, and the officers as overbearing. This story _needed_ that passenger to be a doctor, and all the assumptions of calm upper-class demeanor that come with it, for people to doubt the video and assume that things were taken out of context.

The only legitimate gripe against the action of any of the airline or security personnel I can see is why did they start boarding the plane if they hadn't worked out seat assignments? And if the seats were somehow double booked, why was the troubled doctor who was already seated asked to leave instead of the other person who was presumably standing or not even boarded yet?


----------



## sags

Whomever made the decisions on behalf of United that day, showed a complete lack of good judgement.

1) Offer $2000 cash to the first 4 people who give up their seats.

2) Call the flight crew scheduler and tell them to go over all future schedules and ensure it doesn't happen again.

Result.............4 happy customers, no bad press, build credibility with customers, straighten out the problem permanently.

But no.......can't have that. Gotta escalate the problem, call the police, and drag someone off the plane.


----------



## birdman

You know what they say about rules? Rules are "a guide for the wise and a bible for the foolish". Lots of foolish people involved in this. Empower your people to make decisions and hopefully they have the training, skills, and sense to make the right ones.


----------



## Just a Guy

Humble, the pilot may have great power, but he also has responsibility to use that power properly. 

He does not get to abuse that power. 

I'm sorry you seem to have missed the obvious interpretation of such statements. 

There is a big difference between a dangerous passenger and one who refuses to follow a ridiculous order which is covering up for a series of mistakes. 

If everything is fine, I'm sure no one will be fired, reassigned or reeducate about this incident. Policy and procedures won't be changed.

However, I'm more inclined to believe that that won't be the case and that this won't be found to be acceptable under federal law.


----------



## Nelley

carverman said:


> somebody asking for a pilot? I can fly a kite..should be good enough for this forum as captain.
> 
> Now for a slogan for CMF airline maybe?..."Fly the opinionated skies of CMF'?
> 
> CC: (Captain Carver) "Ok what has trouble maker Nelley done on this thread?
> Nelly, you really have to behave yourself, otherwise we will rip yer a** off this virtual plane thread.
> 
> As captain, I will take whatever brutal force needed to kick all of yous off this hear plane.
> There's a spare parachute somewheres....
> 
> and for yous ladies flying with us today..
> 1. No leggings..lululemon or otherwise..I don't want to see any exposure
> 2. No insulting the other "passengers"
> 3. No swearing
> 4. No jib-jabbering nonsense
> 5. No long posts (except mine of course)..if ya have something to say, ...say it in 25 words or less!
> that is all...over and out.
> We will begin our departure now from the gate


No need to supply a parachute-I could bring my own skydiving gear.


----------



## Ag Driver

Just a Guy said:


> Humble, the pilot may have great power, but he also has responsibility to use that power properly.
> 
> He does not get to abuse that power.
> 
> I'm sorry you seem to have missed the obvious interpretation of such statements.
> 
> There is a big difference between a dangerous passenger and one who refuses to follow a ridiculous order which is covering up for a series of mistakes.
> 
> If everything is fine, I'm sure no one will be fired, reassigned or reeducate about this incident. Policy and procedures won't be changed.
> 
> However, I'm more inclined to believe that that won't be the case and that this won't be found to be acceptable under federal law.


Like it or not, there was no abuse of power and the pilot followed Standard Operating Proceedures that are similar across the industry. Don't like it? Write your MP.

It appears you can't get past the fact that a person of non compliance is a potential safety hazard and due to risk mitigation studies and oh, I don't know....thousands dead and a few crashed planes and some toppled towers ...this is not approved to take airborne. How soon we forget.

"Sir, you can't have a box cutter on the plane, please check it in your luggage".

"No! I'm not posing a threat!"

"Ok. Fair enough, you as the customer are always right!"

....Later in the flight....

"Sir, stop with the hijack nonsense and put down the silly box cutter"

Think he's a compliant guy and will put it down? 

Unfortunately everyone can be a threat. If we knew who is and is not .. then there would be no such thing as underwear bombers and a couple towers would have never toppled. If you raise concerns and bite back - bye bye.


----------



## Nelley

Ag Driver said:


> For some reason I feel like Nelley wouldn't get tossed.
> 
> I feel like Nelley would check in and complain about his aisle seat, not get moved by the CSR due to weight and balance restrictions. He would be informed of the reason and it is for safety concerns. He would ***** and complain all the way to his seat. Once airborne he would say "this is bullshit" get up and move him self. A flight attendant would kindly inform him to return to seat. He says "screw you, that aisle seat is bullshit". The FA, being in customer service and a part of a team in charge of safe operation of the flight, smiles and says "Ok, Sir, I will check in with the Captain and see if we can accomodate your request".
> 
> The FA who is dealing with this typical nonsense flight after flight calls up and requests. The Captain, who doesn't give a **** where you sit so long as a dot falls inside a box on a chart, checks his weight and balance in an attempt to provide great customer service to this rude pax. Unfortunately, upon arrival due to fuel burns this seat change can not be accomodated. The Captain says "put him back in his seat, as he can not move due to safety reasons. This move puts us out of weight and balance."
> 
> The FA, returns with a smile on her face and states "the Captain would like you to return to your seat for weight and balance reasons as this will put us in unsafe landing configuration if you remain in this seat."
> 
> Nelley exclaims "Quit being a *****! I'm not going anywhere!".
> 
> The FA returns to the Captain and informs him of the situation.
> 
> The Captain makes a PA or confronts Nelley personaly and states "Sir, We have two options. You can either comply with the instructions or we can retrain you and return you to your seat, divert back to our departure, and have the authorities ready to greet you on the airplane. Would you prefer the hard way or the easy way?".
> 
> Nelley mumbles around cursing and swearing, giving rude hand gestures but ultimately is compliant and returns to his seat.
> 
> He then gets a complimentary beer for his unrest, and, well, you know Nelley -- starts bitching and complaing that it's not cold enough. The FA with a smile returns to the galley and offers and ice cold beer. Of course​ this is not good enough.
> 
> At the end of the flight Nelley, though a pain in the *** and a rude customer...He got to the finish line. Why? Compliance. As Nelley alluded to very early on - do as your told and we will get you to the finish line. Might have been with a little less tact, but he's right.
> 
> Being rude is one thing. Being non compliant is another. Nelley would make it to the finish line.
> 
> The fun story of Nelley continues with Part 2 how he treats our call centre like **** in order to get a refund and a credit. Stay tuned!
> 
> Regards remove the PA and Captain getting up, as the FAs usually only have to inform the pax once or twice about repercussions .... And there you have it folks. A regular weekly occurence on an aircraft.


What are you-Humble's little brother? Just lay off the Crown Royal when you are on the job and everything will be OK.


----------



## Ag Driver

Nelley said:


> What are you-Humble's little brother? Just lay off the Crown Royal when you are on the job and everything will be OK.


LOL. I have a sense of humour unlike others around here. The story was to drive a point home that though you lack tact....You are right!


----------



## Ag Driver

Here are similar views.

https://thepilotwifelife.wordpress....thoughts-from-a-pilot-wife-about-flight-3411/


----------



## Nelley

Ag Driver said:


> LOL. I have a sense of humour unlike others around here. The story was to drive a point home that though you lack tact....You are right!


My personal experience has been that the flight crew are really cordial-the problem is maybe 5% of the passengers are garbage-and they cause a lot of trouble.


----------



## Just a Guy

AG, must be tough to live in a world where you fear everyone all of the time. 

How many planes have flown for decades before such measures yet never crashed into buildings?

I've yet to hear of the toothpaste bombings, the nail clipper hijacking, the outside food airline crisis...but then again, it must be because of the ban. Those poor fools who risked life and limb before 911...

Maybe we should legislate a ban on passengers, that way they'd never be a threat in the air. 

I've said before, you can't legislate away stupidity.


----------



## humble_pie

Just a Guy said:


> Humble, the pilot may have great power, but he also has responsibility to use that power properly.
> 
> He does not get to abuse that power.
> 
> I'm sorry you seem to have missed the obvious interpretation of such statements.
> 
> There is a big difference between a dangerous passenger and one who refuses to follow a ridiculous order which is covering up for a series of mistakes.




please don't be sorry. I believe i've understood the pilot's mandate very well. I believe it is yourself who fails to understand. 

ag Driver explained it clearly in an early post. Commercial airline regulations permit force removal of a passenger who does not cooperatively surrender his seat during overbooking drills. Unpleasant but true.

next, US federal law permits force removal or force restraint of any passenger who fails to obey a flight captain's order. 

according to ag Driver, the mere mention of force removal or force restraint is enough to push non-compliant passengers back into line 99% of the time.

but with doctor dao, the mention that he must vacate or else he would be forced evidently triggered something else. A disturbed howling that was far outside the range of normal human behaviour. A brief but violent struggle, which the poor doctor naturally lost, as he should have known he would lose. No film has surfaced yet to show what really happened.

keep in mind that, very much alive in every pilot's consciousness these days, is the concern that a passenger may be carrying an undiscovered weapon or bomb, or will try to storm the cockpit, or smoke in the bathrooms, or behave in a myriad of other ways that could endanger the flight.

i for one am always happy to give up a portion of my civil liberty for a few hours when flying, in return for what i assume is the pilot's superior ability to get his aircraft safely from one airport to another.

.


----------



## Ag Driver

Just a Guy said:


> AG, must be tough to live in a world where you fear everyone all of the time.
> 
> How many planes have flown for decades before such measures yet never crashed into buildings?
> 
> I've yet to hear of the toothpaste bombings, the nail clipper hijacking, the outside food airline crisis...but then again, it must be because of the ban. Those poor fools who risked life and limb before 911...
> 
> Maybe we should legislate a ban on passengers, that way they'd never be a threat in the air.
> 
> I've said before, you can't legislate away stupidity.


Do I agree with all the rules? No
Do I have to abide by them? Yes
Do my nail clippers get taken away too? Yes
Is the crash axe behind my seat more dangerous? Yes
Do I think me intentionally crashing the plane is more dangerous then nail clippers? Yes

It only takes one person to ruin it all, Just A Guy. Write your MP and do something about it if you are so determined to argue current safety measures in place. Me? I don't care. I'll give up my right to nail clippers to take a seat on a Flight. Silly, but guess what? My compliance to the rules, which I may not like, got my to the finish line. Everyone has their price as so many keep spouting off.


----------



## Eclectic12

Just a Guy said:


> Well, I can see the airlines pushing for new legislation soon.
> 
> No more cell phones on airlines (I believe they are already *banning laptops and tablets*, so this won't be much of a stretch) ...


??? ... aren't you confusing the US gov't with airlines?

Up until March 20th, with the one exception of the Samsung Note 7 - the announcements have been expanding when cell phones can be used. Laptop use has been the same on the flights I have been on recently.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/03/20...ts-on-some-middle-eastern-flights-to-america/




Just a Guy said:


> ... I admit there is probably more to this story than we know.


A doctor who is restricted to one day a week of practice then decides on a standby ticket does seem odd.




Just a Guy said:


> ... Humble, as to your question about the rediculous examples, it comes from redicoulous statements like the pilot's word is law, no matter what. Both are to extreme to be correct.


I am wondering when the outrage etc. will start for Grey Hound buses as I have seen similar issues where the driver removed the passenger.


Cheers


----------



## Nelley

Eclectic12 said:


> ??? ... aren't you confusing the US gov't with airlines?
> 
> Up until March 20th, with the one exception of the Samsung Note 7 - the announcements have been expanding when cell phones can be used. Laptop use has been the same on the flights I have been on recently.
> http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/03/20...ts-on-some-middle-eastern-flights-to-america/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A doctor who is restricted to one day a week of practice then decides on a standby ticket does seem odd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am wondering when the outrage etc. will start for Grey Hound buses as I have seen similar issues where the driver removed the passenger.
> 
> 
> Cheers


You gotta reserve your outrage-speaking of Greyhound, the guy who chopped the kid's head off on the bus in Canada has gotten complete freedom-your government even gave him a new name so he could blend into your community easier. The kid's parents were quite upset obviously http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...s-passenger-sparks-criticism/article33992330/


----------



## kcowan

Ag Driver said:


> I fly the airlines for the schedule, not because I enjoy the airlines. There is a hell of a lot of aviation jobs out there that are more fun.


I have flown on airlines with pilots or their wives who are evading taxes by living in the Caribbean. Obviously it only works for ones who regularly fly there. But they also deadhead to get home.

I am not saying they are doing anything illegal but they are also not acting as upstanding citizens.


----------



## olivaw

frase said:


> You know what they say about rules? Rules are "a guide for the wise and a bible for the foolish". Lots of foolish people involved in this. Empower your people to make decisions and hopefully they have the training, skills, and sense to make the right ones.


+1

Dr. Dao's only mistake to legally buy an airline ticket and expect that the airline would deliver the promised service. He boarded the plane when directed. He sat in his assigned seat. When they told him to GTFO he said no. 

A United employee was trained, or chose to believe that a paying customer refusing to vacate his paid-for seat represented a safety violation so the police were called. 

The police decided that the paying customer should be removed with the use of physical force. They roughed up the passenger and dragged him down the aisle. 


I would say 60% of the fault lies with United. 39% lies with the police. 1% lies with the passenger for failing to realize that nowadays, when an airline employee or cop tells you to jump, you ask how high.


----------



## james4beach

You don't have to everything that a cop or air crew says -- they only have certain rights under the law. Police are not above the law either.

Following air crew instructions for a safety issue? Absolutely, you are required to do so.

But failing to follow a vague, unjustified instruction to vacate a seat because a computer said you are kicked off, where there is no safety issue? I'm not sure you are required, by law, to follow the air crew instruction.

For the same reason, a flight attendant cannot kick me off a plane if she tells me to recite a verse from the Bible and I refuse to do so. Or if she tells me to draw a realistic picture of a horse but I fail to do so. *They have limited, specifically defined powers*.


----------



## carverman

Nelley said:


> No need to supply a parachute-I could bring my own skydiving gear.


alrighty then....this is CMF "airlines" and you definitely need a parachute if you want to survive this "fight'

*CC:* This is your captan speaking...apparenty I have been informed by my flight crew that there is one unruly passenger in seat #5A that won't voluntarily give up his seat, being loud and disruptive to my crew.
Please comply as my instructiiions are the law on this ship...

*Passenger *Nelly* in seat #5A.*.issuing expletives..'hell no, I won't go" 
*CC:* ok, time to call in the "big guns" n ..airport security

*CC:* < over radio intercom to CMF passenger terminal>

hello security, ah..we have a problem! We have a passenger seated in #5A that is unco-operative and beligerent to my crew. We need your assistance to "gently" expel him from my plane. We are not paying any compensation..repeat..
we are not paying anybody compensation..if we had to pay our passengers compensation to give up their seats..why..we could even go bankrupt.

<3 burly airport security come board waving billy clubs with guns on their holsters>
*AS:* you there in seat #5A..why won't you follow the captains orders?
*Passenger in #5A*...Imma doctor and need to get home to see to my patients.
*Airport security*: you say you are are "Flying doctor'?
*Passenger in #5A*..yes and i know my rights as a paying passenger..so I'm not leaving!!

Altercation ensues with AS and passenger..he' injured in the process, bleeding from his face as he is dragged off unceremoniously off the plane
<Trail of his blood on the floor>

*CC*:as a courtesy to the rest of our paying passengers, my crew will distribute free refreshments once we are airborne.. Thank you for choosing CMF!

*CC:*<speaking to tower>...roger...over...can't start my engines..need a battery boost


----------



## kcowan

If you just have to get to your destination at a certain time, why don't they offer guaranteed routing on another airline to achieve that. There were numerous situations where I would have accepted that rather than hotel room, meals and a later flight on the same airline. I am travelling for a purpose. I have never accepted their offers.

This would achieve that purpose and be win-win for everyone. I think even the "good" doctor would have been OK with that.


----------



## Eclectic12

james4beach said:


> You don't have to everything that a cop or air crew says -- they only have certain rights under the law. Police are not above the law either ...
> But failing to follow a vague, unjustified instruction to vacate a seat because a computer said you are kicked off, where there is no safety issue? I'm not sure you are required, by law, to follow the air crew instruction ...


You mean like being asked to pull up baggy pants? Staring at a flight attendant?

I guess a lot more airlines are going to have law suit troubles. :wink:


Or perhaps you didn't read the "contract of carriage" that buying a ticket agrees to? 
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-disruptive-airline-passengers-20160420-story.html


Cheers


----------



## Beaver101

james4beach said:


> You don't have to everything that a cop or air crew says -- they only have certain rights under the law. Police are not above the law either. ...


 ... according to Ag Driver, the pilot is above the law over everybody on board.


----------



## Beaver101

Just a Guy said:


> AG, must be tough to live in a world where you fear everyone all of the time.
> 
> How many planes have flown for decades before such measures yet never crashed into buildings?
> 
> I've yet to hear of the toothpaste bombings, the nail clipper hijacking, the outside food airline crisis...but then again, it must be because of the ban. Those poor fools who risked life and limb before 911...
> 
> Maybe *we should legislate a ban on passengers, that way they'd never be a threat in the air.
> *
> I've said before, you can't legislate away stupidity.


 ... +100%


----------



## humble_pie

Nelley said:


> You gotta reserve your outrage-speaking of Greyhound, _*the guy who chopped the kid's head off on the bus in Canada has gotten complete freedom-your government even gave him a new name so he could blend into your community easier.*_ The kid's parents were quite upset obviously http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...s-passenger-sparks-criticism/article33992330/




knew it would happen sooner or later. Nelley broke down & showed that she's located outside canada.

she's somewhere over the rainbow, somewhere where *your government* - meaning the government of canada - is located *in canada.*

somewhere where criminals get to blend into *your* community, which is not nelley's community.

where are you, nelley? you have roots in this country, that's obvious. But you're being paid to shitpost on here from somewhere else.

wondering who is paying you. russia? a gang of web-based goons in albania? trump campaign?


.


----------



## olivaw

james4beach said:


> You don't have to everything that a cop or air crew says -- they only have certain rights under the law. Police are not above the law either..


Certainly not, but there is a power imbalance at the time of the encounter. Police and crew are given a great deal of latitude. The public are given almost none.

Unless there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary, the system will always declare that the person in authority is in the right.


----------



## olivaw

humble_pie said:


> knew it would happen sooner or later. Nelley broke down & showed that she's located outside canada.


Ahem, Nelley gave himself away some time ago. He posted links to you-tube content which was not available in Canada.


----------



## humble_pie

Beaver101 said:


> ... according to Ag Driver, the pilot is above the law over everybody on board.



he or she is within the law, but on board the aircraft the flight captain has more power than anyone else. Similar to a ship's captain.

nothing wrong with that. We need principled men & women with backbones to fly our aviation networks. You put a spineless salesman up in the air as pilot & planes will start falling out of the sky like dust particles. Worse. They will be dust particles.

.


----------



## humble_pie

olivaw said:


> Ahem, Nelley gave himself away some time ago. He posted links to you-tube content which was not available in Canada.



gros merci, j'ai pas vu ça

who's paying nelley, do you think. & why are they paying $$ for anyone to keep on shitposting to us hayseed cmf deplorables?

are nelley & bass the best that russia can do? this does not speak well for the kremlin.



speaking of the kremlin, i imagine media of all stripes will hammer the summit talks in moscow today but me i thought tillerson did magnificent. It's an incredibly hard field tillerson has to start tilling. Today with lavrov he roto-scraped the surface just beautiful.

stressed the little that is positive (they'll keep the military communication channels wide open.) Did not attack russia with as much as a comma or a hesitation in his voice.

sergei lavrov was noticeably grumpier but not beyond a normal range. Russia has asked The Hague to conduct an independent investigation into who has been dropping chlorine & sarin gas bombs on syrian civilians since 2013.

certainly not russia, said lavrov. Russia says it was the rebels, in spite of the fact that the gas attacks were aerial bombardments & the rebels don't have any planes. Just little green men flying around under their propeller beanie hats.

still russia is willing to ask the World Court for an opinion. Nobody used the "L" word. Nobody pounded shoes on tables. The style was the exact opposite of impulse-ridden, unhinged donald trump. The fact that they got through the agenda was an accomplishment.

oops sorry. This is supposed to be in the trump discussion thread. Hope captain Ag doesn't sic the cops on me.


[video]http://www.cbc.ca/player/play/2632102173/[/video]

.





.





.


----------



## olivaw

humble_pie said:


> are nelley & bass the best that russia can do? this does not speak well for the kremlin.


Perhaps Putin is having the same problem as Trump. Can't find qualified people willing to work for him. 



humble_pie said:


> oops sorry. This is supposed to be in the trump discussion thread. Hope captain Ag doesn't sic the cops on me.


It's Captain Carver. Ag is here in an advisory capacity to remind us that when CC gives an order we best hop-to-it. :angel:


----------



## humble_pie

james4beach said:


> But failing to follow a vague, unjustified instruction to vacate a seat because a computer said you are kicked off, where there is no safety issue? I'm not sure you are required, by law, to follow the air crew instruction ... They have limited, specifically defined powers



it was a 2-step procedure. Jas4 u are supposed to be good with detail so i'm not sure why we keep going over this.

apparently, US airline regulations permit bumping a passenger off a plane with force if necessary. 

doKtor dao was asked to leave. He was offered a standard exit package. He refused to leave. He was told to leave. He still refused to leave.

at that point - the point where he disobeyed the order to leave - the pilot decided that the doctor was a non-compliant personnage who could become a danger to the aircraft once airborne. That was the 2nd step. Police were called in.

it's true that the pilot probably could & should have gone one or 2 steps further in trying to persuade doKtor dao. But the pilot's action in moving on to the police intervention did not break the law.

it's my understanding that a pilot has the sole power to make such a decision, as to who might be a danger on a flight. Me i'd rather fly on a flight where things are organized in this quasi-military fashion. I'd never want to fly on a plane where serious issues are decided by open outcry from the passengers, the way they are in cmf forum.

.


----------



## heyjude

New video from the passenger one row behind, showing the discussion prior to the dragging off. No evidence of belligerence in this clip. Just calm refusal. 

See moment right before passenger was dragged
http://www.cnn.com/videos/cnnmoney/2017/04/12/united-airlines-passenger-new-angle-video.hln


----------



## heyjude

Nelley's posts are so tiresome! I do hate trolling. Nelley, I am putting you on my Ignore list. Congratulations on being the first poster to earn the distinction.


----------



## Nelley

heyjude said:


> Nelley's posts are so tiresome! I do hate trolling. Nelley, I am putting you on my Ignore list. Congratulations on being the first poster to earn the distinction.


Don't go away mad-just go away.


----------



## Eclectic12

humble_pie said:


> it was a 2-step procedure ...


Actually, reports are that there was an offer at the gate when United thought they needed only one passenger off.
Rounds two, three and four (last round is reported as $1K) were on the airplane, after an additional four seats were determined to be needed.

None of these rounds singled out Dr. Dao.




humble_pie said:


> ... it's true that the pilot probably could & should have gone one or 2 steps further in trying to persuade doKtor dao. But the pilot's action in moving on to the police intervention did not break the law.


Except that the reports are that a manager boarded to let people know that a random selection process would be used as there were no volunteers. The first two selected left while Dr. Dao objected when he and his wife were selected.

What the captain did or did not know or do is not clear as the manager is reported to have informed Dr. Dao that the police would be called. The first and second policemen are described as talking to him about it while third one is the aggressive/violent one.


Cheers


----------



## heyjude

Nelley said:


> Don't go away mad-just go away.


I have no intention of going away. I am a normal participant in Canada. Trolls are the people who should go away. I just wish this forum had better moderation.


----------



## Mukhang pera

Been watching this thread with some amusement. I have learned a few things along the way:

#1. If you don't like the way U.S. air carriers operate within U.S. borders and how they treat American passengers, write to your MP. Canadian MPs are almost as omnipotent as airline pilots. They can bring the U.S. lawmakers to heel.



Ag Driver said:


> Like it or not, there was no abuse of power and the pilot followed Standard Operating Proceedures that are similar across the industry. Don't like it? Write your MP.


#2. Behaving like an unruly jerk should pay off in the millions. An hour or so well spent by the good doctor. Retirement planning in a nutshell.



james4beach said:


> Yes, they physically assaulted him. I hope he sues them for millions -- plus, he's a doctor with a skilled trade to perform. The PR alone would be beautiful.


#3. Pay full fare and you can be a bit cheeky. 



humble_pie said:


> One would expect a physician with a call to be on duty the very next morning to purchase a regular ticket at regular price, which would have guaranteed him a seat on the flight.


It is perhaps the thrust of hp's comments about full fare that saved me from myself in my own indulgence in anarchical moment long ago.

It was around 1984. My wife and I were booked for a week of fishing at Langara Lodge in the Queen Charlotte islands (as they then were). We prepaid our trip, which included airfare from Vancouver to Prince Rupert and then by another carrier's amphibian to Langara Is. This was before fishing at Langara became as much of a wilderness fishing adventure as trolling in the swimming pool at the Granite Club.

So we get to YVR bright and early and meet the lodge rep. who calls out names of booked guests (I think there were 16 of us) and hands out air tickets. My wife and I are not called. The other 14 get their tickets. We mention that we are paid up and in good standing and the rep. offers to fix things up by forthwith buying tickets at the counter - I was beside him and he was quoted and paid full fare. The airline was, as I recall, called "Canadian" at the time. I think it might have been CP before that.

So, we get on the aircraft and take off. Turns out, there's a brief stop at Terrace, B.C. All pax (does that include the plural?) are told to stay aboard if going on to Rupert. But, within a few minutes, over the PA system, my wife and I are summoned forward. We dutifully respond, only to be told that there are no seats for us on the Terrace to Rupert leg, so kindly get off our airplane.

I respond, saying we would never have got on the damn plane if told we would not get to Rupert, which is what it said on our ticket. We had not planned a week's vacation in Terrace. We are reminded that this is air travel, the ancient doctrine of _tuffius tittius_ applies, and we should quit whining. We were not offered any recompense, just told they would try to get us to Rupert the next day. Presumably we would then be able to swim to the lodge, or just decide to forfeit the trip. Masset can be nice in early June. The airline made it plain that our missing our connection and the trip was none of its concern. 

At that point, the crew started with a laying on of hands to punt us down the mobile stairway. With all the bravado of one ignorant of the fact that the captain could at any moment exit the flight deck and dispatch us with his sidearm, I protest the fact that we have been subjected to a battery and a tortious assault and announce we are not leaving unless the RCMP is called and we'll take our chances with them. That resulted in a quick conference among crew and we were invited to re-take our seats.

I can only imagine how that same scenario would pay out today. Maybe we'd get millions! Or have to pay millions. Or be dead on the tarmac. Lots of possibilities.


----------



## sags

I would say the odds are highest you would be dead on the tarmac or severely beaten.

Yet another video out of a police officer pounding a guy for jaywalking, right in front of the police officer's video cam.

Not too bright...........but they don't seem to care, as long as they get their punches in.

Rule number one now............do what the cops say and complain or sue later.


----------



## bgc_fan

I find this story interesting, more on the fact that there seems to be a lot of details that differ.

From most stories I get the following timeline:
1. Everyone boarded the airplane.
2. UA realized they needed 4 spots to fly their employees.
3. They did the round of volunteers, and 2 people took them up on their offer for $800 credit with UA.
4. They used an algorithm to pick Dr. Dao.
5. He refused, and then was forced and dragged out.
6. Somehow he got back in and then was taken off again.
7. Now in the hospital recovering from head trauma.

The extra details that people seem to be saying (without any sort of source) are:
1. He was flying on standby.
2. The bidding went up to $1000, instead of $800 before UA went with the voluntold route.
3. He initially accepted the $800 credit and left, but then when told that there were no flights that day, he ran back and sat down.

If 3. was true, it makes things interesting, but I don't think I've seen anyone point to a source that corroborates this version of events.

For the record, here is United Airlines' Contract of Carriage. I would say that Rules 5 (Cancellation of Reservation), 21 (Refusal of Transport), and 25 (Denied Boarding Compensation) would be relevant; however, none of them actually make the case that UA was in the right to take him off the plane. I imagine the main sticking point would be the fact that he already did board the plane, following all the rules, and until they dragged him off, he was not presenting any sort of danger.

As for his past, the only thing of interest is that he was noted to have bad judgement and not think things through. So, yes, UA essentially picked the worst person to force off because of his personality. In other words, there was no way to change his mind. 

There are a variety of other routes UA could have taken, one would be to pick another passenger at random. I mean there has to be some flexibility in the process, because if you are picking someone truly at random, there is a chance than said person does have a good reason to not wait for another flight.


----------



## sags

The doctor will receive a sizable settlement from United and the police.

Many police boards don't publish the settlement numbers anymore because of fear of public backlash.

In Toronto it was in the millions annually. But what the heck..........it isn't their money.


----------



## Eder

He might face a character examination where he may have to explain he is a sexual predator and likes to play doctor with unsuspecting clients. He needs to be offed rather than rewarded.


----------



## humble_pie

Mukhang pera said:


> At that point, the crew started with a laying on of hands to punt us down the mobile stairway. With all the bravado of one ignorant of the fact that the captain could at any moment exit the flight deck and dispatch us with his sidearm, I protest the fact that we have been subjected to a battery and a tortious assault and announce we are not leaving unless the RCMP is called and we'll take our chances with them. That resulted in a quick conference among crew and we were invited to re-take our seats.



what a wonderful story. It does go to show, though, what an unfair handicap besets us ordinary mortals, when a silver-tongued loup de mer can argue an entire CP Air crew into submission with just one paragraph.

poor tongue-tied doKtor dao didn't stand a chance.

moral of the story in these increasingly rough & parlous times:

a) train to join the team with real power. Get a pilot's license. Failing that become a lawyer. Failing that get a sidearm. Worst case get a billy stick.

b) if you don't pass the entrance exams for the above, resign yourself to a pacific & non-combative lifestyle. Keep bees. Raise strawberries. Oysters. Gracefully accept that you will never be a hero. Above all, do not let bitter failure turn you into a drug pusher or a forum troll.

.


----------



## Eclectic12

bgc_fan said:


> I find this story interesting, more on the fact that there seems to be a lot of details that differ.


The differences are fascinating.



bgc_fan said:


> From most stories I get the following timeline:
> 1. Everyone boarded the airplane.


The early stories were quoting passengers without a lot of detail. More detailed ones later indicated that there was a fifth overbooked person who took the at the gate offer.



> On Sunday, Mr. Bridges said that when he arrived *at the gate* about 20 minutes before boarding, United had announced that the flight was overbooked; the airline was offering $400 vouchers to anyone who would give up their seat, Mr. Bridges said.


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/10/business/united-flight-passenger-dragged.html




bgc_fan said:


> 3. They did the round of volunteers, and 2 people took them up on their offer for $800 credit with UA.


Which article says that anyone on the plane took the volunteer offer?
All that I have seen so far say one at the gate accepted the offer, boarding took place so that everyone getting the higher $$ offers were seated on the plane. From that point on, no one took the offered voucher/hotel/next day flight.



> After they boarded the flight, Bridges said she and her fellow passengers were told that four people would be selected to leave *since no one volunteered.*


https://www.usatoday.com/story/trav...man-forcibly-removed-united-flight/100276054/

Once selected, two at least went and likely took the compensation. Some articles say three.




bgc_fan said:


> ... The extra details that people seem to be saying (without any sort of source) are:
> 1. He was flying on standby.


True ... though I saw references to the airline spokesman indicating price of seat was a factor in the selection process. I'll update with the link if/when I find it.




bgc_fan said:


> ... 2. The bidding went up to $1000, instead of $800 before UA went with the voluntold route.


There seem to be sources but mostly quotes from the airline so it may be CYA.
http://www.businessinsider.com/united-airlines-big-mistake-offering-cash-2017-4

Passengers directly quoted seem to know only about dollar amounts of $400 and $800.




bgc_fan said:


> ... 3. He initially accepted the $800 credit and left, but then when told that there were no flights that day, he ran back and sat down.
> If 3. was true, it makes things interesting, but I don't think I've seen anyone point to a source that corroborates this version of events ...


I'll have to check the thread as I don't recall this claim being made ... but I might have missed it.




bgc_fan said:


> ... There are a variety of other routes UA could have taken, one would be to pick another passenger at random. I mean there has to be some flexibility in the process, because if you are picking someone truly at random, there is a chance than said person does have a good reason to not wait for another flight.


 ... and I've had people tell me "don't like jury duty? just say that everyone charged is guilty".

Then too, without more time checking than the flight window likely allowed - what's the reaction going to be for the people who were selected but left quietly?


Cheers


----------



## heyjude

Eder said:


> He might face a character examination where he may have to explain he is a sexual predator and likes to play doctor with unsuspecting clients. He needs to be offed rather than rewarded.


That is a matter for the medical licensing body to address, which they already have done. It is not relevant to the situation on the plane.


----------



## Eder

We are entitled our our own opinions...I will respect yours of course.


----------



## wraphter

heyjude said:


> That is a matter for the medical licensing body to address, which they already have done. It is not relevant to the situation on the plane.


His past criminal behaviour shows his attitude towards authority: he doesn't like it. 

I don't think this episode will help him get his license back which was scheduled for 2018 iirc.

I don't know if the prosecution could bring his past medical malpractice in to a civil case.

He doesn't deserve any money.

Look at the damage he has done to the reputation of the medical profession.

he has lost his anonymity .

I imagine he is getting offers from scandal mags to tell his story.

He behaved atrociously.


----------



## heyjude

Comments in blue:



wraphter said:


> His past criminal behaviour shows his attitude towards authority: he doesn't like it. True.
> 
> I don't think this episode will help him get his license back which was scheduled for 2018 iirc. No, but if anything it will simply confirm that he has a combative personality, which I think the licensing body was probably well aware of.
> 
> I don't know if the prosecution could bring his past medical malpractice in to a civil case. IANAL but I don't see the relevance to be honest. It would be analogous to presenting evidence about the past sexual history of a rape victim in the trial of the rapist.
> 
> He doesn't deserve any money. Opinions differ on this question. If, as seems likely, he suffered a head injury, a judge may well award him a substantial sum of money at trial, if it comes to that.
> 
> Look at the damage he has done to the reputation of the medical profession. I don't understand why you feel this damages the reputation of the entire medical profession. First of all, the information about his past professional troubles was publicly available. Secondly, there have always been a small minority of doctors who behaved badly, and there are many stories out there.
> 
> he has lost his anonymity . Yes, he is famous now, but the fact is that anyone could have Googled his name and found out a lot about his past before this incident. When I meet a new physician or other health professional, I always do that. One time I found out that a physician I had to work with had a history of sexual impropriety. This information was readily accessible online.
> 
> I imagine he is getting offers from scandal mags to tell his story. I imagine he will be speaking with his lawyers first, as soon as he has recovered.
> 
> He behaved atrociously. He certainly made a bad decision.


----------



## bgc_fan

Eclectic12 said:


> Which article says that anyone on the plane took the volunteer offer?
> All that I have seen so far say one at the gate accepted the offer, boarding took place so that everyone getting the higher $$ offers were seated on the plane. From that point on, no one took the offered voucher/hotel/next day flight.
> 
> Once selected, two at least went and likely took the compensation. Some articles say three.


My bad, the way that I had read some of the stories implied that Dr. Dao was the first one chosen as a random pick. The NY Times article you posted indicates that 3 complied.



Eclectic12 said:


> True ... though I saw references to the airline spokesman indicating price of seat was a factor in the selection process. I'll update with the link if/when I find it.


Here's a link discussing what factors are included: https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech...ally-blame-uniteds-removal-debacle/100351720/

One of the factors is how much a frequent flyer you are. Assuming that his name was the 4th in the order, being the 4th to be approached, it would seem that he wasn't quite at the lowest of the pecking order.



Eclectic12 said:


> There seem to be sources but mostly quotes from the airline so it may be CYA.
> http://www.businessinsider.com/united-airlines-big-mistake-offering-cash-2017-4
> 
> Passengers directly quoted seem to know only about dollar amounts of $400 and $800.


Given that the amount given to the voluntold people seems to be reported at $800, it could be either someone rounding up, or UA trying to look better.



Eclectic12 said:


> I'll have to check the thread as I don't recall this claim being made ... but I might have missed it.


I didn't mean just this thread, I was looking at different articles and comments, but this claim was made by some in the comments section. I don't know if it was the same person commenting, or just a bunch of people running with this thought.



Eclectic12 said:


> Then too, without more time checking than the flight window likely allowed - what's the reaction going to be for the people who were selected but left quietly?


No different than accepting the fact that sometimes being an uncooperative person can work in your favour. It happens all the time.


----------



## Just a Guy

Whenever I hear about people who don't like the rules, but follow them blindly, I always think of this...

Niemöller is perhaps best remembered for the quotation:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— 
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— 
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.


----------



## olivaw

Dr. Dau won't need to put in his one day per week on the job any more. If he plays it right, he'll be set for life with the settlement. 

United's CEO is on an apology tour. He has announced that United will no longer have paying passengers dragged from flights. It will also refund the fare for all passengers on that flight.

The three officers are on administrative leave.

Politicians are all over this. Congress is considering a hearing. Chris Christy says he'll try to get President Trump involved


----------



## james4beach

Beaver101 said:


> ... according to Ag Driver, the pilot is above the law over everybody on board.


That's because he thinks like a cop (I wear a uniform and you do what I say).


----------



## james4beach

humble_pie said:


> it was a 2-step procedure. Jas4 u are supposed to be good with detail so i'm not sure why we keep going over this.
> 
> apparently, US airline regulations permit bumping a passenger off a plane with force if necessary.
> 
> doKtor dao was asked to leave. He was offered a standard exit package. He refused to leave. He was told to leave. He still refused to leave.


You've got a point here, it was a 2 step procedure and the conflict emerged on step two.


----------



## james4beach

And now ... *SCORPIONS*! On a United flight, a scorpion fell on a Calgary man's head and stung him

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...rlines-calgary-houston-richard-bell-1.4067154

Scorpion!!


----------



## new dog

I over heard today from a Beijing Capital crew talking about the United Airline incident.


----------



## heyjude

My friends in Europe and Australia have been posting about it. They are #notimpressed.


----------



## Daniel A.

I actually appreciate AG Driver's take on the issue.


----------



## kcowan

humble_pie said:


> it was a 2-step procedure. Jas4 u are supposed to be good with detail so i'm not sure why we keep going over this.
> 
> apparently, US airline regulations permit bumping a passenger off a plane with force if necessary.
> 
> doKtor dao was asked to leave. He was offered a standard exit package. He refused to leave. He was told to leave. He still refused to leave.
> 
> at that point - the point where he disobeyed the order to leave - the pilot decided that the doctor was a non-compliant personnage who could become a danger to the aircraft once airborne. That was the 2nd step. Police were called in.
> 
> it's true that the pilot probably could & should have gone one or 2 steps further in trying to persuade doKtor dao. But the pilot's action in moving on to the police intervention did not break the law.
> 
> it's my understanding that a pilot has the sole power to make such a decision, as to who might be a danger on a flight. Me i'd rather fly on a flight where things are organized in this quasi-military fashion. I'd never want to fly on a plane where serious issues are decided by open outcry from the passengers, the way they are in cmf forum.


Normal overbooking process is dealt with in the waiting room. The offers are made and eventually enough passengers come up to the boarding desk to solve the problem. Been there many times. 

The only time that onboard passengers are made offers is when extra crew show up late after boarding. This whole process was a sign of how out-of-control this crap airline is. "You have been selected to leave!" Such BS!


----------



## humble_pie

kcowan said:


> Normal overbooking process is dealt with in the waiting room. The offers are made and eventually enough passengers come up to the boarding desk to solve the problem. Been there many times.
> 
> The only time that onboard passengers are made offers is when extra crew show up late after boarding. This whole process was a sign of how out-of-control this crap airline is. "You have been selected to leave!" Such BS!



apart from the police violence at the end, how was the procedure in chicago different from the above, though


.


----------



## humble_pie

james4beach said:


> That's because he thinks like a cop (I wear a uniform and you do what I say).




jas4 interestingly enough you are the very person who modelled the right way to behave when dealing with uniforms who can sometimes be thugs under the cloth.

here, perhaps i could remind you. You had described some dramatic incidents driving in your west coast city late at night. Suddenly police would pull you over for no reason. Only that you're a young male, alone at night, perhaps dark hair, you fit the profile.

as we all know, US cops are trigger happy right now, shooting citizens for no reason except the citizen makes a sudden move. So in these pullover incidents, you'd place your hands quietly on the wheel, in full view, & wait for the police to approach.

you were writing how - very slowly - you'd reach for the glove compartment to pull out your drivers' license.

at that point mrs partridge posted to say Never Reach for Anything. Just sit there motionless, with hands in full view on the wheel, until the cop gets to the car window. Then ask for his permission to open the glove compartment, mrs partridge said. Even then, move slowly, she said.

i could see immediately that mrs partridge was right. Never in my life have i ever had a police incident, but the world is far more wired & dangerous now than it was even 10 years ago. All uniforms are jumpy & one can understand why. If a uniform approaches, freeze. Comply. Don't act up. Minimalize oneself.

jas4 flying time from chicago to louisville is just over an hour. From your west coast location to most north american cities is maybe 5, 6, 7 hours of flight. That's an extremely short period of time to accept that someone else - the pilot - is in charge. It's doable, no?


.


----------



## Beaver101

james4beach said:


> That's because he thinks like a cop (I wear a uniform and you do what I say).


 ... no doubt, the almighty power to be kow-towed. Anyhow, plenty of revelations on this thread, public behaviours and airline policies. 

Next time before I board a flight (and it won't be United - never flew with them and never will), I'm going to check with the airline as to whether the flight is overbooked or not - as I know beforehand that I won't be volunteering my seat for a windfall $300/400+ only to lose a pre-scheduled business deal worth thousands of dollars since I don't want to be dragged and pummelled out of my seat!


----------



## jargey3000

Maybe this has already been raised on the thread ...I haven't read all 23 pages ...
hmmmmm....maybe I'll start a NEW thread ...YEs. That's waht I'll do!


----------



## Beaver101

jargey3000 said:


> Maybe this has already been raised on the thread ...I haven't read all 23 pages ...
> hmmmmm....maybe I'll start a NEW thread ...YEs. That's waht I'll do!


 ... so? we have multiple threads on same topic/issue so go head and open up your own thread.


----------



## Eclectic12

kcowan said:


> Normal overbooking process is dealt with in the waiting room. The offers are made and eventually enough passengers come up to the boarding desk to solve the problem. Been there many times.
> 
> The *only time that onboard passengers are made offers* is when extra crew show up late after boarding ...


The passengers quoted disagree with you as they say round one of the offers was made at the gate, before boarding.




kcowan said:


> ... This whole process was a sign of how out-of-control this crap airline is.


Maybe ... a lot depends IMO on details that have yet to surface and may only be available through the future lawsuit.

It may well be that there was one seat overbooked that was dealt with at the gate, like you have experienced. The key is when the aircrew was known to be needed to be on the flight as well as whether there was enough time to get that info to the gate officials before boarding.

Otherwise, one has to assume the gate agents thought seating the plane then finishing to deal with the over booking was a "good idea". :rolleyes2:




kcowan said:


> ... "You have been selected to leave!" Such BS!


As I say, after three weather delays plus being loaded, it was four have to get off or the flight can't leave for a Canadian airline I was flying on. Two went quickly and finally another two went for the flight to leave.

Granted, there was no air crew being substituted plus all the needed volunteers were eventually found so it's not 100% the same as there was no police involved.


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12

Beaver101 said:


> james4beach said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's because he thinks like a cop (I wear a uniform and you do what I say).
> 
> 
> 
> ... no doubt, the almighty power to be kow-towed ... Next time before I board a flight (and it won't be United - never flew with them and never will), I'm going to check with the airline as to whether the flight is overbooked or not - as I know beforehand that I won't be volunteering my seat for a windfall $300/400+ only to lose a pre-scheduled business deal worth thousands of dollars since I don't want to be dragged and pummelled out of my seat!
Click to expand...

Interested to know the backup plan when there's no air crew getting on and four have to get off for the flight to leave due to weather at the destination?

If there aren't volunteers ... what then?


Cheers


----------



## Parkuser

What I would like to know is how the other airlines solve this problem? It must have occurred before? Pulling somebody by force among freaking out and recording passengers should be so low on the list that practically unreachable. How about deplaning the plane and restarting the boarding process? This time without the unlucky “volunteers?” How about turning other passengers against the non-volunteering “volunteer?” We are not moving before he leaves the plane. There are probably other tricks of trade. What do the other airlines do? They certainly do not beat passengers up.


----------



## Beaver101

Eclectic12 said:


> Interested to know the backup plan when *there's no air crew getting on and four have to get off for the flight to leave due to weather at the destination?
> 
> *If there aren't volunteers ... what then?
> 
> 
> Cheers


 ... huh on your 1st question. No volunteers - no problem, just ride the CEO's private jet or limo since he care SO MUCH for his employees. No personal jet, no limo? No problem .. how about Uber - should be cheap enough.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

Humble, my interpretation of James' and JaG's comments is that they had similar intent to mine - i.e nobody was questioning the need to obey flight crew on an aircraft, including the plane driver (normally on issues of behaviour and/or safety). 
This whole sorry incident was not about that - it was about abysmal decisions by United staff down the line that led to this incident. 

Even if it was a case of crew arriving late to hop a ride on the already loaded full plane - choosing 4 passengers already sitting onboard and telling them they need to disembark and wait for a later flight, low-balling a compensation offer, sending cops in - all say a lot about United's company culture, priorities and attitude toward their customers.

Ag came on the thread swinging a "I'm the boss, our word is law" stick and completely missing the point being made above. Their rambling, somewhat discoherent posts actually left me more concerned about flying.


----------



## Eclectic12

Beaver101 said:


> ... huh on your 1st question. No volunteers - no problem, just ride the CEO's private jet or limo since he care SO MUCH for his employees. No personal jet, no limo? No problem .. how about Uber - should be cheap enough.


Wow ... you must be a great sales person be able able to talk your way onto the CEO's private plane when you flight is cancelled. :biggrin:

Or is move number one to somehow be hired by the airline as soon as your flight was cancelled?


Cheers


----------



## wraphter

I have a lot of trouble with Rogers customer service. A woman there actually gave me false information. I got very upset and yelled at her. I have a bad temper.
I do not receive good treatment from the Ontario health care system. Waiting in the gate to board you are treated by airlines like cattle. They start calling out zones for boarding but soon it is mayhem. You can'r hear the number they are calling. Passengers waiting and milling around not knowing what the boarding staff is saying.
It's not just United Airlines.

Go ahead you hotheads on this thread create a big ruckus ,mouth off to the airlines crew. Don't put away your headphones. Don't put on your seatbelt. 
Get abusive. See what happens.

Maybe you can get on television like Dr. Dao. He deserves what he got.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

wraphter said:


> I have a lot of trouble with Rogers customer service. A woman there actually gave me false information. I got very upset and yelled at her. I have a bad temper.
> I do not receive good treatment from the Ontario health care system.
> Waiting in the gate to board you are treated by airlines like cattle.
> ... He deserves what he got.


It sounds like you do too


----------



## Beaver101

Eclectic12 said:


> Wow ... you must be a great sales person be able able to talk your way onto the CEO's private plane when you flight is cancelled. :biggrin:
> 
> Or is move number one to somehow be hired by the airline as soon as your flight was cancelled?
> 
> 
> Cheers


 ... if the flight is cancelled, then no passenger goes on and off, right? or is it the case, you get to go on and I get off? As for the pilot and crews, the airline management can figure that out - or is it that they are paid too much to come up with a reasonable plan?


----------



## Beaver101

wraphter said:


> I have a lot of trouble with Rogers customer service. A woman there actually gave me false information. I got very upset and yelled at her. I have a bad temper.
> I do not receive good treatment from the Ontario health care system. Waiting in the gate to board you are treated by airlines like cattle. They start calling out zones for boarding but soon it is mayhem. You can'r hear the number they are calling. Passengers waiting and milling around not knowing what the boarding staff is saying.
> It's not just United Airlines.
> 
> Go ahead you hotheads on this thread create a big ruckus ,mouth off to the airlines crew. Don't put away your headphones. Don't put on your seatbelt.
> Get abusive. See what happens.
> 
> Maybe you can get on television like Dr. Dao. *He deserves what he got*.


 ... yes he did and he's going to deserve more out of UAssline's bottomline. Btw, when did Dr. Dao got abusive? And when did you see a passenger getting pummelled for not putting their seatbelt on or turning off their phone or being ruly to the flight attendant when she's giving safety instructions? Or was it that you experienced it firsthand with your bad temper and irritation with the line ups at flight boarding or whatelse and even the sight of other passengers milling about?


----------



## wraphter

omo said:


> discoherent


Hey dude, it ain't a word. 

incoherent (like you) is what you want.


Spelling isn't your strong suite ,right?

Was it embarrassing in high school omo, when the marks came back?


----------



## wraphter

Beaver101 said:


> ... yes he did and he's going to deserve more out of UAssline's bottomline. Btw, when did Dr. Dao got abusive? And when did you see a passenger getting pummelled for not putting their seatbelt on or turning off their phone or being ruly to the flight attendant when she's giving safety instructions? Or was it that you experienced it firsthand with your bad temper and irritation with the line ups at flight boarding or whatelse and even the sight of other passengers milling about?


He said that he wasn't going to move on the phone. That goes to his state of mind. He planned the fight.That is confrontational and hostile. He resisted physically by holding on to the seat. He screamed loudly. He was entirely disruptive . He inflicted emotional distress upon the other passengers who had to watch him being dragged out. He thinks rules don't apply to him(like you).
He thinks he is above the law, a superior being. He traded drugs for sex in his medical practice . 

His wife ,who is also a doctor must be very proud of him. His children too.


----------



## SMK

wraphter said:


> His wife ,who is also a doctor must be very proud of him. *His children too.*


Apparently 4 of his 5 children are doctors, so I doubt they'll welcome their fathers' sudden fame.


----------



## Eclectic12

Beaver101 said:


> ... if the flight is cancelled, then no passenger goes on and off, right? or is it the case, you get to go on and I get off?


Not sure why you are adding extra factors ... as outlined, four passengers get off or the flight is cancelled where everyone gets off with other arrangements needing to be made by everyone.




Beaver101 said:


> ... As for the pilot and crews, the airline management can figure that out - or is it that they are paid too much to come up with a reasonable plan?


Reports that an offer was made at the gate suggests that the air crew was some sort of last minute deal or communication gap. 

For whatever reason, outrage seems to be blotting out what information there is.


Cheers


----------



## mrPPincer

wraphter said:


> Hey dude, it ain't a word.
> 
> incoherent (like you) is what you want.
> 
> 
> Spelling isn't your strong suite ,right?
> 
> Was it embarrassing in high school omo, when the marks came back?


LOL wraphter you might want to roll back the sarcasm a tad 

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/discoherent


> discoherent
> adjective
> rare
> 
> Lacking coherence, disjointed; incongruous.
> 
> Origin
> 
> Late 17th century; earliest use found in John Smith. From dis- + coherent.
> Pronunciation
> discoherent/ˌdɪskə(ʊ)ˈhɪərənt//ˌdɪskə(ʊ)ˈhɪər(ə)nt/


----------



## wraphter

mrPPincer said:


> LOL wraphter you might want to roll back the sarcasm a tad
> 
> https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/discoherent


I was wrong. Thank you mrPPincer.


----------



## Beaver101

wraphter said:


> He said that he wasn't going to move on the phone. That goes to his state of mind.That is confrontational and hostile. He resisted physically by holding on to the seat. He screamed loudly. He was entirely disruptive .


 ... how is not moving from a seat being confrontational and hostile? Or is that your trying to warp and justify dragging him out of the seat? And that it is against that law to defend yourself when you're being physically handled? Or rather in your case, who can't even stand the sight of fellow passengers and admits to yelling at customer service reps., you would sit there like a quiet little mouse. Or in racist Nelley's terms, as a braindead sheep.


[/QUOTE] His wife ,who is also a doctor must be very proud of him. His children too.[/QUOTE] ... whether they're proud of him is none of your concern. The fact is he is going to be rich and his next generation to be taken care of. Btw, his kids are doctors too.


----------



## Beaver101

SMK said:


> Apparently 4 of his 5 children are doctors, so I doubt they'll welcome their fathers' sudden fame.


 ... so what? Kids of JT and DT are proud of their leader dad.


----------



## Beaver101

^ I might add kids would be the proudest of how well their dad CEO Oscar Munoz run UAssline.


----------



## ian

It will all be forgotten in a month. The stock will move back up to mirror the business and the industry fundamentals.

Even sooner if United decides to run a seat sale in order to counter the bad PR. Time and again one thing has proved consistently true.....air travellers are much loyal to the lowest price fare than any other factor.


----------



## new dog

I have heard too many bad stories about United to take that plane at any price. My daughter was screwed up by them a year ago and it cost her a lot of money and headache.


----------



## humble_pie

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> Humble, my interpretation of James' and JaG's comments is that they had similar intent to mine - i.e nobody was questioning the need to obey flight crew on an aircraft, including the plane driver (normally on issues of behaviour and/or safety).
> This whole sorry incident was not about that - it was about abysmal decisions by United staff down the line that led to this incident.
> 
> Even if it was a case of crew arriving late to hop a ride on the already loaded full plane - choosing 4 passengers already sitting onboard and telling them they need to disembark and wait for a later flight, low-balling a compensation offer, sending cops in - all say a lot about United's company culture, priorities and attitude toward their customers.
> 
> Ag came on the thread swinging a "I'm the boss, our word is law" stick and completely missing the point being made above. Their rambling, somewhat discoherent posts actually left me more concerned about flying.




onlyMO you have an excellent point but it seems to me that there are a whole lot of sub-topics loosely bundled up in this incendiary thread.

me i was only looking at the ultimate authority, the pilot. I agree that the company behaved shockingly. I agree that airlines should develop formal rules & make these known publicly in a crystal clear manner, so that all parties on standby understand that they can be thrown off a plane even after they have been seated. Airlines need to make clear to standby passengers in advance, the circumstances under which they can be required to deplane.

as for the cops & the physical force at the end of this ugly episode, who knows what happened. There is conflicting information, so i certainly could be wrong, but evidently doKtor was seated one over from the aisle? the police had to reach over another passenger to pull him up & out?

then we heard doKtor's bloodcurdling howl. Did doKtor, as the policeman reached for him, lunge at the cop? did the cop fear doKtor had a weapon? did the cop then apply more force than was really necessary?

or did the cop go ahead without any provocation whatsoever & smash doKtor's eyeglasses onto his face, then punch doKtor hard enough in the nose or jaw or both to make the poor man bleed through his mouth? is that what made doKtor howl in pain?

we won't know until the trials. We certainly don't know any of these details now.


turning now to ag Driver, he is an excellent member of the forum. Like most of the young people on here, Ag is spunky. That's the way we hope they will be, isn't it? after all, the young are the ones who will be running the world when we're gone, so i for one am very happy to see spunk, take-charge, strong sense of responsibility, willingness to work with challenges.

probably not very many folks on here had ever thought about how a commercial flight looks from the flight deck. I thought it was a real service for ag Driver to explain to us some of the complexities he has to work with during loading & during flight.


.


----------



## Beaver101

Nelley said:


> Munoz has more money than this garbage quack you are in love with-seems to be the only criteria you notice.


 ... he's a quack, a garbage, a squealing pig, an ASIAN junkie doctor ... what else? Racist, and why are you spewing hate 24/7 on a Canadian financial forum anyways?


----------



## heyjude

OK. It has now been revealed that Dr. Dao had a concussion, a broken nose, and lost two front teeth. The facial injuries explain the blood, and the concussion explains his behaviour after the assault. And yes, this certainly was an assault. IMHO the force used was out of proportion to the need to get him off the plane. Successful conflict resolution this was not.


----------



## humble_pie

wraphter said:


> Hey dude, it ain't a word.
> 
> incoherent (like you) is what you want.
> 
> Spelling isn't your strong suite ,right?
> 
> Was it embarrassing in high school omo, when the marks came back?



it's "strong suit" without an "e"

refers to a suit of cards

i'm guessing here but may come from the french verb "suivre"

.


----------



## wraphter

humble_pie said:


> it's "strong suit" without an "e"
> 
> refers to a suit of cards
> 
> i'm guessing here but may come from the french verb "suivre"
> 
> .


Thank you hp ,it was a senior moment.


----------



## m3s

Does this forum even have an active mod anymore?



cainvest said:


> Time is a little limited for me right now but I try to drop in to read/moderate when I can.


Last post from cainvest was 2016-08-04 about nominating a mod


----------



## Eclectic12

humble_pie said:


> ... I agree that airlines should develop formal rules & make these known publicly in a crystal clear manner, so that *all parties on standby* understand that they can be thrown off a plane even after they have been seated ...


Do you have any sources for the "standby" bit?

The references I have found so far that give any idea for the fare are general bits by the airline about how cheaper seats where one is not a loyalty customer are likely be selected for involuntary removal. Cheaper than full fare seems all that can be reasonably assumed at this point, IMO.


As for developing formal rules - the couple of rounds of offers suggests to me there is a procedure that was followed. The question IMO is what changes United can make as according to this article, last year Delta had twice as many passengers accept the vouchers offered to induce them to give up their seat (130K versus United's 60K0.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/united-airlines-flight-overbooked-1.4063632


Cheers


----------



## Beaver101

Nelley said:


> Go get your ******* Hat little punk.


 ... really? So "Nelley" isn't a ***** fake but a real Racist names-calling troll


----------



## Beaver101

Are is it you the useless Racist slug that loves to spew hatre on a Canadian financial forum from some mommy's basement?


----------



## carverman

Jeez..I leave you experts for a while and look at the insults being traded...I can't believe CMF has degraded to this level!

Anyway, the "good doctor" Dao is milking the unfortunate seat ejection incident with United for all it's worth.
He's hired two sets of lawyers to pursue his case in court.


> He is a 69-year-old man," Demetrio said. "Is that really how we want to treat the aged?


"

So far his injuries are:
Concussion
Two broken teeth 
Split lip
Possible back injury (damaged discs) 
Damaged pride


i think that his injuries are worth at least $100K. We will see what the airline says if they don't settle first and it goes to a jury.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...-david-dao-family-press-conference/100409492/


----------



## Spudd

Interesting article here:
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2017/04/united-passenger-removal-reporting-management-fail.html


----------



## carverman

Spudd said:


> Interesting article here:
> http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2017/04/united-passenger-removal-reporting-management-fail.html





> However, an expert I know who is working with sports teams to try to reduce the risk of injury says there is increasing concern that as *few as three concussions can produce cognitive impairment 10 to 20 years later*. Those findings are based on trauma to young athletes like football players and boxers. T*he damage might show up sooner in an older victim*. Admittedly, we have no idea if Dr. Dao has ever suffered a previous head injury, but the point is a concussion is far more serious than most people probably realize.


So, it appears that the doctor's "hidden injuries" from his brain concussion, (after all he was unconcious when they dragged him down the isle,) is good for a personal injury award of (possibly) 1 million or even more. 

Even though he may be 69 years old, there is no retirement age for doctors, so he could conceivably work for another 10 or even up to 20 years...or live off his "windfall".

if the alleged concussion causes loss of memory or cognitive abilities, then his earning potential could be affected.
More than likely it will cost United tons of money if it goes to court.


----------



## Beaver101

carverman said:


> Jeez..I leave you experts for a while and look at the insults being traded...I can't believe CMF has degraded to this level!
> 
> Anyway, the "good doctor" Dao is milking the unfortunate seat ejection incident with United for all it's worth.
> He's hired two sets of lawyers to pursue his case in court.
> "


 ... well, you didn't want to volunteer as moderator and that's what you get, unwelcomed alien degenerates. Besides the racist Nelley troll needs a good ***-kicking right out of our forum unless you welcome that kind of continued degradation. 

Yep, Dr. Dao is gonna get rich ... courtesy of UAssline. Hmmm... let's see which side of its CEO will do the talking now.


----------



## Beaver101

carverman said:


> So, it appears that the doctor's "hidden injuries" from his brain concussion, (after all he was unconcious when they dragged him down the isle,) is good for a personal injury award of (possibly) 1 million or even more.
> 
> Even though he may be 69 years old, there is no retirement age for doctors, so he could conceivably work for another 10 or even up to 20 years...or live off his "windfall".
> 
> if the alleged concussion causes loss of memory or cognitive abilities, then his earning potential could be affected.
> More than likely it will cost United tons of money if it goes to court.


 ... hey, don't forget about the other passengers who were traumatized by this whole "UAssline is ALWAYS RIGHT" policy.


----------



## carverman

Beaver101 said:


> ... well, you didn't want to volunteer as moderator and that's what you get, unwelcomed alien degenerates. Besides the racist Nelley troll needs a good ***-kicking right out of our forum unless you welcome that kind of continued degradation.


As captain of the good ship CMF, I am taking the liberty to kick off all alien degenerates. Uncivilized behaviour will not be tolerated
on this forum.


----------



## Eder

I don't think United did anything wrong to be successfully sued...the cops perhaps.


----------



## Daniel A.

Eder said:


> I don't think United did anything wrong to be successfully sued...the cops perhaps.


Your kidding right.


----------



## Daniel A.

In addition to the RED EYE SPECIAL UNITED WILL NOW OFFER THE BLACK EYE SPECIAL.


----------



## Beaver101

^ I'm my own boss and it's about time you clean your dump out from mommy's basement.


----------



## sags

I knew a lawyer who was slightly intoxicated at an Ontario casino.

He was told to leave but resisted, so they dragged him out and somebody had the great idea to rough him up a little.

Of course they didn't know he was a lawyer until they received his letter in the mail demanding compensation.

I once asked him how he made out with them and he smiled and said........."Best beating I ever took".

This doctor is going to get a very big settlement. I would bet his lawyers are so confident they are working for "contingency" fees.


----------



## olivaw

Legal experts are saying that Dr. Dau can expect a multi-million dollar out of court settlement. 

Dr. Dau's wife may also receive a significant settlement.

The pilot may be held accountable along with United and the Chicago Airport police.


----------



## james4beach

m3s said:


> Does this forum even have an active mod anymore?


Yes. The moderators are constantly cleaning up spam.

Out of court settlement... absolutely. United would not want this to go to court; spending a few million on a settlement to avoid trial will be far cheaper for United than ending up with new passenger rights.


----------



## james4beach

Nelley said:


> Go get your ***** Hat little punk.


Nelley, please refrain from personal attacks and insults. You've posted at least 3 messages in this thread that seem to be direct insults to other users.

In general, you're not posting many messages on financial topics and it would be good if you could contribute more positively to the forum.


----------



## STech

I didn't read the whole 28 pages of this thread, and dunno if this has been posted, but even first-class frequent-flier passengers aren't safe from United's abysmal policies. Man oh man it's gotta suck being an employee there right now. 



United passenger threatened with handcuffs to make room for 'higher-priority' traveler


----------



## new dog

It was mentioned upthread but would anyone here fly this airline for a reduced price.


----------



## STech

new dog said:


> It was mentioned upthread but would anyone here fly this airline for a reduced price.


There's a cheap a$$ in all of us, and we would consider it. Myself personally? If it was a good 40-60% cheaper, I'd give it a shot. If with my family, and we're going on vacation, It would have to more than 90% cheaper to consider them. It's very different if I'm by myself on a short flight for work, but I leave the cheap a$$ at home when it comes to family vacation time.

This was a good read on United (if it hasn't been posted already).

UNITED’S QUEST TO BE LESS AWFUL


----------



## Beaver101

new dog said:


> It was mentioned upthread but would anyone here fly this airline for a reduced price.


 ... yes, not hard to identify already a couple of melon kissers on this thread who would. Hey, that's cheaper than a bribe.


----------



## Nelley

james4beach said:


> Nelley, please refrain from personal attacks and insults. You've posted at least 3 messages in this thread that seem to be direct insults to other users.
> 
> In general, you're not posting many messages on financial topics and it would be good if you could contribute more positively to the forum.


Try not to think about me so much snowflake. You are like a stalker.


----------



## new dog

STech said:


> There's a cheap a$$ in all of us, and we would consider it. Myself personally? If it was a good 40-60% cheaper, I'd give it a shot. If with my family, and we're going on vacation, It would have to more than 90% cheaper to consider them. It's very different if I'm by myself on a short flight for work, but I leave the cheap a$$ at home when it comes to family vacation time.
> 
> This was a good read on United (if it hasn't been posted already).
> 
> UNITED’S QUEST TO BE LESS AWFUL


I would also probably go for it under the conditions you just mentioned here.


----------



## Daniel A.

new dog said:


> It was mentioned upthread but would anyone here fly this airline for a reduced price.


No I would not I've stopped shopping at other places on principle this one is now on my list.


----------



## carverman

sags said:


> ....and he smiled and said........."Best beating I ever took".
> 
> This doctor is going to get a very big settlement. I would bet his lawyers are so confident they are working for "contingency" fees.


In a personal injury, where there was unreasonable and unecessary force to eject
( and I mean EJECT), the paid passenger from his seat, it will cost them BIG TIME in PUNITIVE DAMAGES jury awards.
This is the US after all, where personal injury litigation is at it's finest.

*Case in Point:*
Do you remember the "McD's spilled coffee incident a few years ago.
While going through McDs drive in, she place a scalding hot cup of coffee between her thighs/knees as she drove off.
Result: Third degree burns to the skin on her thighs and "skin grafts" were necessary .
She successfully sued McD's and got a HUGE award.



> The coffee was not just “hot,” but dangerously hot. *McDonald’s corporate policy was to serve it at a temperature that could cause serious burns in seconds.* Mrs. Liebeck’s injuries were far from frivolous. She was wearing sweatpants that absorbed the coffee and kept it against her skin. She suffered third-degree burns (the most serious kind) and required skin grafts on her inner thighs and elsewhere.





> Mrs. Liebeck *offered to settle the case for $20,000 to cover her medical expenses and lost income.* But McDonald’s *never offered more than $800, so the case went to trial.* The jury found Mrs. Liebeck to be partially at fault for her injuries, reducing the compensation for her injuries accordingly. But the jury’s punitive damages award made headlines — upset by McDonald’s unwillingness to correct a policy despite hundreds of people suffering injuries, they awarded Liebeck the equivalent of two days’ worth of revenue from coffee sales for the restaurant chain. That wasn’t, however, the end of it. The original punitive damage award was ultimately reduced by more than 80 percent by the judge. And, to avoid what likely would have been years of appeals, Mrs. Liebeck and McDonald’s later reached a confidential settlement.


https://www.caoc.org/?pg=facts

Now fast forward to the United passenger being forcibly ejected from his seat.

In the US, it doesn't matter whether the passenger was unco-operative or not. There had to be a better way to find that extra 4th seat.
Had United offered a reasonable sum of money to compensate ANY remaining passenger on that plane 
(ie: $800 or more), and offered a seat on the next plane to the same destination, SOMEBODY would have taken them off on the offer.




> Airlines have a lot of leeway when it comes to denying passengers entry onto an aircraft. The recent incident on the United Airlines' Sunday flight to Louisville was a dramatic example of how far an airline can carry a situation once it decides to act.
> 
> But passengers do have some rights when they find themselves bumped off a flight—particularly if the removal stems from the airline's own overbooking practices. *While United now says that Sunday's Chicago-St. Louis flight was not actually overbooked, overbooking of flights is increasing,*





> *Here's how to protect yourself next time you fly.*
> Know Your Rights
> There are federal Department of Transportation rules that govern how airlines must treat you when a flight is overbooked—but you can't rely on the airline personnel to know and respect your rights, "In most cases, the ground staff for airlines are not aware of the law," he says. "They simply don't know how the law is applied in every situation."





> *What airlines are required to do:*
> They must ask for volunteers. Before removing customers from an overbooked flight, regulations require airlines to ask passengers to give up their seats voluntarily. Those airline offers can be very tempting, that by taking these offers you could be giving up your right to any additional compensation. *If the airline cannot find enough volunteers, then they can start removing passengers.*


If they are allowed to remove passengers..it doesn't say how much physical force is necessary or appropriate. If the passenger is in a window seat there can be two seat arm rests. 




> They must spell out your rights. This should be a *written statement *explaining why you're being bumped and your rights to compensation.





> They must rebook you—and pay you if you'll be significantly delayed. If the removal is involuntary and you'll be more than one hour late to your destination, the *federal government spells out what the airline needs to shell out.* *The max is $1,350 if the alternate routing gets you to your final destination more than two hours later *than planned (four hours for international flights).
> (In the case of Sunday's United flight, the crew eventually offered passengers $800 vouchers.) "They're trying to be cheap," Leocha says. "It's absolutely wrong."


----------



## wraphter

Dao's lawyer listed the injuries that Dao told him he received--concussion ,lost teeth,etc. All this from being pulled out of a seat? Did Dao tell his lawyer the truth?
Possibly not. He is a criminal after all. He gave narcotics to a male patient for sex.He violated the doctor-patient relationship. He fraudulently obtained narcotics. His license was suspended for 10 years.

Dao's lawyer was pathetic. Dao told him being dragged down the aisle was worse than coming on a boat from Vietnam and the money-grubbing mouth-piece
parrots it back to the television audience.


----------



## heyjude

I thought Demetrio (Dao's lawyer) explained it very well, and simply. 

I have also been looking at the video again in light of what we now know about the injuries. If you watch carefully, you can see and hear the moment when Dao's head impacts the armrest on the aisle seat opposite his own. He comes down quite violently on the right side of this face. I think the "crack" is his nose breaking.


----------



## Beaver101

^ In fact, one can see that blood was already oozing from his mouth as they were dragging him out. Possibly he was pummelled by the aviation thugs for resisting the violent physical removal. I think UAssline can count their blessings at this point that he didn't suffered a heart attack and then died as a result of the forceful removal. 

Or maybe Wraphter would rather see him dead instead so that the pathetic money-grubbing mouthpiece rom Vietnam can be silenced in the land of home and free in the USA! Which keeps reminding me of Rodney King. 

Wraphter - by chance do you work for UAssline or related to them?


----------



## wraphter

A person bears some degree of responsibility for their actions and what befalls them.You can't go through life blaming others. He talked to the officer. Dao said take they could take him to jail, he wasn't moving.The officer,who presumably was there legally, gave him a choice. It really doesn't matter what lead up to the situation in the final few seconds where the officer calmly explained his options to Dao. 

Dao exercised very poor judgement . He could easily have avoided the physical confrontation even if he felt the airlines was treating him unfairly. 

It's hard to see how banging his head on the padded movable headrest caused the injuries Dao claims he received. It doesn't appear that the officer used excess force.

99.9999% of passengers would have complied and exited peacefully. There is empirical evidence to that effect. Why didn't he?

It's not incidental that he broke the rules of being a doctor. Then he broke the rules of being a passenger. There is a pattern here.

A person has to control himself in the public space or there can be dire consequences.


----------



## heyjude

wraphter said:


> It's hard to see how banging his head on the padded movable headrest caused the injuries Dao claims he received.


So you're a trauma specialist? No, I didn't think so. 

Bearing responsibility for one's actions is one thing. Yes, Dr. Dao should have meekly gotten up and disembarked. But the assault was uncalled for.


----------



## wraphter

Look what happened to the RIM executives who were disruptive on their flight.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/drunken-rim-executives-let-go-for-disrupting-flight-1.1074447



> Two rowdy Research In Motion executives whose antics caused an Air Canada flight to be diverted to Vancouver have been let go for unprofessional behaviour, the BlackBerry maker said Monday.
> 
> "RIM expects that its employees conduct themselves in a manner reflective of our strong principles and standards of business behaviour," the company said in a statement from Waterloo, Ont.
> 
> "RIM does not condone behaviour that conflicts with applicable laws and employees are expected to act, at all times, with integrity and respect. The individuals involved in this incident are no longer employed by RIM."
> 
> George Campbell, 45, of Conestogo, Ont., and Paul Alexander Wilson, 38, of Kitchener, Ont., recently pleaded guilty to mischief. The men were ordered to pay a total of almost $72,000 in restitution after receiving suspended sentences and probation for a year.
> 
> The flight was on its way to Beijing from Toronto last week when it had to be diverted.
> 
> A passenger on board the plane had said Campbell and Wilson were fighting with the flight attendants, and it took the entire crew to subdue the men, who were eventually handcuffed to seats on the plane.
> 
> The passenger accused Air Canada of being irresponsible, claiming the airline staff either allowed drunk passengers on the plane or gave them too much to drink once they were aboard.


----------



## Beaver101

heyjude said:


> So you're a trauma specialist? No, I didn't think so.
> 
> Bearing responsibility for one's actions is one thing. Yes, Dr. Dao should have meekly gotten up and disembarked.* But the assault was uncalled for*.


 ... +1. But you see according to Wraphter's such highly twisted details of the events, Dr. Dao assaulted the aviation thugs instead and therefore should be send back to Vietnam. And that UAssline should sue him for damages to the seat headrests and medals be given to the aviation thugs. Nice try.


----------



## SMK

heyjude said:


> Bearing responsibility for one's actions is one thing. Yes, Dr. Dao should have meekly gotten up and disembarked. But the assault was uncalled for.


I agree with you Doctor Jude. I was very surprised when I heard the extent of the injuries, and still not quite sure how the dragging produced so many injuries requiring facial reconstruction now, but with time all the evidence will come out.

I briefly heard the daughter's speech and wondered if any of the 4 sons were present at the press conference.


----------



## SMK

wraphter said:


> He gave narcotics to a male patient for sex. He violated the doctor-patient relationship.


Makes me think that such patient(s) may now see $$ signs and sue Dr. Dao.


----------



## humble_pie

heyjude said:


> Yes, Dr. Dao should have meekly gotten up and disembarked. But the assault was uncalled for.





+ 1 in a nutshell. Yes the doKtor should-have-could-have-would-have. But he didn't. What happened next was intolerable brutality.

one thing i learned from years of living & working in northern US cities. Never, ever, ever argue with an american cop. Inside those uniforms are far too many goons, thugs & trigger-happy cowboys.

it's surprising that dr. dao had not learned this in all his years of living in the US of A. It's surprising that he tried to resist the cops when they showed up in the aisle of the plane next to his seat row. But whatever the reason, he did not stand up & "meekly" walk off the plane with the airport police.

the only thing i can assume - from the welter of confusion in this thread alone - is that dr. dao had never understood that - in the eyes of the airline - his ticket had not entitled him 100% to a guaranteed seat on the plane.

yesterday canadian transport minister Marc Garneau sent a letter to all airlines flying into & out of canada - including United - stating that assaulting passengers would not be tolerated in canada. Garneau also called for the airlines to clarify their overbooking rules & practices.


.


----------



## SMK

sags said:


> I knew a lawyer who was slightly intoxicated at an Ontario casino. He was told to leave but resisted, so they dragged him out and somebody had the great idea to rough him up a little.
> "Best beating I ever took". This doctor is going to get a very big settlement. I would bet his lawyers are so confident *they are working for "contingency" fees.*


Most likely. I don't think the comparison with your lawyer friend is similar at all - I'm sure Dr. Dao is not thinking it's the "best beating he ever took".


----------



## humble_pie

heyjude said:


> I have also been looking at the video again in light of what we now know about the injuries. If you watch carefully, you can see and hear the moment when Dao's head impacts the armrest on the aisle seat opposite his own. He comes down quite violently on the right side of this face. I think the "crack" is his nose breaking.




jude i'm not going to look at this video but i'm happy to rely on you as an expert physician onlooker.

like others, i'd wondered how such severe injuries had happened. But if i follow your text above, i can now visualize the sequence, at least a bit.

did the chicago cop succeed in pulling dr dao up & out of his seat - as i understand things, the doKtor was one over from the aisle, ie there was an intervening seated passenger - so the up-pulling would have been extremely difficult to accomplish in the confined space.

did the doKtor stumble and/or the policeman dropped him - or both - so that dr dao plunged forward & down to strike his face hard against the arm-rest of the seat on the opposite side of the aisle? 

that could explain the serious injuries.

thankx for any further light you can shed.

.


----------



## heyjude

humble_pie said:


> jude i'm not going to look at this video but i'm happy to rely on you as an expert physician onlooker.
> 
> like others, i'd wondered how such severe injuries had happened. But if i follow your text above, i can now visualize the sequence, at least a bit.
> 
> did the chicago cop succeed in pulling dr dao up & out of his seat - as i understand things, the doKtor was one over from the aisle, ie there was an intervening seated passenger - so the up-pulling would have been extremely difficult to accomplish in the confined space.
> 
> did the doKtor stumble and/or the policeman dropped him - or both - so that dr dao plunged forward & down to strike his face hard against the arm-rest of the seat on the opposite side of the aisle?
> 
> that could explain the serious injuries.
> 
> thankx for any further light you can shed.
> 
> .


I'm sorry, but I have nothing further to add on the injuries at this point.


----------



## kcowan

I think the passenger will have his day in court. The airline has already lost the case in the court of public opinion. This will end up being far more costly to UA because they seem to have poorly trained staff. 

Airport security are just pawns in this game, acting without full knowledge of the situation. The good doctor was not being disruptive prior to the guards being called. The sh*tstorm was created by the UA crew.

Let them pay heavily for their incompetence!


----------



## wraphter

The sordid past of "Dr." Dao.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4401980/Dr-dragged-United-swapped-drugs-secret-gay-sex.html

What the psychiatrist found:


> An official report detailed the findings of medical exams performed on Dr Dao and spelled out concerns over his mental state. A court case brought by him would inevitably have to consider whether the documents could be used by United.
> 
> Among the findings were:
> Dr. Mary Gannon 'noted that Dr. Dao *"lacked the foundation to navigate difficult situations, both interpersonally and in a complex profession".* Dr.Gannon noted a* need to control, avoidance, withholding information and magical thinking as problematic.' *
> The report went on: 'Dr. Montgomery noted that Dr. Dao appeared to have difficulties with information processing. Neuropsychological screening did not suggest gross difficulties.
> 'However, in reviewing records, it was noted that Dr. Dao tends to have[n] poor decision-making despite his overall level of ability. [/b]
> 'His choices have resulted in significant consequences over the years yet he continues·to function in this manner.
> 'He is generally not forthright regarding details of events unless challenged and at times he will tell different versions of a story to different interviewers. '
> Later in the report it found: *'As far back as April, 2002, Dr. Brady notes " ... he would unilaterally chose to do his own thing'. *
> 'This remains a concern to this day and without a high degree of structure and accountability he is at risk for further boundary related practice issues.'


"unilaterally chose to do his own thing." --pretty good description of his refusal to disembark. 

Married to a woman, he had sex with a male patient and traded prescription drugs for sex with this patient.



> The father of five, who has won sympathy globally over the incident, was given a suspended jail sentence for illegally obtaining and trafficking controlled substances by fraud and deceit.
> He was also found to have engaged in sex with a male patient- Brian Case, who he knew from the church they both attended - and then supplied him with drugs, including Oxycontin, in exchange for sexual favors.
> The sexual liaisons, which happened in motel rooms, were recorded by undercover agents. He paid $200 in cash each time he met Case.
> Case said he believed that Dr. Dao wanted to hook him on drugs so he would keep meeting him for gay sex.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr. Dao was arrested when Case agreed to go undercover.* Even when he was caught with his shirt off and pants unbuckled, he denied he was there for gay sex with Case. *
> The secret sex and drugs life of the doctor first came to light in July 2003 when police alerted the Kentucky Board of Medical Licensure of the allegations against him.
> 
> In October 2003 he was indicted by a Jefferson County Grand Jury for 'criminal acts of trafficking in a controlled substance, obtaining drugs by fraud and deceit, and unauthorized prescribing, dispensing or administering of controlled substances'.
> His medical license was suspended later that month.
> Dr Dao underwent intense scrutiny and re-training for several years after his convictions. He also appealed unsuccessfully against conviction, including claiming the undercover video of him semi-naked broke his expectation of privacy.
> His wife Dr. Theresa Dao, who was with him on the ill-fated flight, has stood by him.
> She first alerted the medical authorities about her suspicions of her husband’s involvement with a patient.
> 
> In 2015, his medical license was partially re-instated with restrictions placed on his access to patients.
> 
> ..................
> 
> It was found that Dr. Dao had become sexually involved with a patient who had been referred to his practice, who was known as 'Patient A'. He was named in criminal court as Case, who was 26 at the time, less than half the doctor's age.
> The board stated: 'During the initial evaluation, the licensee performed a complete physical examination, including a genital examination, for Patient A who had been referred for collapsed lungs and chest pain.'
> 
> 
> The board's finding went on: 'Shortly after his first appointment, the licensee made Patient A his office manager; according to Patient A, he quit that job because of inappropriate remarks made by the licensee.
> 'After he quit, the licensee pursued him aggressively, finally arranging to provide controlled substance prescriptions to him in exchange for sexual acts.
> 'This continued for some time, with Patient A and the licensee meeting at hotel rooms and some of these meetings were recorded.
> 'At some point, the licensee began splitting some of the prescriptions with Patient A and gave Patient A money to fill the prescriptions.
> 
> .....................
> 
> 
> The Hardin Memorial Hospital, where he worked, placed him on* ' a corrective action plan by due to disruptive conduct'.*
> He was also referred to the Kentucky Physicians Health Foundation for* 'evaluation and anger management'.*
> He was also tested positive for Ultram/framadol and had his doctor's license suspended.
> In November 2004 a jury convicted him on felony counts of Obtaining drugs by fraud and deceit. The jury recommended a sentence of two years and eight months on each felony count.
> In January, 2005, Dao was sentenced in Jefferson Circuit Court to two years and eight months on each felony conviction. He was allowed a five year supervised probation
> 
> Dr. Dao's knowledge of current pharmacology was deficient He demonstrated some deficits that were surprising based on the common nature of the disorders.'


He got probation although the jury recommended jail.

"disruptive conduct", "anger management," "unilaterally chose to do his own thing" sort of describes what happened when he refused to comply
with instructions on the airplane.


----------



## heyjude

None of Dr. Dao's past history was, or should have been, known to the flight crew or airport police. For all they knew, he could have been a saint. Differences of opinion and refusal to follow instructions happen all the time. Healthcare workers who are likely to run into such situations generally receive training in how to manage them peacefully. These police officers may not have received this training, or were operating in a culture where it is okay to rough people up when not immediately obeyed.


----------



## SMK

Interesting that the wife had initially reported Dr. Dao to the police. His criminal past may be inadmissible in a court of law, but I'm still scratching my head as to how such a person was allowed to practice medicine, even for a day. At 69, or in 2018, he was not going to get better or change his ways.


----------



## Beaver101

heyjude said:


> None of Dr. Dao's past history was, or should have been, known to the flight crew or airport police. For all they knew, he could have been a saint. Differences of opinion and refusal to follow instructions happen all the time. Healthcare workers who are likely to run into such situations generally receive training in how to manage them peacefully. These police officers may not have received this training, or were operating in a culture where it is okay to rough people up when not immediately obeyed.


 ... +100%.


----------



## Beaver101

wraphter said:


> The sordid past of "Dr." Dao.
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art... planning on suing him? Did he molested you?


----------



## SMK

Dr. Dao won't practice medicine ever again, and that's the good thing that has come out of this case. Never mind that he won't need to work again.

His medical license was suspended in 2005 - then took 10 years to reinstate it when he was 67, and only with "severe restrictions" - and these "severe restrictions" were going to be lifted next year, at the age of 70? Did I get that right?

What was the medical licensing board thinking? :confused2:

Oh, and btw, even his lawyer has admitted race had nothing to do with this case, and that it could have happened to anyone.


----------



## wraphter

Yes SMK, you have to wonder how many doctors like Dr. Dao there are walking around, being protected by their boards.


----------



## mrPPincer

Don't they have a largely uneducated or poorly educated non-immigrant population south of the border?

They probably have to work with what they can get.

Especially now with their current wave of anti-immigrant/immigration policies and sentiment.


----------



## olivaw

David Dao's troubled professional past is not relevant. He wasn't being kicked off the plane for professional misconduct. He wasn't being kicked off for general misconduct. He was being kicked off because a manager decided that his seat should go to a more important passenger. 

His lawyers will negotiate a multi million dollar settlement.


----------



## SMK

wraphter said:


> Yes SMK, you have to wonder how many doctors like Dr. Dao there are walking around, being protected by their boards.


I'm left wondering what it takes to revoke rather than merely suspend someone's medical license these days? 98 counts of illegally prescribing drugs was not enough.

Criminal past aside, if his "knowledge of current pharmacology" is deficient at his advanced age, how was that going to improve by 2018, when restrictions were going to be lifted on his license? Wouldn't the result of such deficiency been potentially deadly for his patients? 

I felt sorry for the daughter who was put in charge of representing the family yesterday. The man did not deserve to be assaulted and humiliated the way he was, but he had the power to prevent it.


----------



## james4beach

olivaw said:


> David Dao's troubled professional past is not relevant. He wasn't being kicked off the plane for professional misconduct. He wasn't being kicked off for general misconduct. He was being kicked off because a manager decided that his seat should go to a more important passenger.
> 
> His lawyers will negotiate a multi million dollar settlement.


Definitely a few million. Besides his medical costs (which will be significant) he's also looking at reputation damage, which can translate to significant lost income. Additionally the 69 year old victim will need reconstructive surgery

https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/...d-passenger-will-need-reconstructive-surgery/

I was in the common area of my building yesterday and was talking with a friend, a visiting professor from China. She was disgusted by the United incident and told me that everyone in China is talking about the airline.


----------



## SMK

james4beach said:


> he's also looking at reputation damage, which can translate to significant lost income.


Reputation damage? He did that all by himself, not last weekend but years ago.

He worked once a week because he was restricted to do so, so not exactly significant loss of income.


----------



## carverman

What is lacking is the evidence of what transpired before he was dragged out of his seat.
This will come out in a court of law, if it goes to that. Someone may have also recorded the incident on the cellphone..
if there was any loud exchanges between the doctor and the three AS men. 



> After initially defending the airline’s policies, United’s chief executive apologized. United has offered a refund to every passenger on the flight and has promised to *no longer have the police remove passengers from planes that are too full.*





> Mr. Demetrio, a well-known Chicago personal injury lawyer who has handled several high-profile cases, said the *eventual lawsuit would probably be filed in the Illinois court system*. In the meantime, he said Dr. Dao was hoping to recover quietly and never set foot on another airplane.


Huh?...was it overbooked to be too full? How can a plane be "too full"..there are only x amount of seats per plane..unless they just assigned seats randomly without checking their terminal computer for seating arrangements.

*Illiinois courtroom drama:*

*Legal defence team for United:*
So, Mr.D. <doctor>,you are claiming that at the time you were assignded your seat, the plane was NOT too full?
*Doctor D*: yes I was told to board by seat number
*United legal defence team*; Did you get the offer to relinquish youir seat because the plane was "too full"..
*Doctor D;* No, I was reading my seat card on flying safety and watching the stewardish go through safety procedures
*United legal defence team*; Then do you remember what happened?
The stewardess came to me and told me that I had to get off the plane!

*United legal defenced team*;And did you follow these instructions and vacate your seat?
*Doctor D.* No, I had to get to Louisville that day as I had get home right away.

*United defence team*: then what happened?
*Doctor D*; These 3 policeman came up to me , each grabbed my arm, and they threw me down on the floor. I hit my head on the armrest so hard my teeth broke
*
United defence team: *no further questions.
*United defence team*: let the record show that Mr. D, disobeyed a direct order from the flight crew, became beligerent and violent and had to be restrained by security. 
Had he left quietly, none of this incident would have happened.


----------



## wraphter

The police did not appear to use excessive force. He said that they can take him to jail.They grabbed him and pulled him out of the seat and he appears to have banged his head on some structure across the aisle. That was an accident. The police did not deliberately strike his head.Then they dragged him out.

The benefit of the doubt is usually given to the police. 

There was the death of Eric Garner in Staten Island. The police were not charged.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Eric_Garner#Deliberation_and_verdict



> On July 17, 2014, Eric Garner died in Staten Island, New York City, after a New York City Police Department (NYPD) officer put him in what has been described as a chokehold for about 15 to 19 seconds while arresting him. The New York City Medical Examiner's Office attributed Garner's death to a combination of a chokehold, compression of his chest, and poor health. NYPD policy prohibits the use of chokeholds.
> NYPD officers approached Garner on suspicion of selling "loosies" (single cigarettes) from packs without tax stamps. After Garner told the police that he was tired of being harassed and that he was not selling cigarettes, the officers went to arrest Garner. When officer Daniel Pantaleo tried to take Garner's wrist behind his back, Garner pulled his arms away. Pantaleo then put his arm around Garner's neck and took him down onto the ground.
> 
> .............
> 
> On November 21, Pantaleo testified before the grand jury for about two hours.[62] After having the case for two months, the grand jury decided on December 3 not to indict Pantaleo.


In The famous Dziekanski case, RCMP tased him and he died. The cops were convicted of perjury but not manslaughter or any crime against Dziekanski.

If this case were to go to trial, Dao would lose.


----------



## wraphter

> I was in the common area of my building yesterday and was talking with a friend, a visiting professor from China. She was disgusted by the United incident and told me that everyone in China is talking about the airline.


Really james,ha, ask her about the executions immediately followed by harvesting of body parts. lot of freedom of speech in China ,is there?

Ask her about the working conditions at Foxconn.


----------



## humble_pie

olivaw said:


> David Dao's troubled professional past is not relevant.



this is true. No point referring to his past life, the courts will never take it into consideration.


.


----------



## Nelley

wraphter said:


> Really james,ha, ask her about the executions immediately followed by harvesting of body parts. lot of freedom of speech in China ,is there?
> 
> Ask her about the working conditions at Foxconn.


Ya gotta laugh at the total B/S Jimmy Beach spews on this site constantly.


----------



## Nelley

wraphter said:


> Yes SMK, you have to wonder how many doctors like Dr. Dao there are walking around, being protected by their boards.


Tons of them-we only hear about the ones that make the news-the medical profession has a very sleazy reputation these days.


----------



## m3s

carverman said:


> What is lacking is the evidence of what transpired before he was dragged out of his seat.
> This will come out in a court of law, if it goes to that. Someone may have also recorded the incident on the cellphone..
> if there was any loud exchanges between the doctor and the three AS men.


That video has been online for days, carver link

It was filmed by a pregnant woman with a toddler sitting behind him.

He says something to the effect that he is not giving up his seat because he is a physician who has to work at 8am tomorrow

He says something about not wanting to be delayed so long because he has been flying for almost 24 hours already from LA

He implies he has done nothing wrong and that they would have to arrest him and take him to jail before he gives up his seat

He raises his voice and says he's not going and something about go ahead and use force and he will have a lawsuit

Then the mall cops break his face against an arm wrest and drag his unconscious body off the plane

Great thing for a toddler to witness


----------



## olivaw

wraphter said:


> Really james,ha, ask her about the executions immediately followed by harvesting of body parts. lot of freedom of speech in China ,is there?
> 
> Ask her about the working conditions at Foxconn.


What a weird comment Not even remotely relevant to anything in this thread. :hypnotysed:

Should James also ask asian people about the price of tea in China?


----------



## Mukhang pera

humble_pie said:


> this is true. No point referring to his past life, the courts will never take it into consideration.



Hp, while I cannot speak for a U.S. judge or jury, certainly in a Canadian court his _professional_ past will be up for examination in an action for damages. That is because of the nature of damage claims.

Using Canadian terminology, in a lawsuit, he will be claiming under various _heads_ of damages, most likely as follows:

1. Non-pecuniary damages, sometimes called general damages or damages for pain and suffering. 

Non-pecuniary damages cover a broad range of compensation and are aimed at unquantifiable losses such as pain, suffering and loss of enjoyment of life. Awards in Canada tend to be conservative and are quite predictable in quantum.

In Andrews v. Grand & Toy Alberta Ltd., [1978] 2 S.C.R. 229, also known as one of the trilogy cases, the Supreme Court of Canada established a $100,000 cap on non-pecuniary damages in cases where negligence causes catastrophic personal injuries based on the reasoning that “[t]he sheer fact is that there is no objective yardstick for translating non-pecuniary losses, such as pain and suffering and loss of amenities, into monetary terms. This area is open to widely extravagant claims.” In that case, the claimant was a young adult who was rendered quadriplegic. Adjusted for inflation, the current adjusted rough cap is about $360,000.

2. Past loss of income. This is the loss of wages, professional income, etc. experienced as a result of the assault and injuries from the date of the assault to the date of trial. Dr. D.'s professional history will be relevant here. If the College of Physicians & Surgeons (or such applicable governing body) had in the past found him guilty of professional misconduct and had limited his ability to practice, that fact would be very relevant to determining quantum of the claim.

3. Loss of future earning capacity. This is the court's projection of any long-term negative impact of the tort on future earnings. Again, often the past is the best predictor of the future and if the plaintiff was in hot water professionally at the time of the assault, the court will hear evidence on the point and it will be a factor in determining quantum. If he had a reputation of being a sexually deviant creep, preying upon patients and a doctor to be avoided, the court would receive evidence of that, however embarrassing to the good doctor.

4. Future care costs. Self-explanatory. If further reconstructive surgery is expected, its cost would be awarded here. Same for future cost of any required medications, future psychological counselling (to get over his post-traumatic stress disorder don'tcha know?) equipment such as wheelchairs, with an allowance for replacement as required, etc. etc.

5. Loss of homemaking capacity (sometimes lumped in with future care costs). The poor doctor now can no longer mow his lawn, paint his house, do his laundry, etc. United must pay for the balance of his expected lifespan (as shown by actuarial evidence).

6. Aggravated damages. A fair description would be:

Aggravated damages although a species of non-pecuniary damages are generally only an issue where the defendants tortious conduct included some element that went beyond mere negligence. In that sense aggravated damages although not punitive are different from ordinary non-pecuniary damages that flow from ordinary negligence. Aggravated damages are meant to give the plaintiff some extra measure of balm for the manner in which the harm was inflicted.

See: http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/sc/02/02/2002bcsc0243.htm at para.10 et seq.

It has also been held that aggravated damages are compensatory in nature and are meant to take full account of such intangible injuries such as distress and humiliation. See: Reddemann v. McEachnie et al, 2005 BCSC 915

http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/Jdb-txt/SC/05/09/2005BCSC0915.htm at para. 36

7. Punitive damages (also known as exemplary damages). A useful description is found in Reddemann v. McEachnie et al, supra:

Punitive damages are available in assault cases. However, as set out in Vorvis, punitive damages may only be awarded in respect of conduct which:

... is of such nature as to be deserving of punishment because of its harsh, vindictive, reprehensible and malicious nature. I do not suggest that I have exhausted the adjectives which could describe the conduct capable of characterizing a punitive award, but in any case where such an award is made the conduct must be extreme in its nature and such that by any reasonable standard it is deserving of full condemnation and punishment. 

8. Special damages. Specials cover out-of-pocket expenses to the trial date, such as Dr. D.'s cost of replacing his blood-stained suit, medical treatment incurred before trial actually paid for by Dr. D., medications, etc.

So, I would say that two parts of any claim likely to be presented come with an open sesame to some examination of the unfortunate Dr. D.'s character as it impacts his ability to earn, past and future.

Happily for Dr. D., his is not a defamation case. Such involves a claim for damage to reputation. The defence would then be at liberty to a full public airing of evidence intended to show that his reputation was far from untarnished for some time.

In a Canadian court, Dr. D. would certainly not recover millions, not at all close. It seems the majority of those posting here seem to think not only that he _will _be, but that he _should_ be compensated to that lavish extent. I have no idea why. The airline has been dealt with harshly in the court of public opinion. Most likely any monies paid to Dr. D. will never become known to the public. Why his children deserve to to have their futures assured as a result of the unfortunate debacle (in the ordinary course, they can be expected to inherit the windfall) is not clear to me.


----------



## SMK

Very interesting if Dr. Dao was indeed daring the police to remove him from his seat and later sue.

His medical career was severely limited before his assault, but now, thankfully and for the safety of patients, is finished! Who would want to be Dr. Dao's patient, now that his professional misconduct and incompetency have been exposed? UA isn't responsible for this part of the story and for his limited income.


----------



## humble_pie

Mukhang pera said:


> Hp, while I cannot speak for a U.S. judge or jury, certainly in a Canadian court his _professional_ past will be up for examination in an action for damages. That is because of the nature of damage claims.
> 
> Using Canadian terminology, in a lawsuit, he will be claiming under various _heads_ of damages, most likely as follows:
> 
> 1. Non-pecuniary damages, sometimes called general damages or damages for pain and suffering.
> 
> Non-pecuniary damages cover a broad range of compensation and are aimed at unquantifiable losses such as pain, suffering and loss of enjoyment of life. Awards in Canada tend to be conservative and are quite predictable in quantum.
> 
> In Andrews v. Grand & Toy Alberta Ltd., [1978] 2 S.C.R. 229, also known as one of the trilogy cases, the Supreme Court of Canada established a $100,000 cap on non-pecuniary damages in cases where negligence causes catastrophic personal injuries based on the reasoning that “[t]he sheer fact is that there is no objective yardstick for translating non-pecuniary losses, such as pain and suffering and loss of amenities, into monetary terms. This area is open to widely extravagant claims.” In that case, the claimant was a young adult who was rendered quadriplegic. Adjusted for inflation, the current adjusted rough cap is about $360,000.
> 
> 2. Past loss of income. This is the loss of wages, professional income, etc. experienced as a result of the assault and injuries from the date of the assault to the date of trial. Dr. D.'s professional history will be relevant here. If the College of Physicians & Surgeons (or such applicable governing body) had in the past found him guilty of professional misconduct and had limited his ability to practice, that fact would be very relevant to determining quantum of the claim.
> 
> 3. Loss of future earning capacity. This is the court's projection of any long-term negative impact of the tort on future earnings. Again, often the past is the best predictor of the future and if the plaintiff was in hot water professionally at the time of the assault, the court will hear evidence on the point and it will be a factor in determining quantum. If he had a reputation of being a sexually deviant creep, preying upon patients and a doctor to be avoided, the court would receive evidence of that, however embarrassing to the good doctor.
> 
> 4. Future care costs. Self-explanatory. If further reconstructive surgery is expected, its cost would be awarded here. Same for future cost of any required medications, future psychological counselling (to get over his post-traumatic stress disorder don'tcha know?) equipment such as wheelchairs, with an allowance for replacement as required, etc. etc.
> 
> 5. Loss of homemaking capacity (sometimes lumped in with future care costs). The poor doctor now can no longer mow his lawn, paint his house, do his laundry, etc. United must pay for the balance of his expected lifespan (as shown by actuarial evidence).
> 
> 6. Aggravated damages. A fair description would be:
> 
> Aggravated damages although a species of non-pecuniary damages are generally only an issue where the defendants tortious conduct included some element that went beyond mere negligence. In that sense aggravated damages although not punitive are different from ordinary non-pecuniary damages that flow from ordinary negligence. Aggravated damages are meant to give the plaintiff some extra measure of balm for the manner in which the harm was inflicted.
> 
> See: http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/sc/02/02/2002bcsc0243.htm at para.10 et seq.
> 
> It has also been held that aggravated damages are compensatory in nature and are meant to take full account of such intangible injuries such as distress and humiliation. See: Reddemann v. McEachnie et al, 2005 BCSC 915
> 
> http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/Jdb-txt/SC/05/09/2005BCSC0915.htm at para. 36
> 
> 7. Punitive damages. A useful description is found in Reddemann v. McEachnie et al, supra:
> 
> Punitive damages are available in assault cases. However, as set out in Vorvis, punitive damages may only be awarded in respect of conduct which:
> 
> ... is of such nature as to be deserving of punishment because of its harsh, vindictive, reprehensible and malicious nature. I do not suggest that I have exhausted the adjectives which could describe the conduct capable of characterizing a punitive award, but in any case where such an award is made the conduct must be extreme in its nature and such that by any reasonable standard it is deserving of full condemnation and punishment.
> 
> 8. Special damages. Specials cover out-of-pocket expenses to the trial date, such as Dr. D.'s cost of replacing his blood-stained suit, medical treatment incurred before trial actually paid for by Dr. D., medications, etc.
> 
> So, I would say that two parts of any claim likely to be presented come with an open sesame to some examination of the unfortunate Dr. D.'s character as it impacts his ability to earn, past and future.
> 
> Happily for Dr. D., his is not a defamation case. Such involves a claim for damage to reputation. The defence would then be at liberty to a full public airing of evidence intended to show that his reputation was far from untarnished for some time.
> 
> In a Canadian court, Dr. D. would certainly not recover millions, not at all close. It seems the majority of those posting here seem to think not only that he _will _be, but that he _should_ be compensated to that lavish extent. I have no idea why. The airline has been dealt with harshly in the court of public opinion. Most likely any monies paid to Dr. D. will never become known to the public. Why his children deserve to to have their futures assured as a result of the unfortunate debacle (in the ordinary course, they can be expected to inherit the windfall) is not clear to me.





what a valuable post, thank you.

silver wolf, often when i see your legal research in the forum - always so meticulous, always presented with such a flourish - i find myself wondering how we ever managed on here before, without you.


.


----------



## wraphter

olivaw said:


> What a weird comment Not even remotely relevant to anything in this thread. :hypnotysed:
> 
> Should James also ask asian people about the price of tea in China?


James introduced the Chinese angle,not me, when he talked about the Chinese professor and everyone on China talking about this incident because Dao was

Oriental. Who are the Chinese to judge Americans when they treat their people much worse. This incident in China wouldn't have made the news. It would have been suppressed 

I listed a few details about the callous treatment of individuals in China. 

I wonder how they deal with difficult passengers on Chinese airlines?


----------



## new dog

Not related to this incident but the Chinese do make a fuss about things that others do while doing it themselves. Everytime we have a concern like H1N1 they issue a travel alert yet most flu's come from over there.


----------



## Just a Guy

Muska, I don't think anyone here thinks he "deserves" lavish compensation, I think most realize that, this being the states where you get lavish rewards for stupidity (ie, the McDonald coffee incident, the last election, etc.), the guy is going to get a lavish settlement. As you pointed out, this isn't Canada.


----------



## carverman

humble_pie said:


> silver wolf, often when i see your legal research in the forum - always so meticulous, always presented with such a flourish -* i find myself wondering how we ever managed on here before, without you.*


ah..this is the captain speaking..."Mutual admiration society members" .please move to the rear of the CMF Air plane. 
.[/QUOTE]


----------



## james4beach

I think he deserves compensation for the harm inflicted on him, both physical and reputation/embarrassment. A customer should not be humiliated for carrying out normal business (i.e. buying a ticket and sitting in his seat).

A person who buys a plane ticket, and who is allowed to board onto a plane, expects to sit in his seat and for the plane to fly -- unless there's an emergency, safety incident or equipment malfunction.


----------



## carverman

Mukhang pera said:


> Hp, while I cannot speak for a U.S. judge or jury,
> 
> In a Canadian court, Dr. D. would certainly not recover millions, not at all close. It seems the majority of those posting here seem to think not only that he _will _be, but that he _should_ be compensated to that lavish extent. I have no idea why. The airline has been dealt with harshly in the court of public opinion. Most likely any monies paid to Dr. D. will never become known to the public. Why his children deserve to to have their futures assured as a result of the unfortunate debacle (in the ordinary course, they can be expected to inherit the windfall) is not clear to me.


The court case will be in a US court in Chicago Illinois. US juries have been known to award large awards for pain and suffering.
We shall hear the outcome of his case if it goes to trial. 
Certainly it will be more than the original max $1350, under FAA rules. 
which is the maximum he would have got from the airline, had he not antagonized the situation...but we shall see.


----------



## james4beach

If United really thinks they did no wrong, then they should let it go to trial.

My guess is that United will settle out of court for millions, because they screwed up so badly here and did so much wrong, that they would not dare go before a real judge. Their cheapest option is probably to settle for many millions, keep the recording/videos confidential and never have to reveal them publicly and put a muzzle on the victim so that he cannot speak publicly about it.

That costs money.


----------



## carverman

m3s said:


> That video has been online for days, carver
> Then the mall cops break his face against an arm wrest and drag his unconscious body off the plane


 my video didn't seem to have audio with it. Anyway, it confirms he was in a window seat and assume that there may have been a passenger sitting next to him that was still there, or had moved out of their seat prior to DR.D, being forcefully removed, which was the was the video segment that I was hoping had been captured.

If he was resisting and was dragged over the isle seat arm rest, he would have sustained some injury.


----------



## heyjude

As I explained in a previous post (perhaps not clearly enough), Dr. Dao's head and face impacted the external, fixed armrest of the seat on the opposite side of the plane. To clarify, I don't know which row he was seated in. The plane was, I believe, an Embraer, with one aisle separating four seats. A given row, from left to right, would have seats A, C, Aisle, D and F. Let's say for argument's sake that it was row 12. He was in seat 12F, closest to the window on the right side of the plane. Presumably his wife was next to him in aisle seat 12D. He was dragged over her and thrown across the aisle onto the armrest belonging to seat 12C.


----------



## james4beach

heyjude said:


> Presumably his wife was in 12D. He was dragged over her and thrown across the aisle onto the armrest belonging to seat 12C.


Imagine detailed footage of that, narrated by medical experts, in a court of law ... detailing how United instructed henchmen to physically harm their 69 year old customer -- for no reason other than a random seat re assignment.

Can you imagine it? So can United's lawyers. They will pay millions and millions of dollars to prevent that courtroom scene from happening.


----------



## olivaw

wraphter said:


> James introduced the Chinese angle,not me, when he talked about the Chinese professor and everyone on China talking about this incident because Dao was Oriental. Who are the Chinese to judge Americans when they treat their people much worse. This incident in China wouldn't have made the news. It would have been suppressed


Don't Chinese people have as much right to discuss North America we have to discuss China?


----------



## m3s

carverman said:


> my video didn't seem to have audio with it. Anyway, it confirms he was in a window seat and assume that there may have been a passenger sitting next to him that was still there,


There is definitely audio to the video in the link I provided. It's available from many sources, some with transcripts. You can also see a person sitting next to him



heyjude said:


> The plane was, I believe, an Embraer, with one aisle separating four seats. A given row, from left to right, would have seats A, C, Aisle, D and F.


United Flight 3411 should be Embraer 170, which also lines up with the E17 safety card partially visible in the video from the pregnant passenger behind him

Seatguru shows seats in A-B_C-D config which is common


----------



## heyjude

Here is a US lawyer's perspective on the damages:

https://youtu.be/3SBhbHNJ8fk


----------



## heyjude

m3s said:


> United Flight 3411 should be Embraer 170, which also lines up with the E17 safety card partially visible in the video from the pregnant passenger behind him
> 
> Seatguru shows seats in A-B_C-D config which is common


Thanks for researching that. I stand (or sit) corrected.


----------



## m3s

On closer inspection, I can see the aisle seat next to him was indeed empty when the mall cop forcefully extracted Dr Dao

There is a struggle and the mall cop moves in close to bend the Dr over and get a solid grip and footing to really throw him around

You can see Dr Dao's torso fly from the window seat over the aisle seat, into the aisle and the opposing arm rest in one fell swoop


----------



## wraphter

olivaw said:


> Don't Chinese people have as much right to discuss North America we have to discuss China?



The Chinese media is not free ,so no, they do not have as much freedom as we have. It wasn't me who politicized this thread and introduced the question of race,
it was james. Dao's lawyer explicitly said race was not a determining factor. You and james think it is. 

James is suggesting that race was a factor. He is insinuating they were picking on him because he is Oriental.

If the millions of Chinese want to criticize our society ,we can criticize theirs. 

People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

You think it is just a coincidence that the professor was Asian and Dao is Asian?

You think there is no racial or international connotation?

"Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her."


Judge not, that ye be not judged.

2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?


----------



## james4beach

wraphter said:


> James is suggesting that race was a factor. He is insinuating they were picking on him because he is Oriental.


Here is my post again
http://canadianmoneyforum.com/showt...this-airline?p=1548770&viewfull=1#post1548770

I just told you what my neighbour said to me. I didn't make any guesses as to why they were picking on him.


----------



## wraphter

james4beach said:


> Here is my post again
> http://canadianmoneyforum.com/showt...this-airline?p=1548770&viewfull=1#post1548770
> 
> I just told you what my neighbour said to me. I didn't make any guesses as to why they were picking on him.


I see so there was no significance in the fact you mentioned that she was Chinese and that "everyone in China is talking about the airline"? 

So she could have been from England and everyone in England is talking about the airline?

She could have been from Egypt and everyone from Egypt is talking about the airline? 

She could have been been from Russia and everyone from Russia is talking about the airline? 

No sir, you played the race card . You just can't admit it.


----------



## james4beach

Yes I think it's noteworthy that she's from China and referenced that the Chinese community is talking about this incident.

Personally I don't think United was discriminating against Chinese people.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

Go easy James, I think wraphter is becoming unwrapht. 

"Let anyone of you who is without sin..." :nightmare: ? 
What the heck is this, some bizarre Easter homily from one of our 3 ungodliest trolls?


----------



## mrPPincer

First (let the last be first lol, jezus freak(jk))


wraphter said:


> "Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her."
> 
> 
> Judge not, that ye be not judged.
> 
> 2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
> 
> 3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?


This is *canadian* money forum, no need for the bible thumping antics. News flash, it don't work here, wrong country.

___



wraphter said:


> The Chinese media is not free ,so no, they do not have as much freedom as we have. It wasn't me who politicized this thread and introduced the question of race,
> it was james. Dao's lawyer explicitly said race was not a determining factor. You and james think it is.


That's not what olivaw said.
He said (paraphrasing), 'do not Chinese people have a right to discuss'.


olivaw said:


> Don't Chinese people have as much right to discuss North America we have to discuss China?


Not anything about varying freedom levels.
Also nobody introduced race as a question out of the three of you except yourself.

James merely introduced the personal anecdote of a discussion with a neighbour who suggested that the entire nation of China was looking closely at this fiasco of United Airlines (not even close to the first fiasco btw, which imho shows a serious flaw in their corporate culture).

Do you think because China has some issues here and there that this won't hit the bottom line of United Airlines in asian business?

Americans, yeah, they will likely forget in four or five days maybe, but it will take a little longer for the rest of us.

This is just one more nail in the coffin. They have shown they will never learn, all they will ever do is damage control after the fact, not find a corporate fix.

___


For myself, I will never, ever, fly United, and wouldn't have, after seeing Dave Carroll's YouTube videos eight years ago. 

New message from Dave Carroll.. (still not done watching it myself but here's the link)..


----------



## Just a Guy

Seems like the pilots don't agree with the actions, nor felt there was any safety issues...

As the story of United Express Flight 3411, operated by Republic Airline, continues to virally circulate in the news and on social media, your United Master Executive Council (MEC) has intentionally withheld judgment because of the rapid pace at which information, both accurate and inaccurate, has been released and manipulated.

The safety and well-being of our passengers is the highest priority for United pilots, and this should not have escalated into a violent encounter. United pilots are infuriated by this event. This occurred on one of our contracted Express carriers, separately owned and operated by Republic Airline, and was ultimately caused by the grossly inappropriate response by the Chicago Department of Aviation.

It is important to review these baseline facts:

1. This violent incident should never have happened and was a result of gross excessive force by Chicago Department of Aviation personnel.

2. No United employees were involved in the physical altercation.

3. Social media ire should properly be directed at the Chicago Aviation Department.

4. This occurred on an Express flight operated by Republic Airline, as such, the flight crew and cabin crew of Flight 3411 are employees of Republic Airline, not United Airlines.

5. United Airlines CEO Oscar Munoz has apologized for United Airlines, the actions of the Chicago Department of Aviation, and the actions of our Express partner, Republic Airline.

On April 9, 2017, United Express Flight 3411, operated by Republic, was preparing to depart Chicago O’Hare (ORD) to Louisville (SDF). Republic Airline made the decision to assign four of their crewmembers to deadhead on Flight 3411 within minutes of the scheduled departure. Although four passengers would have to be removed from this flight to accommodate the Republic crew, the goal was to get the other 70 passengers on their way to SDF and ensure a flight crew needed the next day would also be in place. By all reports, the Republic flight crew was courteous and calm throughout the event, and three passengers left the flight voluntarily for compensation. After repeatedly asking the fourth passenger to give up his seat to no avail, the gate agent requested the assistance of law enforcement.

For reasons unknown to us, instead of trained Chicago Police Department officers being dispatched to the scene, Chicago Department of Aviation personnel responded. At this point, without direction and outside the control of United Airlines or the Republic crew, the Chicago Department of Aviation forcibly removed the passenger.

Members of local airport law enforcement are normally important security partners who assist aircrews in ensuring the safety of everyone on the airplane. This event was an anomaly and is not how United or the police are expected to treat passengers when there is no security threat.

United pilots have always been the true leaders of this company, and our fellow employees count on us to continue to do what we do best—deliver a world class product and safely transport our passengers around the world. We cannot let this huge distraction affect our ability to do our jobs. We have successfully flown through more turbulent times, and we will weather this storm as well.

Ultimately, United must be measured by more than this one incident on a single United Express flight; this airline is comprised of more than 82,000 employees, including over 12,500 pilots, working every day to safely fly around the globe. For 91 years, United has earned the trust of millions of passengers, and we will continue earning their trust, despite the incident on this United Express flight. The United Airlines MEC is confident that the steps we are taking as a company will ensure this type of inexcusable event never happens again.”


----------



## mrPPincer

Sorry JAG, source please, or is this your original writing?

In any case all it looks like to me is a hell of a lot of back-pedalling and blaming, which doesn't seem like a positive sign to me.


----------



## Just a Guy

Oh yes, I make this stuff up all the time to justify my opinion...

there are multiple sites posting the statement, here's one...

http://www.businessinsider.com/united-airlines-pilots-letter-2017-4

It's not the one I originally saw, but you can google as many as you'd like...

I guess it wasn't a planned deadhead either...


----------



## mrPPincer

np, just, it's that it's standard procedure to add a link to the quote, and it wasn't entirely clear that your post was a quote, that's all.


----------



## carverman

mrPPincer said:


> *Sorry JAG, source please,* or is this your original writing?
> 
> In any case all it looks like to me is a hell of a lot of back-pedalling and blaming, which doesn't seem like a positive sign to me.


I concur. 
JAG, please supply link when quoting sources. Some of us may want to see what other info is available.
So from the above, it appears that the regional airline (Republic) is the one that may be sued. They must be a United partner, hence the earlier reports and confusion.


----------



## Just a Guy

For those who "want to see what other information is available", I'd give the same advice as I give someone who "wants to learn how to make money"...

Do some of your own research. 

Too many people come here to be spoon fed answers...

"Tell me what stocks to buy to make me a fortune, l'm too lazy to do it myself and besides I just want the money and you've already done the work, no point in me having to think."

If you think I'm a liar, or you want to educate yourself, google is your friend. It doesn't take much effort to type in a search. Heck, some people on this thread were too lazy to even watch the videos before commenting...even though the link was provided.

In this case it was the top result in the news section when you searched for the united airlines story, not like you had to go digging...


----------



## mrPPincer

Again, it's simply standard procedure to add a link when quoting somebody, or at the very least mention who it is that you're quoting.


----------



## Just a Guy

It's also "standard procedure" for people to ask to be spoon fed information, it doesn't mean it's right.

Besides, I felt I had mentioned who I was quoting by adding "the pilots", before posting what, to anyone who's ever read a few press releases should have recognized by the wording as, was obviously was a press release.

You'll note that, despite the link later provided, carverman didn't even bother to google who "United Master Executive Council (MEC)" actually are, instead preferring to comment on what he assumes "regional airline (Republic)" is in regard to united.

First thing I googled when I originally read the article to make sure this wasn't "fake news" before posting...

My "standard procedure" is to actually source my information before commenting or posting. If others tried it, we probably wouldn't have a thread on fake news.


----------



## carverman

Just a Guy said:


> For those who "want to see what other information is available", I'd give the same advice as I give someone who "wants to learn how to make money"...
> 
> Do some of your own research.
> 
> Too many people come here to be spoon fed answers...
> 
> If you think I'm a liar, or you want to educate yourself, google is your friend. It doesn't take much effort to type in a search. Heck, some people on this thread were too lazy to even watch the videos before commenting...even though the link was provided.
> 
> In this case it was the top result in the news section when you searched for the united airlines story, not like you had to go digging...


This forum has definitely gone DOWNHILL! 

Dont take a hairy! it was just a courteous request to insert a link. Yes, I can google for any information that I need on line, so I definitely don't need YOU or your "advice'...sheesh!..some people!


----------



## Just a Guy

Sorry, I forgot only others are allowed to be insulted by comments. I'm not allowed to be. I'd point out that I found your comments to be insulting to begin with (since it questions my integrity), but then you'd claim there was no intent so you didn't contribute to the "down grade". 

I also find it insulting when people ask "which stock should I buy because I'm too lazy to do research", and similar questions (as I felt this question was since I posted the press release verbatim), but then you didn't intend to insult in your mind, so I'm wrong. 

Maybe this was being used as an example of how people should choose to phrase their replies better, but you didn't think of that did you? Oh wait, you too insult from it, so it must be me...


----------



## olivaw

[JAG, I can't imagine that anybody on this forum questions your integrity. You've been a positive contributor for years. ]

On a lighter note, a few weeks ago United CEO Oscar Muñoz was named "_Communicator of the Year for 2017_" by _PRWeek_. 

Says _PRWeek _ now:



> _‘It’s fair to say that if PRWeek was choosing its Communicator of the Year now, we would not be awarding it to Oscar Munoz.’_


http://www.marketwatch.com/story/pr...munoz-the-top-communicator-of-2017-2017-04-13

:barbershop_quartet_


----------



## andrewf

Why talk to people if you resent them politely asking for more detail?


----------



## humble_pie

i've often seen instances on here where a cmffer will quote a long text verbatim, without links or quote marks or any indication that the document is not his own authorship.

in nearly every case, it's easy to discern, from the language signature of the quoted document, that it is the product of a different writer.

when JAG presented the pilots' long text abovethread, it was easy to see that it came from the pilots' PR representatives. It was transparently obvious that it was not JAG's own writing.

perhaps it's time to recall that this is just a chat forum. It's not a formal hearing for a PhD candidate to defend his doctoral dissertation before faculty committee. Fast happens here.

.


----------



## james4beach

humble_pie said:


> when JAG presented the pilots' long text abovethread, it was easy to see that it came from the pilots' PR representatives. It was transparently obvious that it was not JAG's own writing.
> 
> perhaps it's time to recall that this is just a chat forum.


I agree, this is an informal chat place. We don't expect every message to be perfectly accurate. There are just a few rules:
http://canadianmoneyforum.com/announcement.php?f=2


----------



## wraphter

The poster can at least use the quote function instead of making it appear 
to be his own creation. Also it is not good for me to copy the whole text. It
Approaches copyright infringement.
Also it is onerous and time consuming to read as long passages contain
a lot of extraneous material. 
The idea is to sample a passage and provide commentary and original
Interpretation.

Perhaps some try to make it look bigger than it really is.


----------



## mrPPincer

wraphter said:


> The poster can at least use the quote function instead of making it appear
> to be his own creation. Also it is not good for me to copy the whole text. It
> Approaches copyright infringement.
> Also it is onerous and time consuming to read as long passages contain
> a lot of extraneous material.
> The idea is to sample a passage and provide commentary and original
> Interpretation.
> 
> Perhaps some try to make it look bigger than it really is.





olivaw said:


> [JAG, I can't imagine that anybody on this forum questions your integrity. You've been a positive contributor for years. ]


Exactly, no offense was meant by either Carverman or me, and he provided a source when asked, so lets all drop it and move on please.

Sometimes things get misread, especially late at night. On a forum like this there are no audio or visual cues to read as in a normal face to face conversation.

I've been very recently in the situation on this same forum of misreading something and mistakenly taking offence so I am certainly not one to point fingers.


----------



## Just a Guy

Copyright a press release are you serious? You do know the point of a press release right?
If you don't want to read the whole post, skip it.
If I edited it, I'd be accused of changing the message, perhaps inserting a bias due to selective editing. Besides, it addressed several different issues in different sections from police, to pilots, to deadheading all relevant to the topic...


----------



## james4beach

I'd like to remind everyone to review the forum rules:
http://canadianmoneyforum.com/announcement.php?f=12

In particular,

10. Discrimination against individual sexual preferences, race, or religion will not be tolerated. *Personal attacks of any sort are uncalled for and will not be tolerated*. This includes sending messages through the private messaging system.

11. There will no longer be a warning sent to those who *personally attack another member or hurl hate filled messages at groups of people*.


----------



## wraphter

Just a Guy said:


> Copyright a press release are you serious? You do know the point of a press release right?
> If you don't want to read the whole post, skip it.
> If I edited it, I'd be accused of changing the message, perhaps inserting a bias due to selective editing. Besides, it addressed several different issues in different sections from police, to pilots, to deadheading all relevant to the topic...


I was referring to a news article when I was talking about copyright infringement. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. When one is presented with a behemoth of an
article ,one might think that some obfuscation was intended. Wouldn't you agree?


----------



## Nelley

james4beach said:


> I'd like to remind everyone to review the forum rules:
> http://canadianmoneyforum.com/announcement.php?f=12
> 
> In particular,
> 
> 10. Discrimination against individual sexual preferences, race, or religion will not be tolerated. *Personal attacks of any sort are uncalled for and will not be tolerated*. This includes sending messages through the private messaging system.
> 
> 11. There will no longer be a warning sent to those who *personally attack another member or hurl hate filled messages at groups of people*.


Stalker: Stop sending me private messages.


----------



## mrPPincer

Hahaha yeah as soon as I read it I thought yeah, that's Nelly.


----------



## james4beach

Nelley said:


> Stalker: Stop sending me private messages.


Nelley, please take the private message seriously. That message I sent you was CC'ed to the CMF moderators. You are welcome to stay on CMF but you must stop the personal attacks and name-calling.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

james4beach said:


> I agree, this is an informal chat place. We don't expect every message to be perfectly accurate. There are just a few rules:
> http://canadianmoneyforum.com/announcement.php?f=2


James, I appreciate the reminder you provided. Unfortunately, based on the continued presence of a few posters, it seems clear that the forum rules are not being enforced anymore. There is no longer any moderation. If there is, I invite a moderator to post to the contrary and advise us of any actions they have taken this year. A few 'stats' as it were.

Unfortunately, I think one needs to be prepared to ignore this aspect of the forum these days if they are going to come and look for posts of value and interest. 

At the risk of same, I'd say its a bit like having to walk through a field of horse sh^t to get past the braying horse, or a yard of dog sh^t to get past the yapping dog.


----------



## james4beach

If you look back over this thread you'll find that most of Nelley's offensive posts have been deleted, which means there has been moderator action within 1-2 days of the posts


----------



## heyjude

james4beach said:


> If you look back over this thread you'll find that most of Nelley's offensive posts have been deleted, which means there has been moderator action within 1-2 days of the posts


James, thank you for responding promptly to my request for moderation. Obviously my concerns are shared by other members. I understand that you are a recent addition to the moderator team. In the recent past, many offensive posts have littered this forum. Not only does this detract from good discussion, but also it is driving people away. In the future, for everyone's sake, I hope we will see more proactive moderation so that this forum becomes a welcoming place for good ideas and civil discourse.


----------



## mrPPincer

^if so, awesome choice, I couldn't think of a better more stable reasonable thoughtful youngster for the job.

Not an easy job I can imagine. For one, I can see the problem of removing offensive posts from a thread after the thread has gone on for a bit messing the context up from a reader's viewpoint.

But yeah, hate speak should go, it's poisoning imho.


----------



## Nelley

james4beach said:


> Nelley, please take the private message seriously. That message I sent you was CC'ed to the CMF moderators. You are welcome to stay on CMF but you must stop the personal attacks and name-calling.


This is Canadian Money Forum-your constant attempts to turn the discussion towards race differences and racism I find personally offensive and disgusting and I am not the only person that feels this way-you have been warned-clean up your act.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

Nelley said:


> This is Canadian Money Forum-your constant attempts to turn the discussion towards race differences and racism I find personally offensive and disgusting and I am not the only person that feels this way-you have been warned-clean up your act.


I disagree. I believe you are seriously misinterpreting Jame's posts and that you ARE the only person who feels this way. Jame's contributions would be sorely missed, but yours not at all.


----------



## olivaw

James is a moderator now? Great news. Active moderation on this forum has been sorely missed.


----------



## Nelley

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> I disagree. I believe you are seriously misinterpreting Jame's posts and that you ARE the only person who feels this way. Jame's contributions would be sorely missed, but yours not at all.


You can believe anything you want-and don't resort to petty insults-you have been warned Offender.


----------



## new dog

It is good that James is a moderator here. Even so I hope he posts as he normally does, as I have enjoyed the debates on the other threads.


----------



## Beaver101

new dog said:


> *It is good that James is a moderator here. Even so I hope he posts as he normally does*, as I have enjoyed the debates on the other threads.


 ... +1. Perfect fit as moderator as he's balanced and fair in addition to being knowledgeable.


----------



## Beaver101

Nelley said:


> This is Canadian Money Forum-your constant attempts to turn the discussion towards race differences and racism I find personally offensive and disgusting and I am not the only person that feels this way-you have been warned-clean up your act.


 ... wow, the Nelley the brave lying racist troll telling the moderator off ... keep pushing your luck.


----------



## wraphter

Beaver101 said:


> ... +1. Perfect fit as moderator as he's balanced and fair in addition to being knowledgeable.


Unlike yourself (#301)



Beaver101 said:


> ... wow, you really took alot of efforts to dig up Dr. Dao's past ... are you planning on suing him?* Did he molested you?*





Beaver101 said:


> ... well, you didn't want to volunteer as moderator and that's what you get, unwelcomed alien degenerates. Besides the racist Nelley troll* needs a good ***-kicking* right out of our forum unless you welcome that kind of continued degradation.
> 
> Yep, Dr. Dao is gonna get rich ... courtesy of UAssline. Hmmm... let's see which side of its CEO will do the talking now.


#285



> Or maybe Wraphter *would rather see him dead* instead so that the pathetic money-grubbing mouthpiece rom Vietnam can be silenced in the land of home and free in the USA! Which keeps reminding me of Rodney King.
> 
> Wraphter - by chance do you work for UAssline or related to them?





Beaver101 said:


> ^ I'm my own boss and it's about time you clean your dump out from mommy's basement.


Emphasis added above

Did he molest me? What kind of way to talk is that?

I hope you will recognize abuse when you see it james.


----------



## Nelley

Beaver101 said:


> ... wow, the Nelley the brave lying racist troll telling the moderator off ... keep pushing your luck.


The reality is that I would never consider associating with something like yourself other than on a forum like this-if you can ignore me I can certainly ignore you Einstein.


----------



## Beaver101

wraphter said:


> Unlike yourself (#301) ... Did he molest me? What kind of way to talk is that?


 ... responding in kind, dear.





#285





Emphasis added above

Did he molest me? What kind of way to talk is that?

I hope you will recognize abuse when you see it james.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Beaver101

^ No need to associate with me racist troll. If you're ignoring me, why respond? Oh ... better duck as here comes the horseshit spew.


----------



## Just a Guy

I'm waiting for James to come down the aisle and beat everyone to a pulp for being belligerent...


----------



## james4beach

This thread is really running hot for some reason, so I think it might be best to freeze this thread. The discussion does not seem to be productive at this point.


----------

