Passenger dragged off overbooked United flight

[Chock 17,769]

16 hours ago, VeryBumpy said:

Re: CNN video, as I expected, the Dr. accidentally hit his face while resisting arrest. No one beat him up.

Intended or not, the injury occurred as a result of them pulling him so hard that he smashed his face into an armrest, so there can be no ambiguity in stating that the actions of the security staff caused that injury. Given that all this is on video, pretty much any lawyer will have no problem whatsoever in establishing that to a court. That is where things are going to get very serious for those who caused that injury because..

From my experience, it looks very much to me like the guy could be concussed when you see him later in the footage; he is rambling about having to get home and does not appear to be completely 'with it'. It's pretty plain when we see that, that he's - rather unsurprisingly - suffering from emotional shock, but more seriously, given the fact that he's had a blow to the head, is bleeding and seems somewhat incoherent, and that it looked like he had passed out as they dragged him out of the aeroplane, he very possibly suffered an internal head injury which could cause medical shock too. Later when we see him back on the aeroplane, that shock looks like it is approaching stage 2. Anyone who knows anything about first aid will be aware that stage 2 shock is pretty serious; it can progress to stage 3 shock if untreated, and stage 3 shock absolutely is a life-threatening condition since it will cause major organs to shut down.

His lawyer is going to have a field day with that one, because when all that is related in court, it will be relatively easy to suggest that they potentially endangered his life with their actions, and they ain't gonna settle that one with a couple of grand compensation, we are talking seven figures, and that's not even taking into account any claims he might also make about PTSD.

[HiFlyer 9,359]

2 hours ago, Chock said:

His lawyer is going to have a field day with that one, because when all that is related in court, it will be relatively easy to suggest that they potentially endangered his life with their actions, and they ain't gonna settle that one with a couple of grand compensation, we are talking seven figures, and that's not even taking into account any claims he might also make about PTSD.

They are pretty much screwed.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/united-passenger-millions-coming-attorneys-article-1.3052936

[anden145 2,285]

4 hours ago, Chock said:

Intended or not, the injury occurred as a result of them pulling him so hard that he smashed his face into an armrest, so there can be no ambiguity in stating that the actions of the security staff caused that injury. 

That's true... 

But there's a difference, between sustaining an injury, while resisting cooperation and security officers / officials actually 'beating him up' as it was laid out in media. 

Personally I think it's a really sad situation, but the poor doctor is not blameless... it's poorly handled by the police/officials, but he's obligated to comply with directions from the crew. If not, they have the option to deny him access to the aircraft and/or remove him. It is, however, not in United's juristiction to utilize force in order to remove him. They can require him to deplane. If he should refuse (in which case he did). They can call the authorities, which in this case, was would Airport Security officers - or the actual police. 

I remember when I was working as a bus driver. I too, had the authority of denying passengers on the bus. That would be, if I deemed the person as posing a danger, being an annoyance to other passengers or not following directions and/or abiding the rules for using the transportation (for instance not willing to purchase tickets etc...). 
If such situation arose, I could deny the person access, or ask/require him/her to dimembark. Upon refusal, it would not - however - be in my power to physically remove him. I would then stop, call the Police, and await them, to remove the person in question. 

I assume it's the same situation with the passenger on the United fligth in question. United have the right to ask/require him to deplane if he should fail to comply with the directions given by the crew or pose a security threat, somehow. Should he refuse to do so, it is not in United's power to physically remove him - which they didn't do in this case either. I don't really understand why some media reports the story, as United has injured the man, when it wasn't United employees which 'dragged' him off... 

I'm not really 'going to take sides' in this situation with the passenger. I can't really judge what actually happened, from a 30-second video. Clearly he was harshly handled, but I really doubt that the episode is as black and white as some are laying it out to be... 

[Chock 17,769]

2 minutes ago, Anders Gron said:

 Clearly he was harshly handled, but I really doubt that the episode is as black and white as some are laying it out to be... 

Yup, there's no doubt he could have been smarter about it, but as it stands it's now a damage limitation exercise for United. My guess is they'll offer him a few million to go away and not proceed to court, it'll be quicker and less expensive for them and will take the story out of the news ASAP, which is going to be their main concern.

[Slayer 190]

I see a big problem if he got injured "resisting arrest" while the people yanking him about probably don't have any real authority to actually arrest him.... Many of the so called facts in this story are not facts after all, just poor sensationalised reporting.

Several parties will be getting sued over this debacle.

[Alan_A 1,650]

There's no question that Dr. Dao's behavior made the situation worse.  Things might have been better - or at least less violent - if he'd been able to maintain his self-control.  But it's a bit of a closed loop - he loses control because the cabin crew and the gate agents are telling him to do something that seems on the face of it pretty unreasonable.  "You have to get off the plane because we need your seat for a business reason."  It's not as though he refused a safety directive.  Pretty much 50/50 whether he misbehaved or was provoked. If they don't make the request, he sits in his seat and gets off at the end.  He's just another passenger.

Think of it this way.  It's a very different situation if, say, he's sitting in an exit row, the cabin attendant asks him if he's willing to operate the exit in case of emergency, and he says "no."  So the cabin attendant tells him to move to another seat, and he refuses.  In this case there's a clear safety reason for the request, the passenger knows about the requirement because exit row passengers are made aware of it when they pick the seat, and by refusing, he's endangering other passengers.  In that scenario, most of us are likely to agree that the cabin crew is being reasonable and the passenger is being unreasonable.

A real-life example - earlier in this thread, I mentioned that United Barcelona-to-DC flight where they boarded the extra standby passenger.  Something else that happened on that flight was that a family boarded with a small child who was running a very high fever.   Right after the extra standby passenger was put off the plane and the doors were closed, the cabin crew called for a doctor.  The child had been better that morning (which is why the family boarded) but took a turn for the worse.  After the child got medical attention, there was a long negotiation involving the family, the flight crew, gate attendants and security personnel.  At the end of it, the family was put off the plane - in spite of the fact that they didn't want to go.  Clearly a safety issue - a transatlantic flight with limited opportunities to divert, plus the risk of contagion.  Passengers were unhappy, but in a general sense of "can anything else go wrong today?"  Nobody questioned what the cabin crew was doing because it was obviously a safety matter, for us and for the family, too.

United 3411 is different, and gets a different reaction, because the airline wasn't acting out of safety, it was acting out of business need - not looking out for passengers' interests but putting its own interests first.  It gets people angry not only because of the obvious and unnecessary brutality (unnecessary because there were alternatives), but also because a lot of people have had their interests subordinated to those of airlines and other big companies, and they've had enough.  The story has legs because it's a high-relief example of something people are already angry about.  It's a last straw.

The fact that the airline is acting out of its own self interest makes the cabin crew's instructions a bit more equivocal.  We accept that we have to follow the instructions of the cabin crew because we understand that our safety is at stake.  Safety is the context.  Do we have to do anything the cabin crew tells us, no matter what?  Thought experiment - if the cabin crew tells you to pour gasoline on yourself and set yourself on fire, do you have to comply because it's a cabin crew instruction?  I don't think so.  What about if the cabin crew says, "you have to get off the plane because we don't like the way you look?"  Not sure that calls for automatic compliance either.  The point being that the cabin crew's authority isn't absolute, it's there for a reason.  In the absence of the reason, it doesn't necessarily apply.

Something else that's getting lost here - we're talking about this as if it's purely a case of airline vs. passenger.  But the airline personnel are having a wretched experience, too.  Not defending this particular crew - they screwed up big-time.  But in general, airline employees are victimized by corporate greed as much as the passengers are.  Instead of talking about bad passengers and good airlines, we should be talking about how all of us - passengers and rank-and-file personnel - are getting the short end.  Natural outcome when the airlines focus on their investors and their financial needs to the exclusion of everything else.

The golden age, this is not.

[lownslo 592]

Thru their union United Pilots have weighed in on the incident: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/united-airlines-pilots-infuriated-by-grossly-inappropriate-dragging-of-passenger/

Greg

[scott967 62]

26 minutes ago, lownslo said:

Thru their union United Pilots have weighed in on the incident: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/united-airlines-pilots-infuriated-by-grossly-inappropriate-dragging-of-passenger/

As expected United Pilots union wants to separate themselves from actions of Republic and its pilots (though other than DHing, Republic crew seem not directly involved).

We have a somewhat related incident here at PHNL recently.  Airport is operated by the state and they contracted with state sheriffs for "policing".  At some point (local media haven't followed up yet) a private security company (dba "Securitas") was contracted to provide "some" duties and there seems to have been accretion of duties, such that now at least some employees carry firearms and dress with "uniforms" with "POLICE" on the back (undoubtedly to solicit compliance with whatever "order" the employee gives).  one of these "POLICE" shot and killed the dog belonging to an arriving PAX who had uncrated the dog and was waiting outside PAX terminal for pickup.  Circumstances behind the shooting are under investigation, but the pertinent part is the use of persons with unknown training/accountability as "POLICE" (so-called).

scott s.

.

 

[HiFlyer 9,359]

I mentioned before that other companies were probably doing hasty reviews of their own policies to avoid ending up in the same trick-box as United, and here we have some movement: http://money.cnn.com/2017/04/14/news/companies/delta-10000-overbooked-flight/index.html

[Alan_A 1,650]

And here's a law enforcement perspective, as published in The Hill: Cops Should Never Have Been Called to the United Incident.  

Excerpts:

Quote

 

When passenger Dr. David Dao refused to vacate his seat so that United could seat a flight crew, it compounded the airlines lack of negotiating skills.

...these Aviation Department Security Officers were assigned a task they should not have been invited into. They found themselves enforcing an airline rule, rather than civil law...

In regards to.. removal... the pilot and flight crew have significant autonomy but usually, reserve such actions for those who are drunk or creating an issue.  

In other words, for cause and that cause is covered by statute thereby giving law enforcement the authority to act.

That was not the case with this incident. By all accounts, Dao had done nothing other than having the misfortune to be picked at random for removal simply because United Airlines needed to send four of its employees to another airport to crew another plane....

...were the law enforcement officers justified in using force to remove Dao under these circumstances...?

... I reached out to several police officers assigned to airports around the country.  

The answers were consistent but were best summed up by one Sergeant assigned to a major airport.

“I don't know the policy of Chicago PD or the State of Illinois, but it was a business dispute. Our procedure seeks to keep the peace, and that’s pretty much it," the officer said. "The only time I would allow officers to remove someone from an aircraft forcefully is if a crime has been committed. Other than that they paid for the seat and it’s a civil matter."

"Airlines have been trying to get us to remove passengers all the time for different reasons, and I have to explain to them we are not their bouncers. Our job is to keep the peace. I have been beefed (complained about) by airlines for not removing passengers, but luckily my management has backed me. The question then arises that the airline can claim that the person is trespassing, but that doesn't hold water because the airline was paid for the seat which still makes it a civil matter.”

In the absence of... guidelines, had competent supervision been in place at both airline and law enforcement levels to make rational, intelligent decisions I doubt the whole ugly situation would have occurred.

 

The author is a law enforcement officer himself (and pretty well known in that community).  The article also includes more about the Chicago Aviation Department Security detail and how they differ from Chicago PD.

Overall, a new level of detail, worth reading.

 

[anden145 2,285]

Interesting reading... thanks for sharing.

[HighBypass 2,339]

Very interesting. Thanks. Seems like United are about to become Untied quite quickly.... 

[WarpD 824]

Where are those who were defending United's actions earlier?

 

It's been shown that they were wrong with regards to the carttage contract and that there was no authority to physically remove the passenger... not even a 'my bad' from them?

[Boomer 1,619]

Airline staff demand you deboard, you deboard and litigate etc after.  Period.

...and was that him screaming like a little girl?  How sad for him

[anden145 2,285]

1 hour ago, Boomer said:

Airline staff demand you deboard, you deboard and litigate etc after.  Period.

Agreed! It kinda ends there...