I like how Daily Mail only provides a snippet of the page to push whatever agenda they have. Why not provide the whole page? Hmmm

People keep throwing the "overbooked" argument out there but wasn't an overbook situation, that was a lie to cover their butts. That lie keeps getting perpetuated further by other media, newspaper and radio,  because no one fact checks their stories anymore before rushing to print (better to be first then right these days I guess?)

 

So... I read the blog from the pilot's wife... and then I did what the pilot's wife suggested and I pulled up Southwestern's contract of carriage.  I read it... all of it.  The pertinent part is section 6 titled "Acceptance of Passengers" in subsection a titled "Refusal To Transport".  It is the part that gives the airline the contractual right to remove you or prevent you from boarding their aircraft.  Unfortunately, none of the reasons include bumping for a company employee deadheading.  United most likely will be unable to show just cause for removal of the passenger in a court.

16 minutes ago, Slayer said:

People keep throwing the "overbooked" argument out there but wasn't an overbook situation, that was a lie to cover their butts. That lie keeps getting perpetuated further by other media, newspaper and radio,  because no one fact checks their stories anymore before rushing to print (better to be first then right these days I guess?)

In addition to the above, and not in any way excusing the violence the Airport Police used, it is also a fact that initially Dr. Dao and his wife agreed to accept the $800 + hotel voucher. Apparently Dr. Dao changed his mind and remained seated.

Again, I emphasize that this should never have been allowed to escalate to this juncture. What I find most disturbing is the tendency of some police officers to go from "zero to full out violence" at the drop of a hat! They are supposed to be properly trained to "de-escalate" situations, not incite them...

Edited April 13, 20179 yr by n4gix
Edited to remove unverified information about the actual sequence of events.

Link to show that information?

6 minutes ago, WarpD said:

Link to show that information?

As I'm unable to find the original source for this sequence of events, I've edited the post to remove reference to it. I suspect now that it was in error, as the videos clearly show that some forcible removal happened before he re-boarded the aircraft. How else would the blood on his face be there otherwise?

What is unclear is how he was removed following the second entry. Did he remove himself or was he dragged out again?

6 minutes ago, n4gix said:

As I'm unable to find the original source for this sequence of events, I've edited the post to remove reference to it. I suspect now that it was in error, as the videos clearly show that some forcible removal happened before he re-boarded the aircraft. How else would the blood on his face be there otherwise?

What is unclear is how he was removed following the second entry. Did he remove himself or was he dragged out again?

Here is a more complete picture given by what I was watching this morning. Warning: may be upsetting.

 

44 minutes ago, HiFlyer said:

Here is a more complete picture given by what I was watching this morning.

Thanks for sharing.

What's notable - and several commentators, including, I believe, Josh Marshall, have pointed this out - is that nowhere on any of the extensive videos, and nowhere in any of the post-incident coverage, is there any single passenger who's taken the side of the airline.  The point being that if the passenger had initially been disruptive - before the gate agents, cabin crew and then police tried to unseat him - at least a couple of people would probably have said something along the lines of "Thank god" or "Finally somebody's going to deal with him."  There's none of that.  Everybody seems horrified.  That suggests strongly there was no problem before United created one.

Additional background - here's a good piece on how United got itself into this mess.

Quote

The scandal is the predictable byproduct of a relentless obsession with filling planes to absolute maximum capacity coupled with open and invidious discrimination in the treatment of customers. It is a strategy that (along with those nasty baggage and change fees) yielded almost $10 billion in profit over the last two years. But the overload and discrimination are a toxic combination; the human costs, to state the obvious, have become apparent.

And here's a more extensive history the past 40 years in the US airline industry, and how that history led us to where we are now.    

Quote

 

This particular case resonated with the public because it was unusual and egregious — a sumptuous blend of a moderately rare edge case doused with a hefty dose of poor judgment.

But it also resonated because it felt, in many ways, not so unusual. Anyone who flies regularly has experienced the endless indignities of modern air travel — the security theater, the cramped seats, the delays, the missed flights, and all the rest. Making it particularly egregious is the reality that the crucial ingredient of consumer choice seems to be missing. Most of us have at one time or another sworn to ourselves that we will “never” again fly on one airline or another, only to discover that there are very few airlines one can switch to and that they all seem dismal in their own way.

The airline industry, unfortunately, suffers from some serious business model flaws — most notably very high fixed costs in the form of buying and maintaining aircraft, and the problem that a half-empty flight is almost as expensive to operate as a full one.

Most of us fondly remember a time in the not-so-distant past when the United States had many more airlines and much more vigorous competition between them. This was a true blessing for consumers, but it was genuinely unworkable economically — the consumer bounty was based on investors, bondholders, and unionized workers losing money.

So we’re now shifting into an uncomfortable era of consolidation, diminished competition, higher prices, more profits, and fewer choices. And even if choice were revived by future policymakers, experience suggests that travelers will choose lower prices over higher quality, leaving air travel a perennially frustrating experience.

 

Both are worth a look.

3 minutes ago, Alan_A said:

What's notable - and several commentators, including, I believe, Josh Marshall, have pointed this out - is that nowhere on any of the extensive videos, and nowhere in any of the post-incident coverage, is there any single passenger who's taken the side of the airline.  The point being that if the passenger had initially been disruptive - before the gate agents, cabin crew and then police tried to unseat him - at least a couple of people would probably have said something along the lines of "Thank god" or "Finally somebody's going to deal with him."  There's none of that.  Everybody seems horrified.  That suggests strongly there was no problem before United created one.

Maybe because they're smart in staying out of the spotlight. Or maybe their are, but having them on TV doesn't fit the social outrage narrative.

I mean look at the attitude by some in this thread towards those who imply the good Doctor may not be 100% blameless in this. If you don't agree with the social media mob mentality, it can be dangerous for you. 

Just now, RedSpinnaker said:

Maybe because they're smart in staying out of the spotlight. Or maybe their are, but having them on TV doesn't fit the social outrage narrative.

I mean look at the attitude by some in this thread towards those who imply the good Doctor may not be 100% blameless in this. If you don't agree with the social media mob mentality, it can be dangerous for you. 

Staying out of the spotlight - might be true of the post-incident sit-down interviews.  But the on-the-plane videos are different - a spontaneous reaction.

As to the Doctor's reaction - it's not ideal, but I don't think that translates to blame.  Basic rights aren't conditional.  

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

50 minutes ago, VeryBumpy said:

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

But if the police were not called in the first place, none of this would have happened. 

United has already acknowledged the Police should never have been called to handle their Administrative Duties. I feel bad for the Cop that is now on Administrative Leave because of all this, he shouldn't have been put in that situation in the first place.

I don't feel bad for the cop... who, by the way, isn't a cop.  New complicating factors - the Chicago Aviation Police aren't police officers.  They've clashed with Chicago PD in the recent past.  The question surfaced today about why they were wearing jackets with "Police" written on them, after they were explicitly ordered in January not to.  

Quote

A directive had been issued in January to change labels on aviation security officers' jackets to read "security" instead of "police," according to the [Chicago Department of Aviation] commissioner. Evans said she would “prefer to answer at a later time" as to why the ASOs' outfits still read "police" on Sunday.

I agree completely that the Aviation officers found themselves in a situation created by United.  But a really skilled police officer might have found another way around it.  It wouldn't be out of the ordinary for a smart, experienced cop to talk to the passenger, then take the gate agent aside and say, "Look, this guy is really agitated, I'm concerned we're going to get into a confrontation that's hard to control.  Does it absolutely have to be this guy?  Isn't there anyone else you can ask to volunteer?"  

In other words, the officers had a lot of power and a lot of discretion.  They didn't need to obey the airline's directives or act as its security force.

Overall, to me, this story is about two organizations - the airline and the Chicago Aviation Police - with a lot of power and a lot of discretion, failing to exercise their discretion and using their power badly.  The passenger, by contrast, has very little power and discretion.  He can comply or he can, in some form or other, resist.  There's a significant power disparity at the heart of this.
 

3 hours ago, VeryBumpy said:

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

You mean like those Russian dissidents that fall "accidentally" out of fourth-story windows while under interrogation?

Look, I've got a question for the authoritarians (I don't know what else to call you) in this discussion - are you really that devoted to keeping the peace as an absolute value that you'd insist on it under any circumstances, at any cost?

I mentioned Rosa Parks in a post above.  Now, please read carefully here - I'm not suggesting that Dr. Dao is Rosa Parks, and his attorney isn't insisting on that either (though, side note, I'd be interested to know what criteria United used to make its "random" selection).  But my question is, let's say we're back in 1955, and the incident on the Montgomery bus has just happened.  If we apply consistently the standards and arguments being advanced here by the pro-United voices, wouldn't we necessarily have to say that Rosa Parks is completely in the wrong?  I mean, she's violated a municipal law, she refused to obey the direct order of the municipal authorities at the scene (first the bus driver, a city employee, and then the police officers).  And she greatly inconvenienced the other passengers, who had to sit there and weren't able to get home because the bus had to stay out of service until she was removed.  Is that really the conclusion you want to come to?  If so, I'd like to hear why you feel that way.  If not, I'd like to know why you think that situation was different and why a different standard should be applied to it.

Here's a related question - should Hugh Thompson have been court-martialed?  A lot of people thought so.  After all, he ordered his crew to train their weapons on American soldiers in the field.  He had no command authority to do that, and the soldiers had command authority to do what they were doing.  So in a very literal sense he failed to respect authority.  What's your take on that?  Again, I'm looking for consistency, and at the same time trying to get a sense of what the basis is for your arguments?
 

Quote

Thompson was condemned and ostracized by many individuals in the United States military and government, as well as the public, for his role in the investigations and trials concerning the My Lai massacre... In 1998, 30 years after the massacre, Thompson and the two other members of his crew, Glenn Andreotta and Lawrence Colburn, were awarded the Soldier's Medal (Andreotta posthumously), the United States Army's highest award for bravery not involving direct contact with the enemy

What I'm trying to suggest is that defying authority has a rich history.  Whole countries have been created in acts of disobedience.  Would we be better off if people were meek and submissive all the time, under all circumstances?

A last thing (for this round) to consider - the people in this thread who are defending Dr. Dao aren't exactly an anarchist mob.  I make my living supporting corporations, including big ones.  I'm married to a US federal enforcement attorney.  We've heard from airline pilots and aviation professionals.  I'm sure at some point we'll hear from law enforcement professionals.  So far, the "establishment" voices - as in, those who are members of the establishment - aren't pro-United.  So if you are, why are you?  And why do professional voices carry so little weight with you?  

I'm mainly just puzzled.  How can you defend these people?  Why do you defend them?

Inquiring minds want to know.

 

 

Hi Folks,

Well the latest I've read stated that the "officers" - were not full blown LEO's - their charge was security in the airport - they receive minimal training - they are not permitted to carry weapons - have limited power to arrest (same as you or me ?) - and may have had no jurisdiction on the plane... Maybe more like the "Life Lock" commercial - they're not "Security Guards" but "Security Monitors"...  Ouch - somebody is truly going to pay and unfortunately it might be the tax payers in Chicago...

Regards,
Scott

.. it may also be the non-LEOs who will pay personally if they had no jurisdiction on the plane.

A bit like our "hobby bobbies" in the UK: Our Police Community Support Officers have very limited powers (taking names, but no &@($*-kicking) & have to ask a real police officer to arrest (detain, beat up? :P) someone.

I've nothing against PCSO's - they can be extra eyes & ears for helping to keep citizens safe - a bit like a uniformed neighbourhood watch.

They are not actual police and had been warned and given a deadline (which has passed) to remove the "Police" label from their uniforms and replace it with "Security".

A warning and deadline that they apparently ignored.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/removal-united-passenger-shines-light-airport-police-46790388

Quote

 

A tense, three-hour hearing Thursday about what happened to a passenger dragged from his seat on a United flight exposed confusion even among Chicago city officials about the duties of the little-known police force at the center of the embarrassing episode — and warnings it likely will be overhauled.

In the middle of a tense exchange, Chicago Aviation Commissioner Ginger Evans tried to correct one alderman when he referred to the officers as police. Alderman Edward Burke retorted that the state of Illinois recognizes them as exactly that.

Evans said the officers were ordered in January to take the word "Police" off their jackets in favor of "Security," but that nobody followed through. Millions of people saw the word "Police" on the officers' jackets in the video of Kentucky physician David Dao being dragged off the jet.