2 hours ago, Boomer said:

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

This was never a safety issue... it was purely an issue of the airline furthering its own business interests at the expense of 4 passengers who had already paid, were seated aboard the aircraft, and ready to make the flight.  And then one of them refused to comply with the airline's business goals.  The airline's response, in true bullying style that permeates business these days, was to call in some thugs (illegally masquerading as police) to physically remove him... all to further the airline's business interests.  To put it bluntly, every person who placed a hand on that man will be sued and may very well face criminal prosecution.  As for the airline, they will pay a mighty settlement to the victim (and do so quickly so as to make the story go away).

Have you not availed yourself of the basics of contract law as stipulated by the UCC?  Every consumer should do so!  Have you not noticed the steady erosion of consumer rights in favor of furthering the goals and revenue principles of business (exponentially compounded by SCOTUS's 2011 decision in ATT v. Concepcion). This incident personifies just how little regard so many businesses have for the paying customer.

Greg

2 hours ago, Boomer said:

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

I respectfully disagree, for this reason - if he complies, gets off the plane, and litigates later, his matter gets resolved.  But bad policies stay in place.  Airlines like United continue to take unfair advantage of their passengers, and agencies like the Chicago Aviation Police continue to violate good standards of law enforcement.

The benefit of Dr. Dao's resistance is that bad policies are exposed, and have to be changed.  I'm not saying he set out to produce a net social benefit - he was a guy who lost control.  But there's a net social benefit nevertheless.

There's a long-established tradition for what he did.

It's easy, decades later, for us to admire people like Gandhi.  People who had to deal with him in real time didn't feel the same way.

Change is a messy business.  Peace and order aren't.  But they're not always the highest values.

Well now, the 2 above posts make good arguments and I must ponder.

20 minutes ago, Boomer said:

Well now, the 2 above posts make good arguments and I must ponder.

It's pretty complicated - which is why this is such an interesting conversation.  Lots of good arguments to think about.

3 hours ago, Boomer said:

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

Dr. Dao's wife was on board too... however, it appears she didn't get involved and yes it was him screaming.

http://people.com/human-interest/wife-united-airlines-passenger-visibly-shaken-after-altercation/

 

1 hour ago, HighBypass said:

Dr. Dao's wife was on board too... however, it appears she didn't get involved and yes it was him screaming.

I heard several times that the wife was there, but eventually decided that it must not have been true, since most spouses would tend to fling themselves on whoever was assaulting their significant other.

I can only assume she was terrified, but this brings up another issue, and this is that the airlines are supposed to avoid splitting up groups and families. 

The more information that's revealed about this whole sorry mess, the more it appears that United Airlines is miles up a well known creek without the necessary wooden propulsion device.

Never heard anything about, that the wife was onboard, until you posted that link... 
Interesting.

2 hours ago, HighBypass said:

Dr. Dao's wife was on board too... however, it appears she didn't get involved and yes it was him screaming.

http://people.com/human-interest/wife-united-airlines-passenger-visibly-shaken-after-altercation/

 

Quote

Thank you to all of the friends and friends of friends who shared my video of Dr. Dao before he was forcibly removed from our flight. For getting the word out that this passenger was no more "irate or belligerent" than any weary passenger after a long day of travel would be. He just wanted to go home, had to work the next day and did not feel it was right to have to give up his seat, a seat he was already sitting in upon the plane....

So much for the earlier claim that the good Doctor was "irate and belligerent", eh? He sounded firm and resolute, but at all times respectful and polite.

1 hour ago, n4gix said:

So much for the earlier claim that the good Doctor was "irate and belligerent", eh? He sounded firm and resolute, but at all times respectful and polite.

I am stunned by this discrepancy! (Well, not really) :-(

8 hours ago, Boomer said:

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

Imagine if Rosa Parks shared your view

39 minutes ago, ytzpilot said:

Imagine if Rosa Parks shared your view

Got nothing to do with discrimination.

30 minutes ago, Boomer said:

Got nothing to do with discrimination.

Nope but when your gut tells you something is wrong, sometimes you don't have the luxury of time to make decisions. 

The masses always have the majority that do nothing and a minority that act, in retrospect not always the best decisions are made but that's what happens with split second decisions 

one minute you are trying to get home to your family, next minute you are on the cover of newspapers all over the world. A split second decision put you there

1 hour ago, ytzpilot said:

A split second decision put you there

One minute you are negotiating with a passenger, and a moment later you have a flash of "respect my authoritah! to the head, and are dragging that passenger across the aisle. A split second decision (and some poor training) puts you there, too.

My feeling is that a lot of people involved in this just reacted very very badly to the concept of a lowly passenger challenging a decision of theirs. After all, they all (but one) had uniforms.

 

On 4/15/2017 at 9:29 AM, Alan_A said:

The benefit of Dr. Dao's resistance is that bad policies are exposed, and have to be changed.

Indeed, and often those changes are small but (ultimately) meaningful when added together.  Seems United finally might be making a baby step here: http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/united-policy-crew-displace-seated-passengers-46830554

Greg

I see three outcomes of this debacle:

1 - CoC language modified regarding denied boarding. Likely a clause giving the airline more latitude in making the determination (since you can't conceivable cover/list every possible situation) who flies on a particular flight or not.

2 - Denied boarding will take place at the gate, even if a pax has a boarding pass. They'll call you up, tell you sorry, issue you a boarding pass for your next flight.

3 - If for some reason they do need to remove someone once already boarded, ask nicely, if they say "no", deplane all the passengers/crew, start over, see #2 above.