United Airlines forcibly removes passenger on flight they (did not) overbook

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by nik-

This thread is ridiculous.

Crap airline ####s up and then is part of a terrible decision and yet here we are talking about this guy's past. People will defend anything.

True. I am not defending either side. They both played a negative role in how it turned out and both should be called out for it.

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I don't even think the guy should be 100% blame-free in this, but I can't for the life of me figure out how his history is relevant in any way.

It was the victim who brought it up to begin with as an excuse for why he shouldn't be bumped and why he should have sympathy. He said he had patients in the morning, so when it came out that he had a criminal past and previously lost his license (selling narcotics to addicts and sexually assaulting a patient in exchange for drugs), he made it relevant to the back story. So the fact people are reporting on it is within the context.

It would be like if Graham James was bumped from a flight and tried to use being a youth hockey coach and having a game in the morning as an excuse to not have to be bumped. I am sure his background would come into play in the discussion.

[killer_carlson]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

The video shows absolutely nothing from before the police arrived.

But the statements from the witnesses in the seats sure do.

I think you're being intentionally ignorant to stir people up.

[getbak]

Interesting legal opinion: http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/unit...ing-passenger/

United’s Rule 25, as its title clearly implies, applies only to denied boarding. Thus, it uses the word “denied boarding,” and variants such as “deny boarding,” but says nothing about requiring passengers who have already boarded to give up their seats.

Indeed, it states in part, using the word “boarding” twice, that: “other passengers may be denied boarding involuntarily in accordance with UA’s boarding priority.

Clearly, a “boarding priority” does not include or imply an involuntary removal or refusal of transport. Moreover, under well accepted contract law, any ambiguous term in a contract must be construed against – and in the way least favorable to – the party which drafted it.

So, even if United argued that there was some ambiguity in “denied boarding” based upon “boarding priority” – and that it could possibly mean removal based upon a removal priority – a court would be forced to rule against this interpretation because United drafted the contract.

[transplant99]

Reading this thread leads me to one conclusion only...

The shark.....it has been jumped.

[Smartcar]

United should have upped the compensation until sufficient numbers bit. I was flying to Vancouver on a Sunday morning on Air Canada and the flight was overbooked, they were looking for people to take the afternoon flight with $400 compensation. There were no volunteers. They upped it to $800 and a family of 4 stepped up.

[Minnie]

It's a complete assumption on my part, since we don't really know, but I wonder if the man mentioned his occupation as a counter against the flight staff mentioning the seats were for other United staff and the importance they may have attached to that and to their insistence that people must give up their seats. Mainly, as I said, an assumption and curiosity on my part.

[chemgear]

Hmmm, interesting stuff on twitter . . .

https://twitter.com/search?q=David%2...Duy%20Dao&s=09

Wrong. This is a smear campaign. They put the wrong name. The doctor on the plane was David Thanh Duc Dao, MD, not David Anh Duy Dao.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

True. I am not defending either side. They both played a negative role in how it turned out and both should be called out for it.

If I had to pick one poster in this thread that has led to pages and pages of debate due to defense of the airline and condemnation of the victim it would definitely have to be you.

[chemgear]

Haha, omg.

https://twitter.com/MerriamWebster/s...02942037819392

[Manhattanboy]

I know this is a simplistic argument but I think the whole bumping thing is garbage.

So when you buy an airline ticket you are not buying a seat on the plane but the chance of possibly flying.

And don't start with that 30,000 word contract that no passenger has ever read.

[direwolf]

Conan's security force drags a guy into the theater and forces him to watch the show.

http://teamcoco.com/video/man-forcib...nto-conan-seat

[FlameOn]

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Manhattanboy

I know this is a simplistic argument but I think the whole bumping thing is garbage.

So when you buy an airline ticket you are not buying a seat on the plane but the chance of possibly flying.

And don't start with that 30,000 word contract that no passenger has ever read.

It seems to be that way. Unfortunately your only other options are via land or sea. It's obviously been going on for a long time and is only news today because of this incident.

[pylon]

Originally Posted by FlameOn

But he's Vietnamese.

[calgaryblood]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

It seems to be that way. Unfortunately your only other options are via land or sea. It's obviously been going on for a long time and is only news today because of this incident.

Well obviously "man misses flight" wouldn't be a very appealing news story without an incident like this.

Doesn't mean it's right and shouldn't stop. If you buy an Airline ticket it should be guaranteed and not have a 100 page contract fillied with fine print.

[Raekwon]

Originally Posted by pylon

but he's vietnamese.

phuoc!!

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by Minnie

It's a complete assumption on my part, since we don't really know, but I wonder if the man mentioned his occupation as a counter against the flight staff mentioning the seats were for other United staff and the importance they may have attached to that and to their insistence that people must give up their seats. Mainly, as I said, an assumption and curiosity on my part.

Not only that there are reports he played the race card too.

[speede5]

Originally Posted by Acey

Republic's only actions were requesting, within their legal right, ......

Why do you keep calling them Republic?



I don't think it matters whose right/wrong at the end of the day. This will go away in a week and United will quietly pay him out down the road some meager sum to avoid a lawsuit and make it all go away.

I don't agree with what happened to this guy at all but at some point he should have thrown in the towel. You just aren't going to win when the police are standing there and they aren't on your side. He's lucky he just got knocked out and not shot.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Not only that there are reports he played the race card too.

None of that matters

Even if you believe the airline was right in all of its actions in removing him it is still an unreasonable use of force / police brutality case. There is no justification for the amount of force used.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by nik-

This thread is ridiculous.

Crap airline ####s up and then is part of a terrible decision and yet here we are talking about this guy's past. People will defend anything.

Originally Posted by jayswin

If I had to pick one poster in this thread that has led to pages and pages of debate due to defense of the airline and condemnation of the victim it would definitely have to be you.

I think the problem is that some people can't see that issues are rarely black and white. They think pointing out that both sides screwed up means that you must be defending the side that made the bigger transgression.

To make it simple:

United did a bad thing (not by bumping the passenger, but by how they dealt with it).

Dao did not do the right thing (and I personally don't feel sorry for him).

When you add those things up, it became the mess that it did.