United Airlines Dragged an Asian American Down Aisle

[ahojunk]

100,000 signatures goal reached on petition calling for investigation into airline’s removal of passenger
PUBLISHED : Wednesday, 12 April, 2017, 12:39am
UPDATED : Wednesday, 12 April, 2017, 12:01pm

I really feel for the victim regardless of his race or background.
He has my sympathy for what he has gone through.
What warms my heart is that so many people feel the same.

United’s stock falls 1.1%, wipes out $255 million off the airline’s market cap

Serve them right.
I hope their stock drops more.
Only then, real change will happen.

 

[jhungary]

This is incredible. The flight attendant took orders from the captain.

basic research is beyond your capability...

http://money.cnn.com/2017/04/10/news/united-overbooking-policy/

The four UA employees were actually FLIGHT CREW. They were needed in order to work another aircraft in an associated airline. This is not a case where the captain wanted to give favorable treatment to his friends and/or family. These four people were actually critical to the NORMAL operation of an associated airline.

Whether UA is wrong or not in trying to get these four flight crew members on board is for a different discussion, but the indisputable fact here is that based upon these needs, the captain felt these four flight crew members have higher priority than four passengers, hence his order is LAWFUL.

Which part of LAWFUL is too difficult for you to understand .

Crew (On duty or going to be on duty) have boarding priority over Pax (Both Paid and Unpaid, or as UA put it, Non-Revenue) Crew that are starting their duty at the end of connect actually have the right over any passenger, boarded and non-boarded. That is because of the safety issue inherit from aviation safety.

The incident is a non-starter, as the crew of Flight 3411 act on a lawful order.

I think the people are too sheepish to follow other people, when it happened to them, would you want to wait for 2 hours just to have some nut-cased doctor think he is above the law to defied a lawful order from the pilot? Tell that to the rest of the passenger on that flight, and tell that to the passenger on the other flight that 4 crew are going to relief.

If you don't like it, then you shouldn't fly, because it has been so in EVERY AIRLINE IN THE WORLD. You can go catch a cruise ship if you wanted, but then they also do bump passenger for crew.

 

[faithfulguy]

Crew (On duty or going to be on duty) have boarding priority over Pax (Both Paid and Unpaid, or as UA put it, Non-Revenue) Crew that are starting their duty at the end of connect actually have the right over any passenger, boarded and non-boarded. That is because of the safety issue inherit from aviation safety.

The incident is a non-starter, as the crew of Flight 3411 act on a lawful order.

I think the people are too sheepish to follow other people, when it happened to them, would you want to wait for 2 hours just to have some nut-cased doctor think he is above the law to defied a lawful order from the pilot? Tell that to the rest of the passenger on that flight, and tell that to the passenger on the other flight that 4 crew are going to relief.

If you don't like it, then you shouldn't fly, because it has been so in EVERY AIRLINE IN THE WORLD. You can go catch a cruise ship if you wanted, but then they also do bump passenger for crew.

The crew has the right to remove a passenger. But it has no right to beat up the passenger in the process. United AL will lose big for sure.

They need to change the law that require airline to provide compensation without limits on a supply demand basis. The request for passenger to vacate depends on how much a passenger is willing receive in order to give up his seat. Since airlines has flexible fare base on market demand. Their compensation for ejecting a passenger should be market driven as well.

 

[jhungary]

The crew has the right to remove a passenger. But it has no right to beat up the passenger in the process. United AL will lose big for sure.

They need to change the law that require airline to provide compensation without limits on a supply demand basis. The request for passenger to vacate depends on how much a passenger is willing receive in order to give up his seat. Since airlines has flexible fare base on market demand. Their compensation for ejecting a passenger should be market driven as well.

The problem it was not the crew who beat up the passenger, the video show these were Chicago Airport Police. Which under Chicago Department of Aviation, which under the management of the City of Chicago.

Again, this is not an overbook situation, the flight was full but at the last minute 4 crew were needed to fly out to replace an overtime crew that was in Louisville KY.

Also, current law did not have a upper limit as to how much you can offer, Delta offered $11,000 for a family of 3 to stay in NY just a few days ago because of the flight is overbook. Can UA offer something more? They can, but is that actually a point? No.

Each company offer what they think is fair, not what you think is fair, the problem is, at the end of the day, they offer something, you may like it, you may not like it, and if no one leave voluntary, then they will ask you to leave, again, you may like it, you may not like it, but that's the law, because FAA said on duty crew have priority over paid passenger. So, someone has to go, in this case, that someone gone kicking and screaming.

 

[Oldman1]

They just managed the situation wrong. When asked for volunteers none came up. Can't force someone off the plane because they refused like that after asking for volunteers. What would be the purpose asking it in the first place?

 

[jhungary]

They just managed the situation wrong. When asked for volunteers none came up. Can't force someone off the plane because they refused like that after asking for volunteers. What would be the purpose asking it in the first place?

the problem is that, this is a common practices.

Does it make sense? No, but the problem is, what else could you do. They need the crew on that flight so they can be push into another one, so that 200 some passenger can fly home, you look at it in your angle, of course you think that was stupid. However, what would happened to the 200 passenger that were waiting on that crew to board your flight?

That is why for safety reason, on duty crew are always have priority over paid passenger, what UA should do is to calculate the replacement crew ratio better, so you know you are going to need to put 4 in this flight and bump people off before they boarded. But then can you blame UA to be honest? 4 days, 500 flights cancelled, and you only have a certain amount of crew you can call, and each of them goes with a flight hours, and they have been working their arse off around the clock as much as FAA permitted, and if one flight delay just a few hours, then it would smash the whole system around, and the worse thing is, you can't see this coming.

Bad PR aside, this is what they need to do, otherwise UA will not only face the flak for 1 passenger who refused to leave the flight, but 200 or may be more who are stranded somewhere.

 

[faithfulguy]

The problem it was not the crew who beat up the passenger, the video show these were Chicago Airport Police. Which under Chicago Department of Aviation, which under the management of the City of Chicago.

Again, this is not an overbook situation, the flight was full but at the last minute 4 crew were needed to fly out to replace an overtime crew that was in Louisville KY.

Also, current law did not have a upper limit as to how much you can offer, Delta offered $11,000 for a family of 3 to stay in NY just a few days ago because of the flight is overbook. Can UA offer something more? They can, but is that actually a point? No.

Each company offer what they think is fair, not what you think is fair, the problem is, at the end of the day, they offer something, you may like it, you may not like it, and if no one leave voluntary, then they will ask you to leave, again, you may like it, you may not like it, but that's the law, because FAA said on duty crew have priority over paid passenger. So, someone has to go, in this case, that someone gone kicking and screaming.

If no one take the offer, the solution should be to increase the offer. The passengers now own the seats, not the airline. If the airline want them back, increase the offer until someone says yes. It's authoritarian for the airline to set the price and demand the passenger to get off. If that is the law, what stop the airline from setting the price at one cent and force people to get off.

So the solution to this problem is not that hard. It's capitalism. If this not the law, change the law to reflect capitalism and the rights of ownership.

 

[takeitwithyou]

His race had nothing to do with the actions done upon him. And as you can see OUR FREE MEDIA exposed it.

 

[jhungary]

If no one take the offer, the solution should be to increase the offer. The passengers now own the seats, not the airline. If the airline want them back, increase the offer until someone says yes. It's authoritarian for the airline to set the price and demand the passenger to get off. If that is the law, what stop the airline from setting the price at one cent and force people to get off.

So the solution to this problem is not that hard. It's capitalism. If this not the law, change the law to reflect capitalism and the rights of ownership.

The problem is that, what you think is different than what the Airline think.

You think you own the seat, but the airline think (and it actually was) that you only rented their seat under some terms and conditions. You are using their service to go from A to B. And it was within the right of the Airline to provide or refuse your service.

And it may alarm you to know, not only Airlines in the US thinks like that, it was all over the world, when you buy a ticket with any airline, you will have to sign and enter into a contract to use their facilities, in fact, if you look at Contract of Carriage in each individual company careful, some actually do not allow (or with discretion to) any or all aircraft amenity, in effect, you will need the company blessing to use the aircraft bathroom.

The problem is not going to change, because the company have final say about who can use their plane, and they can literally deplane you without a reason (which happened before) if the pilot think you pose a threat, he or she can, within his/her right, refused to pilot an aircraft if he or she think the safety standard were not met. And it is not up to anyone to decide, not even the company if this is the actual case, at best, the company can arrange a replacement pilot to fill the role, if not, your flight got cancel.

The law in the US is actually quite generous than the rest of the world, in Australia, not only overbooking is allowed, but Australian law (CASA Guideline) does not require airline to provide incentive to compensate the passenger, where you only need to put the pax in the next available flight and if it have to be overnight, hotel have to be provided. Within the big 3 airlines in Australia, both Qantas and Jet Star does not offer anything other than free meal and hotel, and guarantee next flight for customer being bumped, Virgin offer $50 dollars for the bump along with meal voucher and hotel if the delay is overnight.



Again, this is how it was done world wide, if you don't like it, either you can find a way to change that, or don't fly....

 

[Beast]

The problem is that, what you think is different than what the Airline think.

You think you own the seat, but the airline think (and it actually was) that you only rented their seat under some terms and conditions. You are using their service to go from A to B. And it was within the right of the Airline to provide or refuse your service.

And it may alarm you to know, not only Airlines in the US thinks like that, it was all over the world, when you buy a ticket with any airline, you will have to sign and enter into a contract to use their facilities, in fact, if you look at Contract of Carriage in each individual company careful, some actually do not allow (or with discretion to) any or all aircraft amenity, in effect, you will need the company blessing to use the aircraft bathroom.

The problem is not going to change, because the company have final say about who can use their plane, and they can literally deplane you without a reason (which happened before) if the pilot think you pose a threat, he or she can, within his/her right, refused to pilot an aircraft if he or she think the safety standard were not met. And it is not up to anyone to decide, not even the company if this is the actual case, at best, the company can arrange a replacement pilot to fill the role, if not, your flight got cancel.

The law in the US is actually quite generous than the rest of the world, in Australia, not only overbooking is allowed, but Australian law (CASA Guideline) does not require airline to provide incentive to compensate the passenger, where you only need to put the pax in the next available flight and if it have to be overnight, hotel have to be provided. Within the big 3 airlines in Australia, both Qantas and Jet Star does not offer anything other than free meal and hotel, and guarantee next flight for customer being bumped, Virgin offer $50 dollars for the bump along with meal voucher and hotel if the delay is overnight.



Again, this is how it was done world wide, if you don't like it, either you can find a way to change that, or don't fly....

Nonsense, useless ranting. Now they are going to change this flaw rules. Its the stupid airline fault to mismanage the flight booking. Dont shove it back to customer problem. The customer didnt point a gun at UA and ask him for a ticket.

See what Munoz says..

Mr Munoz was asked if Mr Dao, who has been undergoing treatment at a Chicago hospital, was at fault.

The chief executive paused.

He said: "No. He can't be. He was a paying passenger sitting on our seat in our aircraft and no one should be treated that way. Period."

 

[faithfulguy]

The problem is that, what you think is different than what the Airline think.

You think you own the seat, but the airline think (and it actually was) that you only rented their seat under some terms and conditions. You are using their service to go from A to B. And it was within the right of the Airline to provide or refuse your service.

And it may alarm you to know, not only Airlines in the US thinks like that, it was all over the world, when you buy a ticket with any airline, you will have to sign and enter into a contract to use their facilities, in fact, if you look at Contract of Carriage in each individual company careful, some actually do not allow (or with discretion to) any or all aircraft amenity, in effect, you will need the company blessing to use the aircraft bathroom.

The problem is not going to change, because the company have final say about who can use their plane, and they can literally deplane you without a reason (which happened before) if the pilot think you pose a threat, he or she can, within his/her right, refused to pilot an aircraft if he or she think the safety standard were not met. And it is not up to anyone to decide, not even the company if this is the actual case, at best, the company can arrange a replacement pilot to fill the role, if not, your flight got cancel.

The law in the US is actually quite generous than the rest of the world, in Australia, not only overbooking is allowed, but Australian law (CASA Guideline) does not require airline to provide incentive to compensate the passenger, where you only need to put the pax in the next available flight and if it have to be overnight, hotel have to be provided. Within the big 3 airlines in Australia, both Qantas and Jet Star does not offer anything other than free meal and hotel, and guarantee next flight for customer being bumped, Virgin offer $50 dollars for the bump along with meal voucher and hotel if the delay is overnight.



Again, this is how it was done world wide, if you don't like it, either you can find a way to change that, or don't fly....

Unfortunately, the law protect the corporations instead of the consumer. In the past, the plane can keep the passengers on the plane for 8-10 hours or more without reprieve. That is not allowed any longer. The law need to reflect that customers has the rights to those seats once they pay for it. And if the customers are willing to give up their seatsfor peanuts, that is fine. If not, keep on increase the compensation until enough customers are willing to give up. That would be the fair solution. Hopefully, this incident could change the law. In America, it sometime take an incident like this to change the law.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

you are too excited tiger. in the past calling someone Chinese may be considered bad, but today everyone wants to be Chinese. because China is rich and powerful, a country with milk and honey in abundance.

The alt-right extremists hate China, because of that hatred against China, other Asians are also now under their crosshair.

 

[Nan Yang]

Mr Munoz was asked if Mr Dao, who has been undergoing treatment at a Chicago hospital, was at fault.

The chief executive paused.

He said: "No. He can't be. He was a paying passenger sitting on our seat in our aircraft and no one should be treated that way. Period."

Case closed.

 

[frequency]

Actually, he did, the moment he refused to exit the plane with the Captain order, he is interfering the flight operation, and by that time he has both broken the UA Contract of Carriage (Rule 21) and the US Code 49, interfering with Flight Crew and Attendant.

What you are thinking is that, the order from the Captain is not reasonable to comply, why I have to disembark from the plane when the other get to travel, however, being reasonable is not of a concern, The pilot's instruction is legitimate, because he is not telling Mr Dao to take off his cloth and get naked or get into the storage compartment. He is asking the pax to get off his plane, the reason behind this instruction may be within or without reason. (In fact, the Captain can ask you to leave anytime he wanted with or without as valid reason) That order from the Captain is legitimate, and being unreasonable is another issue.

In reality, if all law have been follow, and Mr Dao Leave the plane, and then compliant to the UA or FAA about this, he would have a case, maybe he can sue both FAA and UA for a hefty compensation to remove him without reason, but in the end, this is not the path he choose, he choose to stay in the plane even tho the instruction from the pilot is for him to leave, and that instruction is valid and legal. He broken the law then, and he is in the wrong in this situation.



In deed, race have played an important part.

My wife just told me in the year of 2015, 6 out of 100,000 pax was forcibly remove from flight in the US for all sort of reason, judging that there are 40 millions traveller by air, that mean there are at least 2,000 pax have been removed in 2015, yet nobody ever heard about it, but this?

What make this different is race. As I said, even my wife kick pax out of plane before, it is not an uncommon issue, just that dude pus the time plus a bunch of people think it's inappropriate (Which is not actually) that put the story together.

This should not be a "Trial by Media" case, in fact, I would like to see Dr Dao being charged with Interference with Flight Operation.

You really need to re-read Rule 21 and watch the video again. It has nothing to do with what you just said. This has nothing to do with the Captain. He didn't own United Airlines. UA Carriage Policy is above the Captain. The Captain is nothing special here. I don't know why you have to emphasized on the Captain so much. You make it sounds like the Captain is the MAN of the house. You reminded of a Security Officer who just graduated from training and thinking he/she is above the law. You only know one side of the story because it favors you. In court, that is not how it works. There's a balance and all requires evidence. I would like to see an Officer man-handled a Lawyer like that. UA Carriage Policy can break their own contract in which case, they did.

Dr. Dao did not break any contract and law. He simply refused to leave the air plane because of UA's overbooking problem. Also read Rule 25. That's where it is applicable, not what you said earlier. Did UA confirmed with Dr. Dao about his rights? He said he is a Doctor. Did they asked about his qualification and disabilities? No. I didn't think so. UA CEO and employees are behaving like dogs. I want to see that Airport security gets severe punishment.

"

1. Passengers who are Qualified Individuals with Disabilities, unaccompanied minors under the age of 18 years, or minors between the ages of 5 to 15 years who use the unaccompanied minor service, will be the last to be involuntarily denied boarding if it is determined by UA that such denial would constitute a hardship."

 

[Kiss_of_the_Dragon]

I show my solidarity toward my Vietnamese Doctor...boycott United Airlines.