United Airlines

Van Living Forum

Help Support Van Living Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.
hepcat said:
slynne...  "due to high pay..."  and "no shortage of police officers?"  

Ok, I suspect you're out of touch with the reality of hiring for police departments right now.  Most of the major cities are running from 15% to 30% below their authorized staffing levels right now because they don't have enough qualified applicants to hire, and their recruiting efforts aren't yielding applicants either.  San Diego PD, for example, is the lowest-paid major police department in the country...  history repeats itself.  

And cops DO use their authority in non-violent ways... and in this case it was my understanding that the two officers talked to the doc for 10 minutes while he steadfastly refused to leave as directed.  What then do you suggest they do?  Walk away or "use that amount of force necessary to overcome the resistance offered" as is their duty under law to effect an arrest, when the suspect resists?

Take a minute to read my post above as well...  perhaps it'll explain a concept for you that you're not fully in tune with...

I admit that I am a bit out of touch with recent situations but fwiw, I usually dismiss public sector shortages as essentially being the same thing as not paying enough. labor shortage = wages too low. If there indeed are police shortages it means that wages are too low or the qualifications asked for are too high or both. I don't want to get into the politics of it but generally in this country, you see situations were government bodies add requirements and hoops to jump through which raise the barriers of entry into the profession without also raising wages. In Michigan, we are about to have a teacher crisis because of this. I admit that I am basing my opinion of the high pay too from someone close to me who is an expert in public sector labor relations but who has been retired for a few years.

I have read your previous comment (which I found to be very thoughtful btw) . Mostly I think that I am talking about what-should-be and you are talking about what-is. Generally, though, my point is that one way we move from what-is to what-should-be is through civil disobedience. I agree with you from a practical stand point that treating police officers with respect and complying with their orders is the way to go if one's goal is to not be beaten up or arrested. However, if change is one’s objective, then what the doctor did was the way to go even if it does come with real risks including dealing with police officers who might choose an amount of force greater than what is necessary to overcome the resistance offered along with of course, an arrest and all that comes with that.
 
As for what the police officers should have done? I generally feel that any violence except in cases where there is a threat to themselves or others is uncalled for. I agree that police officers should “use that amount of force necessary to overcome the resistance offered” but unless the resistance is violent or threatening, the force necessary to overcome the resistance need not be violent. As I said earlier, they could have just waited the guy out. He wouldn’t sit in the seat forever. All they needed to do is stand there calmly telling him to leave until he did, even if it took hours but most likely it would not have. They could have calmly explained the consequences of his actions to him until he complied. If it were me, I would probably have tried to make him sympathetic to *me* by saying things like “come on, sir. Give me a break. I have to remove you from this flight. I cannot leave until you comply. No one else can either. Please give all of these other passengers a break too. I am not the airline and I am sorry they are treating you this way. Let’s go talk about it more in the terminal, etc etc” You would be surprised at how effective that approach is especially in a situation where someone has been made to feel helpless. Making them feel even more helpless doesn't seem like the best approach. And maybe they tried it but 10 minutes is a very short time before resorting to violence.

If the police had other, more pressing, obligations such as a robbery in progress, they can leave and attend to those obligations. It is not an acceptable excuse to resort to violence imho. The good news though is that as a species we really are progressing and are much less violent than we ever have been.
 
I believe these were airport security. Plenty staffing in that arena, 99.99% of the time nothing to do.

Unfortunately such jobs often attract people that are happy to use their authorized force, and pushing the limits rarely results in effective punishments.
 
slynne, I appreciate your thoughtful response. In regards to the hiring issues, you're partially right. Very few folks who would consider a law enforcement career are willing to risk everything they own every day for the kind of pay most government agencies are willing to pay. Incidents like this are a prime example of why. Folks have indicted the cops for their actions based on a few seconds of video without any other facts, and it's ALWAYS the cops who are wrong, even when they're right. Sometimes they really are wrong... but those instances are few and far between compared to the number of good decisions and appropriate actions that are taken by law enforcement officers nationally every hour of every day.

And likely, that shortage of officers had a great deal to do with the way this call was handled. They in fact do NOT have hours and hours to stand and try to convince someone of the error of their ways. They talk to the subject... they explain the circumstances and the penalties for failure to comply, and allow the subject a little time to process the situation and decide how the rest of the contact will go. In this case, it went poorly for all concerned... but I still believe that was Doc's call trying to claim a right he didn't have because he thought he was a special snowflake and the rules didn't apply to him.

And the cops DO have more pressing calls, which is why this kind of action by citizens is even more reprehensible. Doc chose to take even more valuable time away from the cops who likely might have been pursuing cases of greater significance to the public. But we'll probably never know what dispatch had in queue for calls at that moment.

I guess that the bottom line was that the way the case was handled was still entirely Doc's call. It really will be interesting to see how the whole thing falls out from the various investigations that will undoubtedly happen, but absent new facts, that's my assessment.
 
John61CT said:
I believe these were airport security. Plenty staffing in that arena, 99.99% of the time nothing to do.

Unfortunately such jobs often attract people that are happy to use their authorized force, and pushing the limits rarely results in effective punishments.

It appears that there's a little confusion about whether they were Chicago PD or Department of Aviation cops... but they were, in fact, sworn officers in either case.

On edit: a little more research indicates that they are Department of Aviation Police officers, and that the lead officer is on suspension, pending the investigation. It'll be interesting to see how and what that investigation concludes.
 
hepcat said:
From the United Airlines Contract of Carriage:




I dunno what else to say folks.  Under the terms of the United Air Lines "Contract of Carriage" under which every ticket is sold, the airline has the right to deny someone the right to fly when they're over-booked.  You agree to it when you buy your ticket.  Under the "Contract of Carriage" Rule 21, the airlines has the right to remove someone who isn't following the directions of the flight crew.   Right, wrong, or indifferent... and whether you like it or not, United had the right to kick the doc off the flight by the contract terms of the ticket, and HE had a contractual obligation to leave.  We can discuss 'til we're blue in the face whether or not what was done was right... but those are the contractual obligations about under which Doc (and every other passenger) boarded the flight.

Law supersedes policy. A contract that in violation of law is not enforceable. Trying to enforce a contract while in violation of law is illegal. FAA regulations say that the maximum compensation for those giving up a seat is $1,350.00. United stopped far short of offering that. The regulations also say they must show the person affected in writing the regulations. 

At first the CEO took the stance that nothing wrong was done. Now with the prospect of loosing millions if not billions he is trying to kiss ass with apologies even to the point of admitting what was done was wrong.

Want to make a personal wager that the Dr. will not come out financially blessed?
 
DannyB1954 said:
Law supersedes policy. A contract that in violation of law is not enforceable. Trying to enforce a contract while in violation of law is illegal. FAA regulations say that the maximum compensation for those giving up a seat is $1,350.00. United stopped far short of offering that. The regulations also say they must show the person affected in writing the regulations. 

So you're suggesting that the $1350.00, rather than merely being a negotiating cap, is the amount every airline is required to offer every passenger they're going to bump?  And that taking action at any amount short of that is somehow in violation of Federal law and FAA rules? It's unfortunate that doc didn't go out to the ticket counter when asked to negotiate for himself.

And you're right... I'm not disagreeing that United hasn't made a huge blunder. The cops probably should never have been called... it's like calling in the Varsity football team during a JV game... but that was the call that was made, and the Varsity team took the field. If I was the doc, though, I wouldn't be planning my Bahamas vacation just yet, if it all ends up in lawsuits. Now, if United chooses to settle, at least the doc's attorneys will be able to take THEIR vacations in the Bahamas. Does United fly to the Bahamas? (grin)
 
FAA and DOT **regulations** change frequently and just like SEC and banking industry, almost all such regulations, are only enforced with very small fines compared with the incremental profits "earned" by flouting them.

And in these specific cases are not even requirements, in effect "encouraged suggestions".

Like the fact that involuntary bumpees have "the right" to demand their compensation in the form of a check or cash on the spot.

Which if you were aware of that **might** cause them to select someone else.

European regs are much more rational, and apply to European carriers like Virgin anywhere in the world.

IMO worth paying a few dollars more for.
 
hepcat said:
So you're suggesting that the $1350.00, rather than merely being a negotiating cap, is the amount every airline is required to offer every passenger they're going to bump?   .........       Does United fly to the Bahamas? (grin)

If they can get someone to give up a seat for a hundred bucks, they have found a solution. If not they need to keep offering a larger amount until they reach $1,350. Senators are already asking united why the full amount was not offered. Had they offered $1,200, they might have come to a peaceful solution, (somebody else taking the bump). By failing to follow guidelines and procedures they helped create a violent situation.

I don't know if they fly to the Bahamas, but they do fly in China. That is where most of the business losses will be. The person extracted being an American Chinese person has had a very negative impact on Chinese social media. Beating up on a doctor who has his patients interest at heart was about the dumbest think they could have done. United wants to portray him as a trouble maker, the jury may see him as someone interested in his patients welfare. Here in the States sometimes if you want to get somewhere you have to fly an airline that goes there. In China, I don't believe that they have any exclusive runs. Their competitors are going to be happy to have the new customers. Warren Buffets losses in United so far are listed at $12 million.  If he cuts his losses and sells, the stock will surely tank.       I don't see a bright future for the CEO.
 
There's another clip out now of the doctor on the phone explaining he had surgery scheduled in the morning. Then the cop starts to threaten. The cops in this case were bullies. I don't know many people that respond to threats well. We are asked to meekly submit to someone with a badge without question. I hope he becomes a major shareholder in United.

Rob
 
Hundreds of millions of Chinese social media is claiming the doc was "randomly" selected due to his Asian ethnicity.

Probably the harshest justice among the various consequences.
 
Gunny said:
 I hope he becomes a major shareholder in United.

Rob

The stock won't be worth much by the time his attorney and social media are done with them. If I was in the stock market I would be short selling them right now, (that is selling the stock that you do not own and buying the shares back at a later time to repay the stocks that you sold, (by kinda borrowing them).
 
17904233_1388184144538072_7470889581397417621_n.jpg
 
Gunny said:
There's another clip out now of the doctor on the phone explaining he had surgery scheduled in the morning. Then the cop starts to threaten. The cops in this case were bullies. I don't know many people that respond to threats well. We are asked to meekly submit to someone with a badge without question. I hope he becomes a major shareholder in United.

Rob

Actually, Rob... as I said before, if we're detained or arrested, we all have a positive duty to "meekly submit" to someone with a badge... without question, just as you'd expect a private to carry out your orders... without question.  If the cop screwed up, there'll be time for recriminations later.  The moment of arrest is not the time to try to assert rights you don't have. 

All states have similar statutes, but the Illinois Penal Code section 720 says in part:



(720 ILCS 5/7-5) [font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif](from Ch. 38, par. 7-5)[/font][font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]    [/font][font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]Sec. 7-5.  [/font][font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]Peace officer's use of force in making arrest. [/font][font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif](a) A peace officer, or any person whom he has summoned or directed to assist him, need not retreat or desist from efforts to make a lawful arrest because of resistance or threatened resistance to the arrest. He is justified in the use of any force which he reasonably believes to be necessary to effect the arrest and of any force which he reasonably believes to be necessary to defend himself or another from bodily harm while making the arrest. [/font]


And says this about resisting arrest:


[font='Lucida Grande', 'Lucida Sans Unicode', Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]720 ILCS § 5-31-1.  Resisting or obstructing a peace officer, firefighter, or correctional institution employee.[/font]
[font='Lucida Grande', 'Lucida Sans Unicode', Verdana, Arial, sans-serif][size=small][font='Lucida Grande', 'Lucida Sans Unicode', Verdana, Arial, sans-serif](a) A person who knowingly resists or obstructs the performance by one known to the person to be a peace officer, firefighter, or correctional institution employee of any authorized act within his or her official capacity commits a Class A misdemeanor.[/font][/font][/size]

So, yes...  that's a pretty broad brush, but outlines your duty not to resist or obstruct a peace officer in Illinois.
 
Rule 25 does not apply.  

The flight was not overbooked.  

He was ejected because of the incompetance of other airline employees. 

You sell me a ticket, there is an implied contract of serviceability, not to be superceded by pages of fine print.  For the fine print to be enforceable, each item must be read to the consumer and the "rule" must be innitaled.  Judges hate fine print.
 
Where United could really lose their ass in court is over the definition of 'overbooked". From what is being reported the flight was full and then they bumped four people to allow for four United employees to take their seats. These employees were negligent in their behavior as they overslept and missed their earlier flight. So this is not a case of too many seats being sold at all.

This is where a judge or jury can make a call on what "overbooked" really means. Was United allowed to use the overbooked policy to throw someone off a plane, when all seats were sold and everyone was seated and their own employees made the error? If I was the legal counsel on this one I would be all over the fact that the flight was not overbooked at all (if these statements are true about the employees over sleeping and missing their earlier flight).

If you look at the US Department of Transportation Airline passenger protections:
https://www.transportation.gov/brie...rtation-expands-airline-passenger-protections

Reference is made to flights that are over SOLD. "Bumping. Today’s rule doubles the amount of money passengers are eligible to be compensated for in the event they are involuntarily bumped from an oversold flight. "

So from a legal standpoint is this an oversold flight? I would argue that it is not.

Remember it wasn't too long ago that rules were changed by our government after passengers were held hostage on the tarmac for hours. Now that is illegal and after four hours they have to allow passengers to disembark. So perhaps this will result in new legal language for additional consumer protection.
 
hepcat, you are right that people, including me, jump to conclusions too fast. This is actually a good reason to have police unions. They can help ensure that police officers will be treated fairly and not fired when there is a perception of wrong doing but no actual wrong doing. The thing is that it is a powerful position and one that is unfortunately abused regularly to the point where several of my black friends advocate getting rid of the police altogether. Their level of distrust is total to the point where they don't report crimes and figure they will take care of their own protection of themselves and their property and unfortunately this is not an attitude they developed all on their own. The stories they tell about their treatment at the hands of police are very shocking to me.
 
Honestly, I feel a bit sorry for the ceo. Yes, he should have made amends quicker, but time and time again you see poor employee judgements made and people who had nothing to do with it pay the price. I'm thinking about cases of employee food tampering, employees who make racial comments or refuse to serve cops, etc. Those things are undoubtedly not allowed in the handbook, but the owner or franchisee pays the price for actions by employees who have little to lose but their minimum wage paychecks. In this case investors who lost millions due to the poor judgement of the employees on the ground. Whoever made the on the spot decision to bump passengers in favor of the airline staff who had to be at another flight, rather than find an alternative means for them to get there, must be on the hot seat tonight. But in his defense, how could he know. There have been thousands bumped from flights without this type of incident.

The 'doctor' who said he needed to be on that flight to attend patients was a bullshitter. He lost his license and if he had patients he was seriously breaking the law. Whatever happens, he will be rich and a lot of people who had nothing to do with it will pay. It will be resolved one way or another and life will go on, until the next big headline grabber comes along and the next victim gets wealthy overnight.
 
IanC said:
The 'doctor' who said he needed to be on that flight to attend patients was a bullshitter.  He lost his license and if he had patients he was seriously breaking the law.  

Hmm, this will not bode well for him in court. Do you have any linkage for reference to this?
 
Ballenxj said:
Hmm, this will not bode well for him in court. Do you have any linkage for reference to this?

I'll have a look - everything I've read came from Yahoo news and the stories were links to outside sources such as ABC, etc.  Funny, to read the comments below those stories though.  Many people were praising him for his dedication to his patients.  Apparently they hadn't read the earlier stories that he had lost his license due to some sort of criminal action regarding prescribing.

Looking for the original story I see he is still referred to as a lung specialist, so I don't know what story is real.

This is one quote I saw "Louisville Courier-Journal reported on Dao’s startling criminal record, namely, his contribution to the nationwide opioid epidemic in the form of falsely prescribing Oxycontin in exchange for sexual favors with a reluctant male patient. (In addition to losing his medical license for ten years, the married father of five was ordered to undergo extensive anger-management treatment.)

Maybe he had gotten it back.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Top