What's new

United Airlines Dragged an Asian American Down Aisle

Status
Not open for further replies.
. .
The South Vietnamese American on this forum has no dignity. Do not waste time with them.

Ironically, that Vietnamese American doctor was also from South Vietnam, but he is now viewed expendable in the eyes of Viet members here.

None of them came to his defense. Even the Chinese members cannot stand with the sh1t like this.
 
.
Vietnamese here didn't voice any support because initially they thought the passenger was a Chinese. Now that it turns out he is a Vietnamese hoangsha here is saying Chinese members went ape sh!t. So far we criticized how that man was being treated like some kind of criminal, with no dignity at all. The Viets here should be ashamed for not defending the poor guy. Now it's too late, if they voice support now it only reflects the hypocrisy of it. Have we stopped voicing our support for this guy now some reports said he's a Viet? :disagree:
 
.
I see that -- as usual -- no one bothered to do basic research. :rolleyes:

1) Why does the airplane captain have near absolute authority even before take off ? Because if anything happens, it could put the entire flight, from airplane to people, into a %100 catastrophic event, like a crash. So even before take off, it must be established that aircrew authority is pretty much absolute. Whether you like it or not is not up to debate. No one forces you to fly.

2) When you buy a ticket, there is an agreement that you will obey aircrew instructions and refusal to do so will place you in jeopardy, anything from being restrained in-flight or in this event, removed from the aircraft. This agreement was approved by law.

What UA did may have been distasteful and from a PR point -- disastrous. But UA broke no laws. The captain called the appropriate airport authority -- being on the ground -- and by law, you have to obey law enforcement. UA may have been selfish in putting their employees before customers and customer relations, but that does not constitute any violation of existing laws.

You're wrong and apparently you don't know the rules of law. Your judgement is troublesome.



You're full of it, show me one post that Chinese member condemned this disgusting incident because he's Chinese
Oh well, what could i possibly expected from another "Bat lau dung laai" blood brother to bash Chinese instead of condemning this indefensible inhuman racial brutal crime? some typical South Viets mentality eh......

It doesn't matter he's Chinese or Vietnamese. According to the ignorant white people, they think we are the same. Let's work together and fight back!
 
.
Ironically, that Vietnamese American doctor was also from South Vietnam, but he is now viewed expendable in the eyes of Viet members here.

None of them came to his defense. Even the Chinese members cannot stand with the sh1t like this.

The South Vietnamese American faced some dilemma. They fought and lost to the Communist North Vietnamese, it was the first insult to them.

In fact, many of South Vietnamese American never think they have any in common with the North Vietnamese, the true Viet (However, many love the North Vietnamese or love to claim they are from the North though).

They had to go to the US, their sugar daddy, where they are treated as second class citizen, this is the second insult.

Now, if the US becoming subservient to Communist China (same as Communist Vietnam in their eyes), this would be the third insult for them, which will be unbearable. Therefore, very few will support China in any case.

Vietnamese here didn't voice any support because initially they thought the passenger was a Chinese. Now that it turns out he is a Vietnamese hoangsha here is saying Chinese members went ape sh!t. So far we criticized how that man was being treated like some kind of criminal, with no dignity at all. The Viets here should be ashamed for not defending the poor guy. Now it's too late, if they voice support now it only reflects the hypocrisy of it. Have we stopped voicing our support for this guy now some reports said he's a Viet? :disagree:

He is not a Vietnamese citizen. He came to the US from the South of Vietnam, with a Vietnamese name, but he is more likely to have Chinese, Khmer or Cham blood (very popular in the South of Vietnam) rather than North Vietnamese blood. I do not consider him Vietnamese.
 
.
It doesn't matter he's Chinese or Vietnamese. According to the ignorant white people, they think we are the same. Let's work together and fight back!

Sure, most Chinese do realize that the solidarity is tied together with other Asian Americans and minority groups, no matter how much war of ideology we had back in Asia.

However, too many people have splintered us. No matter how much humiliation Asian Americans faced oversea, they will still manage to find a bogeyman and to shift the blame on the Chinese/Vietnamese Communists!
 
. .
Sure, most Chinese do realize that the solidarity is tied together with other Asian Americans and minority groups, no matter how much war of ideology we had back in Asia.

However, too many people like Gambit have splintered us. No matter how much humiliation Asian Americans faced oversea, they will still manage to find a bogeyman and shift the blame on the evil Chinese/Vietnamese Communists!

That's how the South Vietnamese lost the war. Because they were pawns. American Pawns. They didn't have a purpose and a meaning to fight. They didn't have a reason to fight. So now they are complaining about how they lost the Vietnam war. To me, they lost because they behave like cowards. I still don't know why they are resenting? I think it is because of money and wealth that they have lost. It's sad but true.

I really think that Unification is better than separation. Chinese, Vietnamese, Japanese, Korean, etc united together.
 
.
As said on the other post.

This has done many time before, and has been for some time, and this type of deplane action WILL Continue to exist.

1.) UA did not do anything wrong, in term of Civil Aviation, you board their plane, you are ENJOYING THEIR service, that is their plane, they have the right to let anyone board, as well as having the right to refuse anyone board their plane and within FAA ruling, they are allow to kick passenger and luggage out of their plane, you are an end user.

When you buy a plane ticket from United, You are require to agree to a contract called Contract of Carriage in this contract, United Set out the limits of liability for service carriage, which include the United Carriers’ rights and limits on liability for delay or failure to perform service, including schedule changes, substitution of alternate air carrier or aircraft, and rerouting.

https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract.aspx
  • Limits on liability for delay, damage or loss of baggage, including fragile or perishable goods.
  • Claims restrictions, including time periods within which a passenger must file a claim or bring an action against United.
  • United’s rights to change terms of the Contract of Carriage.
  • Rules on reconfirmation of reservations, check-in times and refusal to carry.
  • United Carriers’ rights and limits on liability for delay or failure to perform service, including schedule changes, substitution of alternate air carrier or aircraft, and rerouting.
The flight in question is NOT OVERBOOKED. Which mean the passenger were at the right ratio, the account came from 4 United Employee need to fly to Louisville to replace another crew, this is done according to FAA rules.

2.) Each airline have their policy on who to kick off their plane, United, according to my wife, have a policy to kick people according to several factors, the dependent situation (If that traveller have dependent children on-board?), frequent flyer mileage, ages and accessibility (Is he old and frail?) and Flight Schedule (Is he or she have to make a connect flight or if a replacement flight is going to be available readily?). It was then choose at random within this pool of passenger. It have nothing to do with pax profession, race and sexual preference.

United Followed Protocol to have that passenger deplane, according to FAA guideline, United Offered money and incentive before deplaning, but when no one volunteer, they need to kick people off at random.

3.) Civil Aviation dictated that Crew and Staff (active and relief) have priority right on any civil aviation over Passenger. it is a common practice to maintain Aviation Safety. This extend to not just crew and staff at their own company, but other company.

4.) The passenger in question did no comply to Flight Crew Instruction to deplane, which mean he has broken the law -

49 U.S. Code § 46504 - Interference with flight crew members and attendants



https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/46504

When a certain instruction was given by the flight commander or crew, if a passenger refused to follow that instruction, that is breaking the 49 US Code Number 46504. This come with a first class felony, and it come with 20 years imprisonment sentence, life imprisonment if the passenger attack the crew with a deadly weapon.

5.) Deplaning is extremely rare, even tho overselling is extremely frequent. The airline would first e-mail passenger if an overselling occur, and ask if they could volunteer to skip the flight, then if that does not works, the company will refuse passenger boarding, and when that does not works, the plane will first unload luggage first, then deplane passenger

He had sign the contract when he bought the ticket from United, that contract require him to give up his seat if asked by the airline employee, and his right on the aircraft can be freely adjust by the company, he has broken the law, and the term of contract from United, it does not matter if he is a doctor, an Asian, a Chinese or Vietnamese or British or Martian, this is the contract set forth, and if the pax design to sue the company and the company decided to fight it, the passenger will lose, as he was contract bounded to do so to smooth flight operation, EVERYONE taking a flight are subject to the same condition, it's not a matter of discrimination or anything.

-The information is from my wife, who was a former Flight Attendant from Scandinavian Air Service (SAS) and a Doctor of Law in Sweden.



If an overbook is pushing up before pax actually boarding, the standard procedure is that

1.) Offer Incentive, Compensation to Pax for them to volunteer not check in with the aircraft.

There exist pax that live on this bumping, as airline usually pay obscene amount to bump people off when they overbook, Delta on average offer 10 times worth of their original ticket, plus free hotel accommodation, plus free upgrade to a first class on later flight

2.) Closing the check in

When there are not enough people volunteer to give up their place. they will stop the check in procedure and put everyone else on standby, and to be carry out with next available flight.

3.) Finding alternative airline

Some Airline would even buy their pax ticket from a different company to carry them to the original destination without delay or sometime earlier. Usually will not do it if the replacement flight leave later than the original flight.

Only then, if it is still overbook, then passenger will be kicked at random
The question is not whether United have the rights to drop some pax off the plane. The question is whether they have the legal rights to use force, in this case, dragging a paid customer off their plane without going through all the options. In court if this goes further, the first thing a judge will ask is whether UA exercise all available options, which include having the agents spelling out the legal rights of the airline, the federal recommend limit offer, and proof of the customer forceful resistance. If any of the question is a no, congrats to the felon doctor for a huge paycheck. LOL
 
.
There is an established procedure that UA has to go through before using force on a customer. The fact that they skip these standard procedure does give the victim to right to sue legally. Just for your record, my friend. LOL
What laws were broken ?
 
.
Thread temporarily locked, posters move on until re-open.


Edit: Thread re-open. Posters, no more discussion about other PDF members' personal matters. Stay on the subject. No more pre-warning, mods are busy, thanks all.
 
Last edited:
.
@gambit, you ask me what legal UA are wrong, here read it.

United’s Removal Of Passengers May Not Have Been Legal


APRIL 11, 2017 BY LUCKY99 COMMENTS

60

In light of Sunday night’s incident on a United flight between Chicago and Louisville, an interesting discussion is starting to emerge about the legality of what United did, by refusing transport to this passenger. What seems to have happened here is that the flight wasn’t actually oversold in advance (rather it was booked to capacity), but then last minute four United employees needed to be transported to Louisville, so they could work a flight from there the next day.

What’s unusual is that they were only booked on the flight last minute, and apparently everyone had already boarded. That’s what makes this exceptionally rare, and one has to wonder how exactly that happened, especially when they had already boarded a flight that was at capacity.

So far the conversation has centered around how this passenger was involuntarily denied boarding. The Department of Transportation has specific guidelines in place for how airlines can deny boarding to passengers. However, that may not be the case at all here. First let me say that I’m not a lawyer, so take what I say with a grain of salt (though I’ve talked to some lawyer friends about this, and they seem to have a similar perspective).

The passenger wasn’t denied boarding — he had a confirmed seat, and was allowed to board and take that seat.

Later they come onboard and asked him to get off the plane. At that point that’s no longer being denied boarding, but rather being refused transport. United’s contract of carriage addresses both of these situations:

The contract of carriage lists a bunch of reasons that the airline can refuse transport to someone, though a flight being oversold after a passenger has boarded isn’t one of them. In looking at the Department of Transportation regulations, I don’t see anything that clarifies how they define “denied boarding.”

In light of that, it sure seems like this was a case of refusal to transport, rather than a case of denied boarding, since the passenger wasn’t denied boarding. If this was a refusal to transport case, then United had no legal grounds on which to refuse him transport, based on the contract of carriage.

If that’s the case, did United use police force to incorrectly enforce a contract?

When this story first emerged it sure seemed to me like United may have technically been within their rights to refuse this passenger transport, but even that isn’t looking likely at this point.

It would seem to me that once passengers have boarded, the only way to have them get off the plane is through a voluntary system, by offering compensation that they agree to. Without that, this isn’t a denied boarding case, but rather a refusal to transport case.
 
.
May not does not cut it in court. Plus the article said this: 'First let me say that I’m not a lawyer, so take what I say with a grain of salt...'

Try again...
 
.
May not does not cut it in court. Plus the article said this: 'First let me say that I’m not a lawyer, so take what I say with a grain of salt...'

Try again...
Again, he is just repeating what other legal experts have been stipulating that this is not a simple denied boarding case but refusual to transport. In refusal to transport contract case, you cannot forcibly remove a paid customer once they are on board and seat. Here is one law expert who read the contract and said it was wrong.

Try to read harder.



Air law expert in Philly says United was dead wrong
Updated: APRIL 11, 2017 — 4:16 PM EDT


@StuBykofsky | stubyko@phillynews.com


A lot of people have a fear of flying. For most, until Sunday, that fear didn’t include being battered and dragged down an aircraft’s aisle to open up a seat for an airline employee.


There’s dumb, there’s Congress dumb, and then there’s airline dumb. United Airlines is flying to new depths.

First, the reported facts: United Express Flight 3411 from Chicago to Louisville, Ky., was overbooked. United wanted to move four employees from Chicago to Louisville to staff a later flight. The carrier made an announcement offering cash inducements for passengers to voluntarily surrender their seats.


When that didn’t work, four seats were chosen at random and the passengers were told they would have to leave. Three left, but 69-year-old David Dao refused. Three aviation security officers pulled him out of his seat, and he got a bloody mouth in the process. He appeared dazed as they dragged his limp body off the plane, while other passengers screamed and shouted in protest.


Dao was treated as a criminal.

When the facts of the incident and cellphone video got on social media, a nationwide outcry ensued. One of the security officers was suspended pending a review, but United CEO Oscar Munoz, in a defensive and ill-advised letter to United employees, said the passenger was “disruptive and belligerent,” and the crew followed “established procedures.”

I ask myself at what precise moment Dao - who said he had patients to see the next morning - became disruptive and belligerent. Perhaps when he learned he was the “lucky” winner of the off-the-plane lottery? Perhaps when the three security guards told him to vacate a seat he had bought and paid for? Perhaps when the three manhandled and bloodied him to get him off the plane.

Tuesday afternoon Munoz came to his senses, apologized, called the incident "truly horrific" and pledged a full review by April 30 "to fix what's broken so this never happens again."

We stop the narrative for a moment to inject an unpleasant truth.

Under certain conditions, airlines can bar passengers from boarding - if the passenger is unruly or intoxicated or on a terrorist watch list - but United had no right to removeDao, says aviation law expert Arthur Wolk, a Center City attorney who read the 45-page “contract of carriage.”

Wolk says Dao “absolutely” had the right to the seat, and this was not a case of “overbooking,” he says, because all the passengers had seats. What happened to Dao was “assault and battery,” he says.

“There’s absolutely no humanity left in the airline business,” Wolk says, adding that United routinely finishes low in surveys of passenger satisfaction. “I would sue their asses off.”

Is there any question that Dao is going to sue? John Banzhaf, a professor at the George Washington University Law School, agrees with Wolk’s analysis. He says United is “citing the wrong federal rule to justify its illegal request to force a passenger already boarded and seated to disembark.”

If sued, if United doesn’t settle out of court - I’m betting it will - the case may wind up in the hands of a jury. That will be 12 everyday Americans, so many of whom have had bad experiences with the airlines - the long waits, rising prices, narrow seats, too-full cabins, too-small bathrooms, indifferent flight attendants, etc. I’d call that a plaintiff’s environment.

Let me put United’s genius in context. Late last month, United employees barred a couple of young women from boarding a flight because they were wearing leggings. Yes, leggings.

United later explained that the women were flying on “buddy passes” and violated the airline’s strict dress code for such passes. Who wrote that code - Aunt Agatha?


The airline got a black eye on social media.

In Chicago, United at first offered $400 for volunteers to leave the plane, then doubled it to $800. There were no takers, because it was Sunday night and the next flight to Louisville was Monday afternoon.

So United decided to exercise its muscle. A short-sighted bad call.

Before this is over, I’m betting that United will find it would have been cheaper to lease a jet or hire Uber to drive its four employees the 299 miles to Louisville than to force them onto Flight 3411.

With all this in mind, does United conjure up an image of friendly skies, or of a tone-deaf woolly mammoth?
 
.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom