United Airlines Dragged an Asian American Down Aisle

[gambit]

"when an angry female passenger created a ruckus on board, forcing the plane off the runway and back to its gate."
Again, your judgement is way off. That is nothing similar to what is happening to Dr. Dao. Big difference here ok? You really need to read the UA Carriage Policy. It will enlighten you. Dr. Dao did not violate any of UA Carriage policy. If you read it.

Did I not say it was RELATED ? Just in case you do not know the meaning of 'related', here it is...

belonging to the same family, group, or type; connected.

associated with the specified item or process, especially causally.

The point that you missed -- and that I tried to point out -- is that YOU CANNOT HAVE AN IDLE AIRCRAFT AT THE GATE.

Go the airlines forum and call those captains, active and retired, who have faced similar situations racists and see what happens.

I pointed out to you where you need to go look for your answer. UA Carriage Policy. Do your own reading and you will understand. You just like to argue, right or wrong. It doesn't hurt to accept the fact that you can be wrong.

And you just want to make this case into one of racism for your own needs.

Don't know what this has to do with China. Happens with every airline.

United should have raised the price of compensation. This is a PR disaster.

Thank you, sir.

You ask him provide you the evidence to make judgement on this case. I don't make any legal judgement on this case. All I said excessive used of force that cause body injury will get full compensation by the court. I never pretended to be a legal expert that can predict the outcome of this case.

You do not need to be a legal expert to know this: If the police is telling you to do something, if you refuse, you just broke the law.

It does not matter if the reason was wrong on why the police was called. If the police officer tells you to leave the room or the aircraft, if you do not comply, you just broke the law and the officer is authorized to remove you by force if necessary.

Every country have this law and understanding. It was not UA personnel who manhandled him. It was the police. All Dao had to do was obey the police.

If this was a Chinese airline, Chinese police, and an American was involved, everybody here would slam the American.

 

[jhungary]

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

UA don't and they actually didn't drag the pax off the plane

Again, please bear in mind, it was the Airport Security by Chicago Police who drag Dr Dao off the plane, and it was not UA personnel.

The question should be, did UA have authority to ask people to leave their flight, even if they are seated? The answer is Yes, according to Rules 21 of Contract of Carriage. It read

Rule 21 Refusal of Transport

UA shall have the right to refuse to transport or shall have the right to remove from the aircraft at any point, any Passenger for the following reasons:

Passengers who fail to comply with or interfere with the duties of the members of the flight crew, federal regulations, or security directives;

https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriage.aspx#sec25

The Captain have asked him to exit from the aircraft, he did not, then the Captain would have the right to refuse that pax's transportation and ask authority to deplane the passenger.

The problem is UA have no control over what O'Hare Police Did, they drag the man off the plane using violence, but that does not mean it was asked by UA to drag him off kicking and screaming.

In the end of the question is like this

1. Can UA Overbook their flight (Not actually an issue as the flight is not Overbook) Yes as per Contract of Carriage Rule 25
2. Can UA Staff expel anyone from the flight? Yes, as per CoC Rule 21
3. Can UA Staff call the police in this occasion? Yes

Now, if UA decided this is a bad PR and settle, that's their business, but in the term of law, if UA decided to fight this, the Doctor will lose, in fact, if Chicago AG office decided to charge Dr Dao with interference of flight crew and flight operation, that have a high degree of success that Dr Dao will be convicted with that charge.

Did I not say it was RELATED ? Just in case you do not know the meaning of 'related', here it is...

belonging to the same family, group, or type; connected.

associated with the specified item or process, especially causally.

The point that you missed -- and that I tried to point out -- is that YOU CANNOT HAVE AN IDLE AIRCRAFT AT THE GATE.

Go the airlines forum and call those captains, active and retired, who have faced similar situations racists and see what happens.


And you just want to make this case into one of racism for your own needs.


Thank you, sir.


You do not need to be a legal expert to know this: If the police is telling you to do something, if you refuse, you just broke the law.

It does not matter if the reason was wrong on why the police was called. If the police officer tells you to leave the room or the aircraft, if you do not comply, you just broke the law and the officer is authorized to remove you by force if necessary.

Every country have this law and understanding. It was not UA personnel who manhandled him. It was the police. All Dao had to do was obey the police.

If this was a Chinese airline, Chinese police, and an American was involved, everybody here would slam the American.

All of you Chinese would talk EXACTLY as I have.

It's like an episode of "Trial By Media"

By Law and by Service Contract, UA can refuse to transport, change an alternate transport and cancel one's right on their aircraft, it was written clearly on the Contract of Carriage, it is not hidden under some terms and condition, it was a single page, written out in a formal text format, you have to agree with the policy before you buy stuff from them, if you don't read the policy before you buy their ticket, this is not the Airline Fault but your own.

Did UA handle the situation badly? Yes, But that said, how else could UA handle the situation? IT was fogged for a week. 500 flight have been cancelled and so they don't have turn over crew to staff those flight back from Louisville, essentially the PDF crowd is saying "UA Should cancel that flight that 4 crew is going to staff latter on in the same day, but let the good doctor stay" If UA did that (Which is the only other way UA can go) UA would not be bombarded with 1 angry passenger that's forcibly removed from the plane, but from some 200 passenger that is going to have their flight cancelled.

My wife actually astonished as to why Munoz come out to apologise for the incident, that man refused to leave, by law HE, not UA is broken a law, he should be removed forcibly (And it came from a Human Right Lawyer) as he is not safe to the other pax. Yet, we saw Munoz come out and apologise for passenger illegal act, this is I think an upside down world we are living in.

This have been done all over the world, even my wife have kicked pax out of their plane before, Me and my wife honestly don't know why this particular incident made headline. In fact, it's dangerous if a court case rule in favour Dr Dao. Because that set a precedent that you can get away with when you yourself broke the law, and interference with flight operation, and because your peer in the same flight does not think this is appropriate (Which they are neither an aviation expert nor law expert) a trial by media said differently than a trial by actual law. Then from now on, airline would have expected passenger to behave more rudely and coarsely because if this case (If this ever gone to court) Dao's win, then the next time nobody would do anything and flight will get no where.

My wife is an Human Right Lawyer, and ex Flight Attendant from Scandinavian Air Service

 

[gambit]

Me and my wife honestly don't know why this particular incident made headline.

It made headline because of the man's race.

Personally, I believe the police's roughness in removing him played a minor role in the even'ts quite exponential growth in notoriety. There were four passengers. What were their racial/ethnic makeup ? It is not that people here do not know that the other three passengers accepted their fates. The fact that the doc's race is Asian is enough to overshadow everything else.

 

[jhungary]

"when an angry female passenger created a ruckus on board, forcing the plane off the runway and back to its gate."
Again, your judgement is way off. That is nothing similar to what is happening to Dr. Dao. Big difference here ok? You really need to read the UA Carriage Policy. It will enlighten you. Dr. Dao did not violate any of UA Carriage policy. If you read it.

I pointed out to you where you need to go look for your answer. UA Carriage Policy. Do your own reading and you will understand. You just like to argue, right or wrong. It doesn't hurt to accept the fact that you can be wrong.

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.

It made headline because of the man's race.

Personally, I believe the police's roughness in removing him played a minor role in the even'ts quite exponential growth in notoriety. There were four passengers. What were their racial/ethnic makeup ? It is not that people here do not know that the other three passengers accepted their fates. The fact that the doc's race is Asian is enough to overshadow everything else.


We both know that personal experience is not respected here. Neither is reason.

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.

 

[powastick]

Moral cowards. Evil prevails.

 

[ahojunk]

UA should have handled this situation much better.
Now its stock is getting a hammering.
Incredibly difficult to defend their stupidity and action.
Serve them right with this stock drop.
At the end of the day, money talks and talks very loudly too!

========
United Airlines Loses $800 Million in Value One Day After Asian Doctor’s Assault

By Ryan General
Posted on April 11, 2017

United Airlines has probably realized by now that violently dragging a customer off a plane is bad for business.

A day after the fiasco involving the deplaning of an Asian customer made headlines and earned massive outrage everywhere, United’s market capitalization, (the company’s current value), fell by over $750 million, according to Gizmodo.

https://twitter.com/x/status/851805788851122177

United’s market cap, which was $22.5 billion as of Monday’s close, dropped to $21.70 billion by Tuesday, marking a 3.7% in the morning trade. The loss was expected to be as much as $830 million if the stock continued to plummet by closing, MarketWatch reports (via FactSet).

Even before Tuesday market’s open, pre-market trading has already caused United shares to slide by as much as 6%.

Observers see the stock on track to drop by 2.8% by the end of the week, foreseeing a significant loss of United’s market value by over $600 million since last week’s close.

The incident generated even more backlash after United Airline’s CEO Oscar Munoz posted a non-apologetic tweet in response to the incident, seemingly justifying the decision to remove the man who refused to give up his seat on the reportedly overbooked flight.

https://twitter.com/x/status/851471781827420160

Social network site for traders StockTwits released a chart showing a growing negative reaction from investors toward the stock:

https://twitter.com/x/status/851543659627503616

Meanwhile, social media has been abuzz with many customers vowing to boycott the carrier.

 

[xunzi]

UA don't and they actually didn't drag the pax off the plane

Again, please bear in mind, it was the Airport Security by Chicago Police who drag Dr Dao off the plane, and it was not UA personnel.

The question should be, did UA have authority to ask people to leave their flight, even if they are seated? The answer is Yes, according to Rules 21 of Contract of Carriage. It read

Rule 21 Refusal of Transport

UA shall have the right to refuse to transport or shall have the right to remove from the aircraft at any point, any Passenger for the following reasons:

Passengers who fail to comply with or interfere with the duties of the members of the flight crew, federal regulations, or security directives;

https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriage.aspx#sec25

The Captain have asked him to exit from the aircraft, he did not, then the Captain would have the right to refuse that pax's transportation and ask authority to deplane the passenger.

The problem is UA have no control over what O'Hare Police Did, they drag the man off the plane using violence, but that does not mean it was asked by UA to drag him off kicking and screaming.

In the end of the question is like this

1. Can UA Overbook their flight (Not actually an issue as the flight is not Overbook) Yes as per Contract of Carriage Rule 25
2. Can UA Staff expel anyone from the flight? Yes, as per CoC Rule 21
3. Can UA Staff call the police in this occasion? Yes

Now, if UA decided this is a bad PR and settle, that's their business, but in the term of law, if UA decided to fight this, the Doctor will lose, in fact, if Chicago AG office decided to charge Dr Dao with interference of flight crew and flight operation, that have a high degree of success that Dr Dao will be convicted with that charge.



It's like an episode of "Trial By Media"

By Law and by Service Contract, UA can refuse to transport, change an alternate transport and cancel one's right on their aircraft, it was written clearly on the Contract of Carriage, it is not hidden under some terms and condition, it was a single page, written out in a formal text format, you have to agree with the policy before you buy stuff from them, if you don't read the policy before you buy their ticket, this is not the Airline Fault but your own.

Did UA handle the situation badly? Yes, But that said, how else could UA handle the situation? IT was fogged for a week. 500 flight have been cancelled and so they don't have turn over crew to staff those flight back from Louisville, essentially the PDF crowd is saying "UA Should cancel that flight that 4 crew is going to staff latter on in the same day, but let the good doctor stay" If UA did that (Which is the only other way UA can go) UA would not be bombarded with 1 angry passenger that's forcibly removed from the plane, but from some 200 passenger that is going to have their flight cancelled.

My wife actually astonished as to why Munoz come out to apologise for the incident, that man refused to leave, by law HE, not UA is broken a law, he should be removed forcibly (And it came from a Human Right Lawyer) as he is not safe to the other pax. Yet, we saw Munoz come out and apologise for passenger illegal act, this is I think an upside down world we are living in.

This have been done all over the world, even my wife have kicked pax out of their plane before, Me and my wife honestly don't know why this particular incident made headline. In fact, it's dangerous if a court case rule in favour Dr Dao. Because that set a precedent that you can get away with when you yourself broke the law, and interference with flight operation, and because your peer in the same flight does not think this is appropriate (Which they are neither an aviation expert nor law expert) a trial by media said differently than a trial by actual law. Then from now on, airline would have expected passenger to behave more rudely and coarsely because if this case (If this ever gone to court) Dao's win, then the next time nobody would do anything and flight will get no where.

My wife is an Human Right Lawyer, and ex Flight Attendant from Scandinavian Air Service

You are not thinking deeply enough, my friend. This is not a simple case. Let me address you. First of all, when UA call up an aviation authority, UA will become liable for all of his action, particularly if this happen inside the property of UA. An analogy for you to understand is if you call a "hit shot" on someone, even if you are not the one shooting the victim, you are fully responsible for the assassin action. Clear?

Also the Rule 21 and Rule 25 of the UA's contract doesn't apply to a customer who is already "boarded" on the plane. From lawyers argument that I read, once a customer is "boarded", none of UA contract rule applied since they never define in the written contract. Thus the court will try to interpret what does "boarding" in the contract meant. If the court interprets "boarding" to meant what layman understand, then the pax has a strong legal case against UA.

Also this is not an overbook issue. This is simply UA wanted to kick a paid customer who already boarded the plane so they can add 4 of their employees on the plane. So UA don't have any legal protection to use "overbook" justification in the contract.

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.

Wrong. This is a contract definition dispute. Unless he was disruptive or caused danger to the flight, you cannot remove him once he has boarded. When he paid for his ticket and has boarded, any person would expect his service to be fully honored. And if that service provider cannot honor that contract, then he must receive a reasonable amount of compensation at the spot, in written.

 

[terranMarine]

SouthWest: "We beat our competition not our customers"
UA: "If we cannot beat out competitors, we beat our customers"

UA is being roasted on a global scale , can any PR disaster even surpass this?

 

[xunzi]

So far, this is still a court of public opinion. Of all the legal experts the article cited, how many of them are willing to set foot in the courtroom and take this case ?


Take your own advice.

http://www.businessinsider.com/depa...ited-airlines-passenger-dragged-flight-2017-4

The DOT is the governing authority, not university law professors.


Overbooking is NORMAL business practice, so is either denying boarding or even coerced removal from the aircraft.

IT'snot overbooking and you cannot deny a pax once he/she is boarded the plane. Only under special circumstance under Rule 21 that you can remove him. None of those applied to the pax as he is not showing any threat or disruptive to the flight crew. Read that contract!

https://www.united.com/web/en-US/co...en-US/content/contract-of-carriage.aspx#sec21

Fury in Vietnam over United passenger dragged from plane

HANOI (Reuters) - Outrage spread to Vietnam on Wednesday over United Airlines' handling of a passenger dragged from his seat after it emerged that the 69-year-old U.S. doctor was Vietnamese by birth.

Although United Airlines has no direct flights to Vietnam, there were widespread calls on social media for a boycott after video showed a bloodied David Dao being yanked out of the plane by airport security on Sunday to make way for United employees.

The ire in Vietnam grew quickly after it was reported that Dao's origins were not in the Southeast Asian country's old enemy, China, as many had at first assumed.

Vietnamese also fumed at allegations over Dao's past reported in the United States as irrelevant and possibly racist.


"Watching this makes my blood boil, I'll never fly United Airlines," commented Anh Trang Khuya on Facebook, the most widely used social media platform in Vietnam.

Nguyen Khac Huy wrote: "Boycott United!!! This is excessive! Let's be loving and united, Vietnamese people!"

There was no immediate comment from the government or in state media.

Video showing Dao being pulled from United Airlines Flight 3411 at Chicago O'Hare International Airport on Sunday went viral and the worldwide backlash hit the airline's share price and prompted an apology from the company chief executive.

Kentucky's medical board website shows that a doctor David Dao graduated in 1974 in Ho Chi Minh City - then known as Saigon and the capital of U.S.-backed South Vietnam before its defeat and the reunification of Vietnam under communist rule a year later.

Around that time, Dao left for the United States, according to U.S. media and Vietnamese websites.

Vietnamese media said that Dao was also a songwriter and crooner of soulful ballads - including one about the memory of rain falling in Saigon.

Reports in U.S. media of an offence that had led to Dao losing his medical licence in 2003 were dismissed in Vietnam as a probable smear campaign.

"Dr. Dao didn't do anything wrong on that flight and that's the main thing," wrote Clarence Dung Taylor in a post that had more than 4,000 likes.

The attitude to the case shifted dramatically in Vietnam once it was reported that Dao was not from China - an ancient enemy with which Vietnam continues to have a maritime dispute over the South China Sea.

When initial reports had suggested the man being dragged from the plane was Chinese, some Vietnamese had posted strongly unsympathetic comments about him.

"So funny," wrote Bui Nguyen Trong Nghia. "Now they know he's Vietnamese, most people stand up to advocate. Whether it's Vietnamese or Chinese, there'll be discrimination as we're Asian."


Read more at http://www.thestar.com.my/news/worl...enger-dragged-from-plane/#RiuQMuGHglF8xbd3.99

so pathetic. LOL An embarrassment to the consumer.

 

[T-123456]

You are not thinking deeply enough, my friend. This is not a simple case. Let me address you. First of all, when UA call up an aviation authority, UA will become liable for all of his action, particularly if this happen inside the property of UA. An analogy for you to understand is if you call a "hit shot" on someone, even if you are not the one shooting the victim, you are fully responsible for the assassin action. Clear?

Also the Rule 21 and Rule 25 of the UA's contract doesn't apply to a customer who is already "boarded" on the plane. From lawyers argument that I read, once a customer is "boarded", none of UA contract rule applied since they never define in the written contract. Thus the court will try to interpret what does "boarding" in the contract meant. If the court interprets "boarding" to meant what layman understand, then the pax has a strong legal case against UA.

Also this is not an overbook issue. This is simply UA wanted to kick a paid customer who already boarded the plane so they can add 4 of their employees on the plane. So UA don't have any legal protection to use "overbook" justification in the contract.


Wrong. This is a contract definition dispute. Unless he was disruptive or caused danger to the flight, you cannot remove him once he is boarded. When he paid for his ticket and was boarded, any person would expect his service to be fully honor. And if that service provider cannot honor that contract, then he must receive a reasonable amount of compensation at the spot, in written. .

I dont know the rules but it sounds right,why else would a person of that age and especially a doctor refuse to leave?
Whatever the reason,bad pr.

 

[jhungary]

You are not thinking deeply enough, my friend. This is not a simple case. Let me address you. First of all, when UA call up an aviation authority, UA will become liable for all of his action, particularly if this happen inside the property of UA. An analogy for you to understand is if you call a "hit shot" on someone, even if you are not the one shooting the victim, you are fully responsible for the assassin action. Clear?

Also the Rule 21 and Rule 25 of the UA's contract doesn't apply to a customer who is already "boarded" on the plane. From lawyers argument that I read, once a customer is "boarded", none of UA contract rule applied since they never define in the written contract. Thus the court will try to interpret what does "boarding" in the contract meant. If the court interprets "boarding" to meant what layman understand, then the pax has a strong legal case against UA.

Also this is not an overbook issue. This is simply UA wanted to kick a paid customer who already boarded the plane so they can add 4 of their employees on the plane. So UA don't have any legal protection to use "overbook" justification in the contract.

Wrong.

This is different than a Hit as an example, as a calling for a Hit is a willing engagement of criminal activities, hence a crime of association, different than the UA calling authority on an unruly passenger. Your analogy only true if UA know the Police is going to assault WITHOUT A WARRANTED CLAUSE before calling the police.

A better example is this.

You are at your home, someone is breaking into your home, you called the police and the police come and beat the crap out of that person, can that person sue you for calling the police? he/she can sue the police for unlawful assault, but you, on the other hand, is innocent party as defined by law as you have no idea or reasonable expectation on that Police Officer you called will beat the crap out of the intruder.

Also, under US Law, commercial aircraft was a Public Place, compounded to the aircraft park on Federal Land (Airport Apron is considered Federal Land) strictly speaking, once you entered the Airport Restricted Area (Definded as after check in and/or immigration control).

And No, Rule 21 dictate that if a person interference with Flight Crew, he can be REMOVED from the aircraft, you can only be removed from an aircraft after you are boarded.

Read Rule 21 as per UA Contract of Carriage (red Highlighted Portion)

Rule 21 Refusal of Transport
UA shall have the right to refuse to transport or shall have the right to remove from the aircraft at any point, any Passenger for the following reasons:

https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriage.aspx#sec21

Rule 25 set forth the case for the overbooking, which did not applies in this situation.

Wrong. This is a contract definition dispute. Unless he was disruptive or caused danger to the flight, you cannot remove him once he is boarded. When he paid for his ticket and was boarded, any person would expect his service to be fully honor. And if that service provider cannot honor that contract, then he must receive a reasonable amount of compensation at the spot, in written. .

You can remove him once he boarded (read the contract above)

The contract between Dr Dao and UA broke at the time when the Captain ask Dr Dao to remove himself from the aircraft and Dr Dao ignore this lawful order. That point of time, Dr Dao broke the Clause 21 Subsection H-2

Rules 21 H-2 Read
Passengers who fail to comply with or interfere with the duties of the members of the flight crew, federal regulations, or security directives;

https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriage.aspx#sec21

Non-compliance to flight crew instruction also breaking 49 U.S. Code § 46504 - Interference with flight crew members and attendants

It does not matter if the Captain request are reasonable or not, the law provided as long as the captain instruction is lawful (Not harming any passenger and/crew) that any passenger have to follow that instruction, reasonable or not is not the matter of concern here. If you think the pilot instruction is not reasonable and maybe broken the contract of carriage, you can, disembark, and then complaint to either FAA or UA.

This is done on all level in Public Transport, doesn't matter if it is a bus, or aircraft, train or taxi. The person commanding the transport have the right to refuse anyone entry or expel anyone. If I am a bus driver, and I feel threatened by you, I can ask you to leave my bus, you can sue me afterward if you think I am in anyway discriminating you, but you have to get off my bus. Otherwise I can call the police to remove you, that's about public safety.

Dr Dao refuse to comply to this instruction to get off the aircraft. At that point he broke rules 21 H-2 as he failed to comply with the duties of the members of the flight crew.

Unless you can proof otherwise, it is how the rules, contract and US law states. So, no, you are wrong.

 

[gambit]

Also the Rule 21 and Rule 25 of the UA's contract doesn't apply to a customer who is already "boarded" on the plane. From lawyers argument that I read, once a customer is "boarded", none of UA contract rule applied since they never define in the written contract.

Unfortunately, UA would argue that the contract allows them the latitude via the phrase:

'Safety – Whenever refusal or removal of a Passenger may be necessary for the safety of such Passenger or other Passengers or members of the crew including, but not limited to:'

Also this is not an overbook issue. This is simply UA wanted to kick a paid customer who already boarded the plane so they can add 4 of their employees on the plane. So UA don't have any legal protection to use "overbook" justification in the contract.

Yes, they can. What do you know of those four employees ?

And No, Rule 21 dictate that if a person interference with Flight Crew, he can be REMOVED from the aircraft, you can only be removed from an aircraft after you are boarded.

Here is what these guys do not understand...

What happened was at the captain's discretion. If the captain felt that four passengers must be removed to make room for four UA employees, he has that authority. You may not like that decision, but once the decision is made, and all attempts to peacably resolve the issue have been exhausted, that authority extends to forcible removal if necessary.

This is the equivalent of arguing with the police because I feel the speeding ticket was unjust. I maybe in the right and the officer maybe in the wrong, but at the moment, the speeding citation was lawful. I can challenge the citation at a later date, but at that moment, any disagreement can be taken by the officer as a threat.

 

[jhungary]

What happened was at the captain's discretion. If the captain felt that four passengers must be removed to make room for four UA employees, he has that authority. You may not like that decision, but once the decision is made, and all attempts to peacably resolve the issue have been exhausted, that authority extends to forcible removal if necessary.

This is the equivalent of arguing with the police because I feel the speeding ticket was unjust. I maybe in the right and the officer maybe in the wrong, but at the moment, the speeding citation was lawful. I can challenge the citation at a later date, but at that moment, any disagreement can be taken by the officer as a threat.

As I said 4 times here already.

The Captain decision may or may not be reasonable, but by law, the captain's decision need not be reasonable but only lawful. The Pilot could have come up to me and said to me "I don't like you, I feel threatened by you, I need you to disembark from this aircraft" This instruction may be unreasonable for me, but this is a lawful instruction and if I stay on the plane and the pilot refuse to fly, guess who is going to be arrested?

 

[gambit]

...the captain's decision need not be reasonable but only lawful.

WHAT A SHOCKER...!!!

 

[xunzi]

Wrong.

This is different than a Hit as an example, as a calling for a Hit is a willing engagement of criminal activities, hence a crime of association, different than the UA calling authority on an unruly passenger.

A better example is this.

You are at your home, someone is breaking into your home, you called the police and the police come and beat the crap out of that person, can that person sue you for calling the police? he/she can sue the police for unlawful assault, but you, on the other hand, is innocent party as defined by law as you have no idea or reasonable expectation on that Police Officer you called will beat the crap out of the intruder.

Also, under US Law, commercial aircraft was a Public Place, compounded to the aircraft park on Federal Land (Airport Apron is considered Federal Land) strictly speaking, once you entered the Airport Restricted Area (Definded as after check in and/or immigration control).

And No, Rule 21 dictate that if a person interference with Flight Crew, he can be REMOVED from the aircraft, you can only be removed from an aircraft after you are boarded.

Read Rule 21 as per UA Contract of Carriage (red Highlighted Portion)

Rule 21 Refusal of Transport
UA shall have the right to refuse to transport or shall have the right to remove from the aircraft at any point, any Passenger for the following reasons:

https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriage.aspx#sec21

Rule 25 set forth the case for the overbooking, which did not applies in this situation.



You can remove him once he boarded (read the contract above)

The contract between Dr Dao and UA broke at the time when the Captain ask Dr Dao to remove himself from the aircraft and Dr Dao ignore this lawful order. That point of time, Dr Dao broke the Clause 21 Subsection H-2

Rules 21 H-2 Read
Passengers who fail to comply with or interfere with the duties of the members of the flight crew, federal regulations, or security directives;

https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriage.aspx#sec21

Non-compliance to flight crew instruction also breaking 49 U.S. Code § 46504 - Interference with flight crew members and attendants

It does not matter if the Captain request are reasonable or not, the law provided as long as the captain instruction is lawful (Not harming any passenger and/crew) that any passenger have to follow that instruction, reasonable or not is not the matter of concern here. If you think the pilot instruction is not reasonable and maybe broken the contract of carriage, you can, disembark, and then complaint to either FAA or UA.

Dr Dao refuse to comply to this instruction to get off the aircraft. At that point he broke rules 21 H-2 as he failed to comply with the duties of the members of the flight crew.

Unless you can proof otherwise, it is how the rules, contract and US law states. So, no, you are wrong.

Wrong again.

Bad example: The person who breaks into your home is not a thief but an invitee to your house. Unless he posts a threat to your house, you cannot call the police. And two, he was not your local police but an aviation authority who work with the airline, so airlines do carry responsibility especially their intent to call up the authority was to remove him.

Like I told you, Those carrier contract rule applied ONLY at the gate during boarding and not after he was already boarded.