What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Doctor violently dragged from full United flight (1 Viewer)

chet said:
Dr. Dao is going to get paid BIGLY.

$4mm settlement--do you take the over or under?
Click to expand...
Pretty sure I've stayed the under.  Still believe when all said and done, he will get less than that.  We will probably never know.  Lawyers will take more than half of whatever United pays too. 

 
chet said:
They were bullied into submission by a company that, among other things,  lies to their passengers.  They had no legal right to demand that those passengers get off the plane.  They will probably get paid too but nothing like Dr. Dao, obviously.  
Click to expand...
They will not be paid anything.  

 
MarvinTScamper said:
Pretty sure I've stayed the under.  Still believe when all said and done, he will get less than that.  We will probably never know.  Lawyers will take more than half of whatever United pays too. 
Click to expand...
Standard fees are 33-40%.  His case will be at the low end because of the size and notoriety.  

 
I love how people are so certain that United had no right to bounce those customers. "But lawman123 in a comment on a blog said so!" This is one that could go either way due to the possible gray area of when someone is considered boarded. Guess we'll see. The other passengers aren't getting anything other than what they already got (refund). Dao will get some $ due to his injuries.

 
3C's said:
I love how people are so certain that United had no right to bounce those customers. "But lawman123 in a comment on a blog said so!" This is one that could go either way due to the possible gray area of when someone is considered boarded. Guess we'll see. The other passengers aren't getting anything other than what they already got (refund). Dao will get some $ due to his injuries.
Click to expand...
Woman interviewed last night on CNN said she hasn't accepted her refund yet. When the host mentioned if you accept it you are agreeing to not sue she said she would definitely wait to weigh her options.

Lawyers are lining up.

 
The General said:
Woman interviewed last night on CNN said she hasn't accepted her refund yet. When the host mentioned if you accept it you are agreeing to not sue she said she would definitely wait to weigh her options.

Lawyers are lining up.
Click to expand...
What are her damages? That she was delayed? That she had to deal with the trauma of seeing him dragged out? Good luck with that.

 
3C's said:
What are her damages? That she was delayed? That she had to deal with the trauma of seeing him dragged out? Good luck with that.
Click to expand...
Who knows? Doesn't mean she would win, mote that United will start shelling out to avoid the PR.

She had her kid with her and said they kid was freaked I believe they said she was pregnant. Also mentioned there were kids crying in the back after all this. Didn't seem like she was set on suing and seemed like a pretty reasonable woman, just when presented with taking a free ticket but you have to sign away any potential legal action you could see the wheels turning.

It did sound pretty slimy, sure that was the host's goal to make this story better.

 
The General said:
Who knows? Doesn't mean she would win, mote that United will start shelling out to avoid the PR.

She had her kid with her and said they kid was freaked I believe they said she was pregnant. Also mentioned there were kids crying in the back after all this. Didn't seem like she was set on suing and seemed like a pretty reasonable woman, just when presented with taking a free ticket but you have to sign away any potential legal action you could see the wheels turning.

It did sound pretty slimy, sure that was the host's goal to make this story better.
Click to expand...
Seeing an old man bleeding and running down the aisle of the plane probably freaked more than just the kids.

 
chet said:
Dr. Dao is going to get paid BIGLY.

$4mm settlement--do you take the over or under?
Click to expand...
Well under.

1.  UA didn't administer the beating; law enforcement officials did.

2. Dao isn't a sympathetic plaintiff. He's a convicted pill peddler who may have tried to get a man addicted so Dao could use him as a sex slave. UA can throw a lot of mud at him in a trial.

 
DaVinci said:
Well under.

1.  UA didn't administer the beating; law enforcement officials did.

2. Dao isn't a sympathetic plaintiff. He's a convicted pill peddler who may have tried to get a man addicted so Dao could use him as a sex slave. UA can throw a lot of mud at him in a trial.
Click to expand...
#2: I don't think it's in their best interest to do that.

 
3C's said:
DaVinci said:
Well under.

1.  UA didn't administer the beating; law enforcement officials did.

2. Dao isn't a sympathetic plaintiff. He's a convicted pill peddler who may have tried to get a man addicted so Dao could use him as a sex slave. UA can throw a lot of mud at him in a trial.
Click to expand...
#2: I don't think it's in their best interest to do that.
Click to expand...
Maybe not, but the threat is still enough to drive down the price of the settlement.

 
chet said:
They were bullied into submission by a company that, among other things,  lies to their passengers.  They had no legal right to demand that those passengers get off the plane.  They will probably get paid too but nothing like Dr. Dao, obviously.  
Click to expand...
Wait...so you think the other passengers (the ones who left after being randomly selected) will get paid? Why on earth would they get paid? That makes no sense whatsoever.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
DaVinci said:
Well under.

1.  UA didn't administer the beating; law enforcement officials did.

2. Dao isn't a sympathetic plaintiff. He's a convicted pill peddler who may have tried to get a man addicted so Dao could use him as a sex slave. UA can throw a lot of mud at him in a trial.
Click to expand...
None of that is relevant to what happened on the plane and I doubt it will be admissible.

 
DaVinci said:
Legally, they were only on the hook for 4x the lowest priced ticket if they involuntarily bump someone. The accountants would say there's no reason to offer more than that amount for volunteers. The PR guys might disagree.
Click to expand...
Ask the accountants how they feel a year from now after they pay this guy off if they think there might have been a good reason to up the price (even if more than 4x).

Dickies said:
What you are legally on the hook for doesn't preclude you from offering more when the other option is brutalizing a client in front of dozens of smartphone cameras
Click to expand...
That this still escapes some people, or that they just don't agree with it, I find fascinating. UA made an egresses error judging the situation but now even in hindsight some defend not upping the offer.

DaVinci said:
But that isn't the other option. The other three passengers who got booted didn't require a beating to leave the plane.
Click to expand...
Why? Why isn't that another option? The fact that the other 3 passengers didn't need to have their offer upped and that they didn't require a beating is moot. They needed four passengers off the plane and until they have all four off (even if they are for different offers) the objective hasn't been completed.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Warrior said:
Wait...so you think the other passengers (the ones who left after being randomly selected) will get paid? Why on earth would they get paid? That makes no sense whatsoever.
Click to expand...
Absolutely.  To be clear, I am referring to the other 3 people who were "randomly" selected to be involuntarily de-boarded.  The only difference between them and Dr. Dao is the physical violence that Dr. Dao endured.  UA still bullied all 4, illegally deplaned them,  etc.  They are absolutely talking to personal injury lawyers to get their piece of the pie and I think they'll get something.

 
Warrior said:
Wait...so you think the other passengers (the ones who left after being randomly selected) will get paid? Why on earth would they get paid? That makes no sense whatsoever.
Click to expand...
I'm sure everyone of them have suffered emotional distress, especially the crazy "oh my gawd, oh my gawd " blonde...

 
Ditka Butkus said:
That may be profuse bleeding in your world....Why don't we ask Busted Knuckles if he considers that profuse..
Click to expand...
It will be considered profuse to the jury once they see the pictures of him with a mouth full of blood, which is why this suit will be settled by United out of court and will never go to trial.

 
RUSF18 said:
And here's where you failed again. 
Click to expand...
I believe the UA personnel working that day treated it like an overbooked flight. I am not saying that was correct, protocol, legal, etc. I am just saying that is what I believe they did. That is why I bumped Rascal's post and bolded the parts I did.

The other crew needed to get to Louisville by 10pm sunday night or they (by union rule) couldn't operate a flight the next AM (which would negatively impact multiple flights/passengers). So that crew was given "must ride" status which has priority over Joe C Passenger. I admittedly don't know this to be fact, but strongly suspect the gate staff figured 4 "must rides" + 100% full flight = treat it like an overbook (even though the passengers were already onboard and seated). Again, I am not saying that was the right move under the circumstances. Just saying I am pretty sure that's how they played it.

If I am correct and they played it like an overbooked flight, first step was the voluntary phase. They make offers and hope they get takers. Gate Agent knows what she is permitted to use as bait. Sounds like they went with $400 then $800 but got no bites. At that point, they quickly (because the clock was ticking to get the plane in the air) moved to the involuntary phase (leading me to believe the GA knew $800 was the most she was authorized to offer for a volunteer). In the involuntary phase, they are no longer making offers...they are telling people to gtfo and compensating them for the inconvenience. The compensation amount is calculated based on multiple factors. Had Dao left when asked, I believe they would have owed him 400% of his ticket price (max $1350). But he obviously refused to leave his seat. He didn't ok them to inconvenience him so to speak. Seems its exceptionally rare it gets to that point (basically, a standoff) and evidently UA's SOP is to call LE to have the passenger removed when they wont go on their own. We know how that turned out.

Several people have said UA didn't even go to the max they could offer. That may not be accurate. $800 may very well be the cap they are authorized to offer volunteers. What they can offer a volunteer is (as I understand it) different than what they're obligated to compensate a passenger they involuntarily bump. That amount is a calculation with a cap of $1350. They were likely not going to offer $1350 to anyone as they may not have had to pay that much under the policy they believed they were operating under at the time. We know Dao passed on $800 to volunteer. We would need to know the exact $ amount of his ticket to know what they were obligated to pay him to be involuntarily bumped. Sounds kinda silly to say, but you have to agree to be involuntarily bumped and get the associated compensation. Dao didn't agree.

What I am sure the lawyers for both sides know (or will very soon) is is there a provision that allows the airline to consider a fully booked flight an overbooked flight in the case of unforeseen circumstances (ie weather and/or mechanical problems on another flight) creating a situation where individuals with "must ride" status have to get on a full flight. If there is, UA can say their people were following protocol. And (if that's the case) they may be ok because they are legally permitted to overbook and have established policy for handling situations arising from. If they are legal to intentionally overbook thousands of flights per year and involuntarily bump passengers when necessary, it would be surprising to me they wouldn't have a provision that gives them an out card in an unforeseen/unique situation such as sunday's. Maybe there isn't, though. The lawyers will figure that out. Would be very interested to see how it plays out in court but (as several people have already suggested) its likely UA settles and tries to get this to go away as quickly/quietly as possible.   

 
chet said:
Absolutely.  To be clear, I am referring to the other 3 people who were "randomly" selected to be involuntarily de-boarded.  The only difference between them and Dr. Dao is the physical violence that Dr. Dao endured.  UA still bullied all 4, illegally deplaned them,  etc.  They are absolutely talking to personal injury lawyers to get their piece of the pie and I think they'll get something.
Click to expand...
I am sure there will be other passengers/observers who may try to sue for emotional distress, or some other tort for having to watch a bloodied passenger being dragged off the plane in front of their eyes. 

 
one thing I will say is that it would have been awesome if this doctor looked down and out but then right when he was about to first class he got up and started shaking and then he dropped a major leg drop on the guy dragging him out and then started pacing to the four corners of the plane raising his hand to his ear and seeing who would cheer the loudest and if the other people on the plane started chanting usa while he took out the trash and his 42 inch pythons ran wild on the united staff all because he at his vitamins cue up i am a real american star wipe and were out that would have been awesome take that to the bank bromigomaniacs

 
whiskey7 said:
I believe the UA personnel working that day treated it like an overbooked flight. I am not saying that was correct, protocol, legal, etc. I am just saying that is what I believe they did. That is why I bumped Rascal's post and bolded the parts I did.

The other crew needed to get to Louisville by 10pm sunday night or they (by union rule) couldn't operate a flight the next AM (which would negatively impact multiple flights/passengers). So that crew was given "must ride" status which has priority over Joe C Passenger. I admittedly don't know this to be fact, but strongly suspect the gate staff figured 4 "must rides" + 100% full flight = treat it like an overbook (even though the passengers were already onboard and seated). Again, I am not saying that was the right move under the circumstances. Just saying I am pretty sure that's how they played it.

If I am correct and they played it like an overbooked flight, first step was the voluntary phase. They make offers and hope they get takers. Gate Agent knows what she is permitted to use as bait. Sounds like they went with $400 then $800 but got no bites. At that point, they quickly (because the clock was ticking to get the plane in the air) moved to the involuntary phase (leading me to believe the GA knew $800 was the most she was authorized to offer for a volunteer). In the involuntary phase, they are no longer making offers...they are telling people to gtfo and compensating them for the inconvenience. The compensation amount is calculated based on multiple factors. Had Dao left when asked, I believe they would have owed him 400% of his ticket price (max $1350). But he obviously refused to leave his seat. He didn't ok them to inconvenience him so to speak. Seems its exceptionally rare it gets to that point (basically, a standoff) and evidently UA's SOP is to call LE to have the passenger removed when they wont go on their own. We know how that turned out.

Several people have said UA didn't even go to the max they could offer. That may not be accurate. $800 may very well be the cap they are authorized to offer volunteers. What they can offer a volunteer is (as I understand it) different than what they're obligated to compensate a passenger they involuntarily bump. That amount is a calculation with a cap of $1350. They were likely not going to offer $1350 to anyone as they may not have had to pay that much under the policy they believed they were operating under at the time. We know Dao passed on $800 to volunteer. We would need to know the exact $ amount of his ticket to know what they were obligated to pay him to be involuntarily bumped. Sounds kinda silly to say, but you have to agree to be involuntarily bumped and get the associated compensation. Dao didn't agree.

What I am sure the lawyers for both sides know (or will very soon) is is there a provision that allows the airline to consider a fully booked flight an overbooked flight in the case of unforeseen circumstances (ie weather and/or mechanical problems on another flight) creating a situation where individuals with "must ride" status have to get on a full flight. If there is, UA can say their people were following protocol. And (if that's the case) they may be ok because they are legally permitted to overbook and have established policy for handling situations arising from. If they are legal to intentionally overbook thousands of flights per year and involuntarily bump passengers when necessary, it would be surprising to me they wouldn't have a provision that gives them an out card in an unforeseen/unique situation such as sunday's. Maybe there isn't, though. The lawyers will figure that out. Would be very interested to see how it plays out in court but (as several people have already suggested) its likely UA settles and tries to get this to go away as quickly/quietly as possible.   
Click to expand...
You just wont stop posting bull#### pulled out of your ###.

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
Good article. Most mainstream media sources have flubbed their coverage of this, but that one gets it right.

Here's another good write-up.
Click to expand...
It turns out that the contract has a specific rule regarding “Refusal of Transport” (Rule 21), which lays out the conditions under which a passenger can be removed and refused transport on the aircraft. This includes situations where passengers act in a “disorderly, offensive, abusive, or violent” manner, refuse to comply with the smoking policy, are barefoot or “not properly clothed,” as well as many other situations.

Does this cover screaming like a  banshee?

 
Whoa, Dao is 69 years old?  Looks much younger than that.

Also, haven't read the entire thread so forgive me if this has been discussed.  I know that initially everyone reported that this was an overbooked flight, then it came out that it wasn't overbooked.  Technically, do we know that?  I mean - lets say that the plane had 100 seats, but they sold 110 tickets.  Then only 100 of those 110 people/tickets showed up.  So then technically it was overbooked, but it didn't create the issue that then arose when 4 more seats were needed.  Do we actually know they didn't sell more tickets than seats available?  No idea if that will be a "loophole" in any legal finding here - and again sorry if already discussed.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
matttyl said:
Whoa, Dao is 69 years old?  Looks much younger than that.

Also, haven't read the entire thread so forgive me if this has been discussed.  I know that initially everyone reported that this was an overbooked flight, then it came out that it wasn't overbooked.  Technically, do we know that?  I mean - lets say that the plane had 100 seats, but they sold 110 tickets.  Then only 100 of those 110 people/tickets showed up.  So then technically it was overbooked, but it didn't create the issue that then arose when 4 more seats were needed.  Do we actually know they didn't sell more tickets than seats available?  No idea if that will be a "loophole" in any legal finding here - and again sorry if already discussed.
Click to expand...
As I see it, it's irrelevant.  Whether or not it was technically overbooked, they still needed four more seats, so it should be treated like an overbooked flight.

 
My dad worked for American Airlines for 30 years, so knowing a bit about the complexity of the business operations I tend to side with the airline.

However it's a good point that a paying customer should never be displaced for employees as a matter of regular policy.  i.e. the standard procedure is to bump paying customers because they have to send a crew to another city.   They never do it for standard non-revs, but but they do it for crews.  Why?  They'll say because if they don't bump some folks, then a whole plane of 150 people somewhere else is impacted.  Well, that's their own operational issue. I'm not saying legally, just in terms of the proper way to run a business.

 
Dickies said:
Whether or not it was technically overbooked, they still needed four more seats, so it should be treated like an overbooked flight.
Click to expand...
No it shouldn't. Airlines are given more leeway with overbooked flights than they are with kicking people off because they want to fly their unticketed employees somewhere. United shouldn't get that extra leeway in this case.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
matttyl said:
Also, haven't read the entire thread so forgive me if this has been discussed.  I know that initially everyone reported that this was an overbooked flight, then it came out that it wasn't overbooked.  Technically, do we know that?  I mean - lets say that the plane had 100 seats, but they sold 110 tickets.  Then only 100 of those 110 people/tickets showed up.  So then technically it was overbooked, but it didn't create the issue that then arose when 4 more seats were needed.  Do we actually know they didn't sell more tickets than seats available?  No idea if that will be a "loophole" in any legal finding here - and again sorry if already discussed.
Click to expand...
United's CEO says that the flight wasn't overbooked. Apparently 70 tickets were sold and 70 seats were filled.

 
Ditka Butkus said:
It turns out that the contract has a specific rule regarding “Refusal of Transport” (Rule 21), which lays out the conditions under which a passenger can be removed and refused transport on the aircraft. This includes situations where passengers act in a “disorderly, offensive, abusive, or violent” manner, refuse to comply with the smoking policy, are barefoot or “not properly clothed,” as well as many other situations.

Does this cover screaming like a  banshee?
Click to expand...
Not when the airline breaches first (by attempting to remove a boarded passenger). 

 
Willie Neslon said:
Waaaaaaaay over.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Dao can rightly extract what amounts to horse-Schmidt "unfair" compensation here -- out of one or both of United and the city of Chicago (the LOEs worked for a city dept). Dao's attorneys should make United/Chicago open the negotiations, then counter with $50 million. Then see where it goes from there.

I think they settle on low eight figures.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

dkp993
United Flight 93 Todd Beamer Call Transcript -Must Read.
Replies
23
Views
2K
belljr
belljr
GregR
Greg's Useless Trivia #50 - 100 questions (75 greatest hits, 25 new)
Replies
19
Views
3K
GregR
GregR
(HULK)
Dave Berry's Year in Review
Replies
2
Views
1K
Joe Summer
J

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top