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)

Doug B said:
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.
Click to expand...
Why not just ask for the Chicago Bulls and Bears and Blackhawks since we're just pulling numbers out of our ###?

 
Ditka Butkus said:
Well he did quickly show that he was clearly mentally unstable...That alone was reason enough to de-plane him IMO.
Click to expand...
The decision to de-plane him was made BEFORE he showed any evidence of being mentally unstable. Evidence that occurred AFTER the decision was made is not justification for the decision being made. 

 
whiskey7 said:
If I am correct
Click to expand...
While some of the stuff you said is correct, it's mixed with so many assumptions, assertions, insinuations, and fabrications that the sum of everything can't possibly considered anything but wrong. In other words, you can't be a little bit wrong anymore than one can be a little bit pregnant. If you have said so much that you feel the need to state, "If I am correct", odds are pretty good you're wrong. 

 
Politician Spock said:
While some of the stuff you said is correct, it's mixed with so many assumptions, assertions, insinuations, and fabrications that the sum of everything can't possibly considered anything but wrong. In other words, you can't be a little bit wrong anymore than one can be a little bit pregnant. If you have said so much that you feel the need to state, "If I am correct", odds are pretty good you're wrong. 
Click to expand...
My bad. I keep forgetting its all facts all the time here in the FFA.

 
I tell you what ... looking at about a half-dozen different threads on this event from several different boards: I haven't seen one person budge an inch off of whatever their first impressions were Monday morning. I cop to that myself, and I also cop to requiring pretty much impossible-to-collect evidence to change my mind.

So, not claiming superiority here. I'm as intransigent as everyone else seems to be on this matter. Just making a note that the intransigence seems especially strong with Dao v. United. A lot like the Disney-park alligator-eats-toddler issue and the Harambe flap. People go and stand on opposing lines early on, and spend a week or so playing Red Rover against people just as dug in as they are (me too).

 
Doug B said:
I tell you what ... looking at about a half-dozen different threads on this event from several different boards: I haven't seen one person budge an inch off of whatever their first impressions were Monday morning. I cop to that myself, and I also cop to requiring pretty much impossible-to-collect evidence to change my mind.

So, not claiming superiority here. I'm as intransigent as everyone else seems to be on this matter. Just making a note that the intransigence seems especially strong with Dao v. United. A lot like the Disney-park alligator-eats-toddler issue and the Harambe flap. People go and stand on opposing lines early on, and spend a week or so playing Red Rover against people just as dug in as they are (me too).
Click to expand...
People who sided with UA and still side with UA are stubborn and apparently unable to accept the new information that has come to light this week.  They are also in the minority.  

 
chet said:
People who sided with UA and still side with UA are stubborn and apparently unable to accept the new information that has come to light this week.  They are also in the minority.  
Click to expand...
The only reason religions survive is because it is human trait to want to keep believing something. If entire religions can survive on that trait, then so can even the most minute opinions. 

 
Doug B said:
I tell you what ... looking at about a half-dozen different threads on this event from several different boards: I haven't seen one person budge an inch off of whatever their first impressions were Monday morning. I cop to that myself, and I also cop to requiring pretty much impossible-to-collect evidence to change my mind.

So, not claiming superiority here. I'm as intransigent as everyone else seems to be on this matter. Just making a note that the intransigence seems especially strong with Dao v. United. A lot like the Disney-park alligator-eats-toddler issue and the Harambe flap. People go and stand on opposing lines early on, and spend a week or so playing Red Rover against people just as dug in as they are (me too).
Click to expand...
The first text I sent to a friend of mine when I saw the vid was "I'm glad he got his ### beat" because I figured he was a complete ##### of the type I've seen many times in airports.

I've softened on that a bit.  The guy deserves compensation for the excessive use of force and United should find ways to accommodate crews without bumping paying customers.

I've also seen people who have gone the other way.  Thought the video was horrible and then realized Dao was/is a crazy some#####.

 
17seconds said:
I've also seen people who have gone the other way.  Thought the video was horrible and then realized Dao was/is a crazy some#####.
Click to expand...
There are two videos ... I think the first one was more widely viewed.

The first video to come out started immediately before the LOEs grabbed Dao. Since Dao was shouting out from pretty much the beginning of that video, I think people assumed Dao was loud from the get-go with flight attendants and continued being loud once the LOEs showed up.

The second video, which I saw for the first time yesterday, covered the time that the LOEs were talking to a seated Dao. That second look confirmed that Dao was standing firm but was not creating a ruckus before being physically handled. The "belligerent passenger" issue dried up and blew away.

 
17seconds said:
I thought this was a law that required congressional approval to increase the cap.  hmmm
Click to expand...
Delta's new policy is unrelated to involuntary deboards, which is (for now) capped at $1350.

What chet linked to was Delta's new internal rules about how much to offer to attract voluntary deboards.

 
Doug B said:
I tell you what ... looking at about a half-dozen different threads on this event from several different boards: I haven't seen one person budge an inch off of whatever their first impressions were Monday morning. I cop to that myself, and I also cop to requiring pretty much impossible-to-collect evidence to change my mind.

So, not claiming superiority here. I'm as intransigent as everyone else seems to be on this matter. Just making a note that the intransigence seems especially strong with Dao v. United. A lot like the Disney-park alligator-eats-toddler issue and the Harambe flap. People go and stand on opposing lines early on, and spend a week or so playing Red Rover against people just as dug in as they are (me too).
Click to expand...
I've budged. I was on the side of "United had the right to remove him" from what I was reading but though I'm not totally convinced a judge would rule it illegal  I'm leaning that way. Of course my first post in the thread was that United screwed up. And I still feel most of the blame falls on the guy/guys who got overly aggressive and dropped him on his face.

 
Mr Fenton has great credentials, but he whiffs right off the bat: the flight was not overbooked. Oversale regulations are not applicable.

 
johnnyrock62000 said:
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/united-airlines-incident-from-perspective-airline-transport-fenton

Should he have been bloodied? No. Was he committing a federal felony? Yes.

Can you sue for damages when the injuries happened in the commission of a felony?
Click to expand...
Can't speak to #1 but it seems ridiculous. It basically says the airlines have the authority to kick a passenger off for whatever reason. I don't think it would ultimately change anything in this incident because it won't go to trial. UA is going to settle. Regardless I'd be interested in learning more & if true think that kind of autonomy is  :bs:

I don't think #2 applies. It says " In the case of buying an airline ticket from any major US carrier, being bumped from an overbooked flight is an express term to which passengers agree." 

It's been stated numerous times that this wasn't an overbooked flight. 

 
chet said:
People who sided with UA and still side with UA are stubborn and apparently unable to accept the new information that has come to light this week.  They are also in the minority.  
Click to expand...
Earlier in the thread, it was said (of one of mine) "posts like these do show where we are as a country". I think this ^ post does a better job of that.

100% in support of Dao or you're 100% for UA.

Agree with me 100% or you're 100% against me.

Be as mad as me about something or you condone it.

You're with me or against me.

 
Doug B said:
Mr Fenton has great credentials, but he whiffs right off the bat: the flight was not overbooked. Oversale regulations are not applicable.
Click to expand...
To be fair, the article was published on April 11 which is before UA admitted the flight wasn't overbooked.

 
johnnyrock62000 said:
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/united-airlines-incident-from-perspective-airline-transport-fenton

Should he have been bloodied? No. Was he committing a federal felony? Yes.

Can you sue for damages when the injuries happened in the commission of a felony?
Click to expand...
They are going to have to argue that boarding is defined as anytime the wheels are on the ground to make that case. 

The definition of boarding is not defined in UA specs or the govt specs so when that happens it falls to plain language. 

So if you want to argue a seated passenger in their assigned seat is not boarded then have at it. 

 
culdeus said:
They are going to have to argue that boarding is defined as anytime the wheels are on the ground to make that case. 

The definition of boarding is not defined in UA specs or the govt specs so when that happens it falls to plain language. 

So if you want to argue a seated passenger in their assigned seat is not boarded then have at it. 
Click to expand...
:lol: at thinking a jury would agree that the airplane door has to be closed before a passenger is boarded 

 
fatness said:
Why don't you just post their policy, and stop all the speculation and guessing about it.
Click to expand...
In the context of the post you were replying to (and those of mine that preceded it), when I said "policy" I was referring to UA's internal policy that governs how their employees behave. I am referring to the rules, documentation, training, etc their people receive that tells them how they are supposed to handle various situations. I didn't clarify that at the time and its obviously lead to misunderstanding. I assumed people would know what I meant. I probably should have used SOP (standard operating procedure) instead of policy in that context. My fault.

In response to those saying UA should have just kept upping the $ amount of the offer until someone volunteered to accept it, I believe UA's SOP does not allow that. The GA was limited in what she could offer for a volunteer. They probably only have so much cash on hand at any time and their system will probably only spit out a check for certain amounts given the circumstances input by the GA. Some people seem to continue to believe the GA has a gangster roll or book of blank checks and full authorization to go up as high as it takes to find someone's price. I am pretty sure that is not the case.  

 
whiskey7 said:
In the context of the post you were replying to (and those of mine that preceded it), when I said "policy" I was referring to UA's internal policy that governs how their employees behave. I am referring to the rules, documentation, training, etc their people receive that tells them how they are supposed to handle various situations. I didn't clarify that at the time and its obviously lead to misunderstanding. I assumed people would know what I meant. I probably should have used SOP (standard operating procedure) instead of policy in that context. My fault.

In response to those saying UA should have just kept upping the $ amount of the offer until someone volunteered to accept it, I believe UA's SOP does not allow that. The GA was limited in what she could offer for a volunteer. They probably only have so much cash on hand at any time and their system will probably only spit out a check for certain amounts given the circumstances input by the GA. Some people seem to continue to believe the GA has a gangster roll or book of blank checks and full authorization to go up as high as it takes to find someone's price. I am pretty sure that is not the case.  
Click to expand...
United is a poorly managed airline. I don't think anyone is saying this was caused by some rogue employees doing their own thing.  

 
culdeus said:
They are going to have to argue that boarding is defined as anytime the wheels are on the ground to make that case. 

The definition of boarding is not defined in UA specs or the govt specs so when that happens it falls to plain language. 

So if you want to argue a seated passenger in their assigned seat is not boarded then have at it. 
Click to expand...
There is no way United is dumb enough to let this go to court. 

 
whiskey7 said:
In response to those saying UA should have just kept upping the $ amount of the offer until someone volunteered to accept it, I believe UA's SOP does not allow that. The GA was limited in what she could offer for a volunteer. They probably only have so much cash on hand at any time and their system will probably only spit out a check for certain amounts given the circumstances input by the GA.
Click to expand...
Nobody is saying that the gate attendant should have started offering money out of her own pocket. We're saying that United's operating procedures are stupid.

 
Politician Spock said:
There is no way United is dumb enough to let this go to court. 
Click to expand...
They do not have a choice.  If a litigant wants to pursue an action, the litigant is not required to take a settlement offer.

If I were United and could not settle, and I would have already offered seven figures, I would just go ahead and accept liability so that the jury only has damages to consider.  Fighting the liability issue and arguing guidelines and federal rules will just alienate the jury and ultimately increase the amount of the award.

 
flranger said:
They do not have a choice.  If a litigant wants to pursue an action, the litigant is not required to take a settlement offer.

If I were United and could not settle, and I would have already offered seven figures, I would just go ahead and accept liability so that the jury only has damages to consider.  Fighting the liability issue and arguing guidelines and federal rules will just alienate the jury and ultimately increase the amount of the award.
Click to expand...
What if the settlement offer matches what they have asked for?

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
Nobody is saying that the gate attendant should have started offering money out of her own pocket. We're saying that United's operating procedures are stupid.
Click to expand...
Not out of her own pocket, no. But plenty of people have said (and continue to say) all UA's gate people had to do to avoid this whole mess was keep upping the offer (as though the GA just had to get off the company wallet and start throwing hundreds around). Those people seem to think UA's people were not bound by company procedure and could just freelance as they saw fit. I've simply been saying it was not that easy or I am sure they would have done it.

 
whiskey7 said:
Not out of her own pocket, no. But plenty of people have said (and continue to say) all UA's gate people had to do to avoid this whole mess was keep upping the offer (as though the GA just had to get off the company wallet and start throwing hundreds around). Those people seem to think UA's people were not bound by company procedure and could just freelance as they saw fit. I've simply been saying it was not that easy or I am sure they would have done it.
Click to expand...
That's where I disagree. I don't know how hard it would be but I don't believe everything possible was done. No proof but I'd bet bottom dollar personnel pointed to policy, didn't use common sense & took the easy (ie lazy) way & opted to have him tossed.

 
Buzzbait said:
That's where I disagree. I don't know how hard it would be but I don't believe everything possible was done. No proof but I'd bet bottom dollar personnel pointed to policy, didn't use common sense & took the easy (ie lazy) way & opted to have him tossed.
Click to expand...
They're so used to being able to bully people that this type of behavior is second nature to them.

 
Buzzbait said:
That's where I disagree. I don't know how hard it would be but I don't believe everything possible was done. No proof but I'd bet bottom dollar personnel pointed to policy, didn't use common sense & took the easy (ie lazy) way & opted to have him tossed.
Click to expand...
Personnel is paid to adhere to policy. Organizations put policy in place so every situation is not left to employee discretion. 

 
I don't think they are all driving Hondas, but United new policy is crew has to check in by 60 minutes before departure if they need a seat.

 
whiskey7 said:
Not out of her own pocket, no. But plenty of people have said (and continue to say) all UA's gate people had to do to avoid this whole mess was keep upping the offer (as though the GA just had to get off the company wallet and start throwing hundreds around). Those people seem to think UA's people were not bound by company procedure and could just freelance as they saw fit. I've simply been saying it was not that easy or I am sure they would have done it.
Click to expand...
You are splitting hairs. If it was the employees who screwed up by not doing what management laid out for them to do, or it was management who screwed up by laying it out for them to do, it's still a f'd up company. I really don't care where the internal finger pointing results. 

 
Phil Elliott said:
I don't think they are all driving Hondas, but United new policy is crew has to check in by 60 minutes before departure if they need a seat.
Click to expand...
I liked how United rolled this info out on a Saturday morning during a holiday weekend.

Speaking of, the airline should thank the heavens that Easter weekend has interrupted the news cycle. Still, new United passenger mistreatment stories keep getting uncovered, in an almost Cosbyesque turn. None of the "me, too!" stories have been nearly as salacious as the David Dao incident ... but the media doesn't seem to care much.

 
Phil Elliott said:
I don't think they are all driving Hondas, but United new policy is crew has to check in by 60 minutes before departure if they need a seat.
Click to expand...
So what happens if this exact same situation occurs again: they need to get a crew on one specific flight in order to get another flight off in time, but the crew can't get to the gate until 30 mins prior. They're denied boarding and the second flight gets cancelled? Wasn't this the armageddon scenario some people were harping on?

 
RUSF18 said:
So what happens if this exact same situation occurs again: they need to get a crew on one specific flight in order to get another flight off in time, but the crew can't get to the gate until 30 mins prior. They're denied boarding and the second flight gets cancelled? Wasn't this the armageddon scenario some people were harping on?
Click to expand...
Then they ask the people on the cancelled flight "happy now you ####ers"

 
Has anyone heard this?? A friend that's an United employee said Dao initially left the plane and accepted the financial offer. However when he found out he wouldn't get home until the next day he went back on the plane and took his seat. Then all the mayhem took place. Is this a BS story? Has it been reported anywhere?

 
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