Flying the Not-So Friendly Skies
 

By now everyone's heard about the United flight from which Dr. Dao was forcibly removed after refusing to give up his seat. It's been interesting watching the development of this story, from where it began to where it is now.

Had you been in Dr. Dao's position, would you have given up your seat willingly or would you have refused as he did?

Re: Flying the Not-So Friendly Skies
 

https://heavyeditorial.files.wordpre...trip=all&w=620

http://www.straitstimes.com/sites/de...?itok=hrASzso8

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C9KPRj4WAAEjtcu.jpg

http://memeguy.com/photos/images/wel...nes-256994.png

Re: Flying the Not-So Friendly Skies
 

http://nypost.com/2017/04/11/doctor-...drugs-for-sex/

The passenger hauled off a United flight is a lung doctor with a taste for gambling, a history of angry outbursts — and a conviction for trading narcotics prescriptions and cash for gay sex in motels.

http://thenewdaily.com.au/news/world...eo-apologises/

the flight was not in fact overbooked, but that the four passengers were removed to accommodate four crew members needed in Louisville the next day.

Re: Flying the Not-So Friendly Skies
 

So at first, there was outrage at United. Everyone was shocked at how the airline security personnel brutally assaulted Dr. Dao and just dragged him off of the plane.

Then "journalists" did what they do and some newspaper from Dr. Dao's home state decided it was relevant to point out that over TEN years ago, Dr. Dao was forced to stop practicing due to charges against him for sexual harassment of a former employee and prescription drug violations. After paying the penalty for his crimes, he was allowed to resume practice in 2015 and, thus far, seems to be on the straight and narrow.

The story wasn't relevant at all, had absolutely nothing to do with him being assaulted and dragged off of the plane, but, again, journalists will be journalists: they love to create controversy and dig up old issues.

After that newspaper broke the story, other stations and newspapers began including it in their stories, as though it was relevant. National news, when talking about the incident, didn't fail to mention the crimes committed by Dr. Dao in 2004/2005.

Then I noticed comments on social media beginning to change. Dr. Dao wasn't a victim anymore. He was belligerent and it was all Dr. Dao's fault for refusing to leave; he was a criminal, after all.

This is the best thing to happen for United. The narrative has been changed from outrage against United to questioning and blaming the victim, Dr. Dao, who, if you didn't know already, was a criminal and had his license revoked for several years. :ohplease

Re: Flying the Not-So Friendly Skies
 

:lol

I just posted about how the narrative has changed. Since you posted the link above, could you explain what the Dr's gambling, conviction for drug violations and (this is new) alleged cash for gay sex has to do with his being assaulted by airport security?

Re: Flying the Not-So Friendly Skies
 

I posted the link, but I also voted that United was wrong . . .

Re: Flying the Not-So Friendly Skies
 

This is really poor service by United, and could end up in a big payday for Dr. Dao, unless United is able to use these past issues (or find other skeletons) to force Dr. Dao to drop it. Even this article makes sure to mention the tawdry details of Dr. Dao's past.

The airline wasn't overbooked.
Allegedly these four crew members were from a partner airline, not United.
Airport security should have followed protocol and requested the police to assist, instead of assaulting Dr. Dao and dragging him off the plane.

Were I in Dr. Dao's position, I doubt I would have voluntarily given up my seat either. Especially if I was needed at work the next morning. It's not as though Dr. Dao was opening the drive through window at McDonald's the next morning; he has patients who had scheduled appointments.

Re: Flying the Not-So Friendly Skies
 

I just hate that the man's past convictions are now part of the story. I've never committed a crime, but I did some stupid things growing up. I would be incredibly angry and upset if any of those things suddenly became part of the story about me being dragged off a plane by overzealous security personnel.

The guy paid for the crime. Sure, he's not a model citizen, but neither is the POTUS!

Re: Flying the Not-So Friendly Skies
 

God loves and forgives and wipes the slate clean; people for the most part might forgive but never forget.

And if you end up in the spotlight, all the dirt will come up.

I don't expect POTUS to be a saint, I don't believe you can be in politics and not be corrupt.

LBJ was a great politician because he could wheel and deal with the devil himself, and likely will spend eternity in hell.

Re: Flying the Not-So Friendly Skies
 

This is done OFTEN and I agree with you in that it should NEVER happen unless the past is DIRECTLY connected to the present.

Re: Flying the Not-So Friendly Skies
 

How come instant paydays like this don't happen to me?
:foottap

Re: Flying the Not-So Friendly Skies
 

:lol

Re: Flying the Not-So Friendly Skies
 

Bottom line, the good doctor broke the law when he refused to follow the orders of the flight crew. PERIOD. Next time, read the fine print. Besides, the airline needed his seat and others to move a flight crew. Did he really think he was more important than the hundreds of people on those subsequent flights that wouldn't get to their destination because there wasn't a crew there to fly the plane? The airline offered $1000 to him to give up his seat. I'm sure they would have put him on the next available flight and maybe even put him in 1st class. Now, I do think the security agent, who wasn't a United employee, BTW, was out of line in using excessive force, but really, no force should have been necessary. I suspect there are more underlying facts that lead up to that officer using that much force that isn't being played by the media.

Re: Flying the Not-So Friendly Skies
 

good points.

Re: Flying the Not-So Friendly Skies
 

I disagree.

The flight was not overbooked. It was a full flight of paying passengers. UA should have found alternate transportation for them. If UA wants to apply the "fine print" it has for overbooking (which it admits it was not overbooked) but even if it wants to claim that fine print applies, then UA violated its fine print.

"""UA will request Passengers who are willing to relinquish their confirmed reserved space in exchange for compensation in an amount determined by UA (including but not limited to check or an electronic travel certificate)."""

"""Boarding Priorities - If a flight is Oversold, no one may be denied boarding against his/her will until UA or other carrier personnel first ask for volunteers who will give up their reservations willingly in exchange for compensation as determined by UA. If there are not enough volunteers, other Passengers may be denied boarding involuntarily in accordance with UA’s boarding priority"""

It's important to understand the fine print.

1) """The travel certificate will be valid only for travel on UA or designated Codeshare partners for one year from the date of issue and will have no refund value.""" From the news I've read, Dr. Dao and others were offered TRAVEL CERTIFICATES, not cash. These travel certificates are absolutely WORTHLESS unless you travel often. I was on a flight (different airline) which was overbooked. They offered $1000 travel voucher plus overnight stay in a hotel. I didn't volunteer. Now, had that been $1000 in cash, I would have ran off the plane! :lol But these travel certificates are mostly good for wiping after running out of toilet paper.

2) The definition of volunteer was missed by UA, and then it violated its Contract of Carriage Document, section 25.2 where it states how it resolves overbooking.

"""2.Boarding Priorities - If a flight is Oversold, no one may be denied boarding against his/her will until UA or other carrier personnel first ask for volunteers who will give up their reservations willingly in exchange for compensation as determined by UA. If there are not enough volunteers, other Passengers may be denied boarding involuntarily in accordance with UA’s boarding priority:

a.Passengers who are Qualified Individuals with Disabilities, unaccompanied minors under the age of 18 years, or minors between the ages of 5 to 15 years who use the unaccompanied minor service, will be the last to be involuntarily denied boarding if it is determined by UA that such denial would constitute a hardship.

b.The priority of all other confirmed passengers may be determined based on a passenger’s fare class, itinerary, status of frequent flyer program membership, and the time in which the passenger presents him/herself for check-in without advanced seat assignment."""

Where is there anything printed about a "lottery?" I've looked through section 25 which deals with overbooking and there is nothing about a "lottery." I would bet that was something made up by the flight staff, violating their own Contract of Carriage.

Per their Contract of Carriage, UA was required to 1) ask for volunteers and if there were none, then 2) once the flight was filled, they were to deny boarding based on "fare class, itinerary, FFP membership and time of check-in w/out advanced seat assignment."

These four crew members were allegedly late to check in and were not given advanced seat assignments. As a result, UA, or one of its partner airlines, should have found another flight for them. UA had no right to break its contract and force a paying passenger off the flight.

3) The airport security agent was completely out of line. He had no right to resort to force. Three of them are currently on leave and being investigated because of this. I hope all three are fired and barred from security work in the future.

4) UA messed up big time. BIGLY! They went cheap, trying to offer vouchers for $400 and $800, but now will end up paying millions to Dr. Dao. He's already hired a lawyer, and that lawyer isn't playing around. This morning they filed an emergency petition, asking the court to order UA to hold all relevant cockpit recordings, texts, emails, etc relating to the incident.

One thing with lawsuits, once the company has admitted culpability or blame for an incident, it's over. They will pay to settle, and it won't be cheap. The UA CEO tried to blame the victim with his first statement, removing culpability from UA, but then after intense backlash (and its stock falling 4%) he admitted culpability and claimed UA will correct its mistakes. And with that, he guaranteed UA will be paying a lot.

I've yet to read, though I'm sure it will happen eventually, of Dr. Dao suing the Chicago Aviation Authority for excessive force. The CAA issued a statement as well: ""While they do have limited authority to make an arrest, Sunday's incident was not within standard operating procedures nor will we tolerate that kind of action," Karen Pride said in the statement. "That is why we quickly placed the aviation security officer on leave pending a thorough review of the situation."

Culpability.

Re: Flying the Not-So Friendly Skies
 

I think Dr Dao's scheduled patients will sue united airlines as well...

Regarding the fine print - the airline can deny you from BOARDING.
Once, you're on board, you are guaranteed that seat.

I understand that the Dr initially volunteered to give up his seat, but changed his mind after it was determined that the departure time for the next flight wouldn't work for him.

So, was his seat really randomly selected?:boxing

Re: Flying the Not-So Friendly Skies
 

I'm surprised no one has connected this to the incident, yet. :lol

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0GW0Vnr9Yc

Re: Flying the Not-So Friendly Skies
 

This article makes some very valid points:
https://thepilotwifelife.wordpress.c...t-flight-3411/

Re: Flying the Not-So Friendly Skies
 

I personally think United was wrong....however the "doctor" could have reacted differently...I have never really liked United...

Re: Flying the Not-So Friendly Skies
 

The Attorney and family of Dr. Dao just held a press conference. They claim Dr. Dao suffered a concussion, broken nose and lost two teeth in the assault against him by the Chicago Airport Authority agents.

But it's his fault because of his criminal past, of which the media wants to constantly remind you.

Reading comments and articles about Dao's attorney, Tom Demetrio, UA better buckle up -- some rough turbulence ahead for them!

Re: Flying the Not-So Friendly Skies
 

someone posted on Facebook

*I have no problems flying United, I was raised Pentecostal and I'm used to be drug down the aisle*

:heeheehee

Re: Flying the Not-So Friendly Skies
 

That's funny. :lol