Back to Squawk list

United Airlines reaches settlement with passenger violently dragged off flight

提交時間:
 
David Dao, the passenger dragged off a United Airlines flight, has reached an "amicable settlement" with the airline over the incident that sparked a worldwide uproar, his lawyers said Thursday. The amount of the settlement was not disclosed under the terms of the agreement, but lawyer Thomas Demetrio praised United CEO Oscar Munoz for his handling of the dispute. "Mr. Munoz said he was going to do the right thing and he has," he said. (www.usatoday.com) 更多...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


WilliamRichardsonRCF
William Richardson 12
For those arguing so vehemently against the 'reaccommodated passenger' in this case, I would bring up the difference between what is LEGAL (or policy) and what is RIGHT. I think we can all agree that they are not always the same. Having said that, I maintain that United was acting against their policy by removing someone that had been already granted boarding. This was clearly an 'oops, we screwed up' moment that they did not resolve correctly.

Let's leave his prior incidents out of this since they have no bearing whatsoever in it. If any of us had to be to the destination in a timely fashion and had been granted boarding, we would not have agreed to give up our seat. And no matter who asks, we would not have to. He was not a security threat.

Now, if you want to offer enough to charter my own flight, I will gladly shuttle over to the nearest FBO and be on my happy way. But once on board, that is the passenger's call, not the airline's. Could the airline just cancel the entire flight? Sure, but we all know that would end up costing them orders of magnitude more. If they were really smart, they would've chartered a flight for the crew that needed to be relocated.

I do hope this forces airlines to operate more from what is right than what is legal.

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

WilliamRichardsonRCF
Making a profit isn't evil, but if you refuse to treat people the right way, it is absolutely going to have an effect on your ability to stay in business. I'm glad that this has United (and other airlines) in the spotlight. Passengers should not put up with it.

If they choose to raise prices to pay the settlement, it means that more people will fly other airlines. So be it. If I were United, I would do the opposite; cut profits and lower prices to win customers back. Of course, that will only work if they actually improve policies and treat people fairly.

And I know you're trying to be snappy to prove a point, but you're making yourself seem very foolish by suggesting that people you do not know need to 'learn about the business' (please feel free to tell me how many years I have in the business world and in aviation). Further, I am very well versed in COCs and aviation policies and book some $60-$100k with United every year as most of my team has Global Services status.

Differing viewpoints are never a bad thing, but I would ask that you learn to be more respectful in expressing yours.
ChaosFreak
James Ryan 3
I agree with srobak! Since everyone reads the fine print on their tickets, and that's all that matters in "the business world", airlines should be free to put all sorts of cost saving measures into the fine print, and passengers should just shut up and accept it. Why should we all have to pay more because United is being unfairly vilified for legally beating up a passenger?

Just think how much airlines could save if they just eliminated the lavatories on all aircraft. Simply add a clause to the "fine print" that urinating or defecating during a flight is a violation of the terms of service and BINGO...you could fit nine more seats on a 737, lowering the cost for all of us passengers!

Why stop at that? How about airlines adding a clause to their "fine print" that if the flight is overweight, they can just set your luggage on fire and you have no recourse? That would save tons of money for "all passengers". And, since we all read the find print, we'd be perfectly happy with that!

If srobak had any business experience at all, he'd know that competition rules the marketplace. Beating up your passengers is bad for business, even if it's allowed under the "fine print". This may raise ticket prices by a few cents per seat, but the result is that airlines won't treat passengers this way ever again, which is worth it for all of us.

The only reason to use force on a passenger is in the case of a security threat. I'm a pilot and I know that "failure to follow flight crew instructions" means that we can legally remove a passenger from the aircraft by force, and call in security to do so, but that would be completely idiotic (and inhumane) unless there's a compelling security threat to the rest of the passengers. That was definitely not the case in this incident. He was just a guy who bought a plane ticket, sat down in his seat, and expected to be carried to his destination.

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

strickerje
Jeffrey Stricker 4
But according to the CoC, there are only a few situations for which they can remove a passenger once on board, and accommodating deadheading crew members isn't one of them. Even if Dao was "disruptive", he only became so after illegally being ordered off the flight and being beaten by security (at which point I imagine he wasn't of sound mind, through no fault of his own). I certainly agree the airline can remove a passenger for being disruptive or threatening, but this situation seems more like a cop arresting someone for no reason and then justifying it by claiming he was resisting arrest.
Doobs
Dee Lowry -4
I concur, Sorbak.
tpclark
Thomas Clark 14
After reading all of Mr srobak's dozen or so posts here, I feel compelled to honor him for his "EWQ"
exceptionally well qualified, opinions and stands he has taken here. So I'm submitting his name to
North Korea's chairman Kim Jong-un. It is my understanding that he has a Chairman of Civil Aviation
position opening and feel that Mr srobak's views make him perfect for that job!!!!!
GOOD LUCK Mr srobak from a former 45 year airline employee.

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

tpclark
Thomas Clark 3
JUST THOUGHT YOUR OPINIONS WERE A PERFECT MATCH.

DITTO ON THE SCROLL BY!!!!

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

CrysAir
CrysAir 8
I have five flight legs scheduled with United in June. Allow me to announce that I will graciously relinquish any of those seats for only $9500.
srobak
srobak -7
That's not up to you.
yarnoca1
John Yarno 6
How much would it have cost UAL to charter a flight for those crew? How much has it cost them due to the way they mishandled this incident?
carpcoppondpig
nick gorham 4
If crew expediency was such an issue they should have chartered a private jet for the passengers they removed. Would you give up your seat for a few hours delay and a private jet flight to your destination?
yr2012
matt jensen 2
Been cheaper to let them drive to SDF
srobak
srobak -8
If they chartered flights for all the crews that needed to fly to their next aircraft - then they would need to hire crews to operate those flights and lease the aircraft if they didn't have them plus all operational costs. You just doubled the price of your ticket to cover those operational expenses. It would have cost less money to cancel the flight they were trying to get to than it would cost to charter them over there on such short notice. You've clearly never run a business. You cannot have it both ways.
yarnoca1
John Yarno 2
Tell that to their BOD and stock holders. This was/is a $Billion mess.

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

npog99
npog99 5
I am glad this passenger was compensated. This should have never happened. I don't care how childish this passenger was, he should have NEVER been physically touched. I don't care what.
srobak
srobak -6
When you violate federal law by running onto a plane you were just told to leave, while screaming and acting erratically and then you ignore law enforcement's demands to exit the aircraft - then yes - you bet your ass YOU GET PHYSICALLY REMOVED!
MC418
Mike C 3
But in the first place couldn't have these aicraft personnel just chosen someone who was willing to leave instead of focusing on that one man?
srobak
srobak -7
They had already made 3 attempts to get people to volunteer to come off the plane at a pretty substantial financial benefit. Nobody did - so they announced 4 people at random would be chosen. He was 1 of the 4. The other 3 went grumpily - but willingly. He also came off, but then raced back on while screaming and flailing his arms around. Enter the police. You know the rest.
davidlapworth
davidlapworth 2
I think your timeline is a bit skewed. The police/airport security entered and dragged him off the plane banging his face into the armrest across the isle as they did so, then he came running back onto the plane. His initial removal from the plane was probably illegal/immoral, he went more peacefully the second time. Using excessive force to remove him in the first place can not be justified, he was not a threat to the safety of the flight, he just felt justified in staying seated.
monalisa75
monalisa75 2
Srobak...I will be your landlord, and in the midst of your tenancy with me, I will kick you out coz my cousin needs to stay in the room I rented for you. Kapow!!!!

Srobak, after I served you your french fries, my staff suddenly said he's hungry...so that last piece of fries heading to your lips will be forcefully removed to feed my staff.

Srobak, or should I call you Oscar Munoz?
vtaildriver11
vtaildriver11 2
Just curious, does any one know if the jump seat in the cockpit was utilized for one of the dead-heading crew?
busheyrk
Richard Bushey 2
Bob Crandall would have fired that FA before he left the plane.
fresnosmooth
fresnosmooth 2
... ah ...
Now I understand "Get-there-itis"
fresnosmooth
fresnosmooth 2
And one more thought before I get flamed into a pile of ashes. UA might have made the settlement ... but it's money that is going to come out of passengers pockets (your parents, kids, relatives and friends) ticket fare that is going to pay for that ... So the next person who says "good I hope United has to pay a TON!!!" uh, uh, uhhh ... it's you and yours that will.
yr2012
matt jensen 3
No it won't. The bean counters at UAL and all other carriers have this figured out.
klimchuk
Nikolay Klimchuk 3
No if you don't fly United
srobak
srobak -1
Guess again Nikoli - because of this nonsense, many airlines are abandoning their overbooking and also invoking much higher cancellation fees - if even allowing partial refunds at all anymore. EVERYONE pays for lost revenues - and so will you on ANY airline you fly.
Bernie20910
Bernie Behling 2
Exactly as predicted by some of my fellow members. You folks were spot on and knew exactly what you were talking about.
linbb
linbb -7
This was very stupid settlement as he caused his own problems feeling entitled to act like a little child screeming. Could be why he got suspended as a doctor.
rapidwolve
rapidwolve 5
Stop bringing his past into this...if Im a doctor, father of cloth etc and I HAVE to be at my destination next morning (no other flights out from this airline that night) , damn straight Im not giving up my seat either...since that is your attitude, next time you are caught speeding, running a stop sign, yellow or red light or even littering and get a ticket, DON'T BITCH about it!
Ruger9X19
Ruger9X19 3
I'll agree his past has nothing to do with what happened, medical school is a part of his past that also doesn't matter. Everyone has somewhere to be the next morning. He's not special.
srobak
srobak -7
Only in a short-bus kinda way, as evidenced by his illegal conduct and refusal to comply with both airline and law enforcement requests.
srobak
srobak -6
Fine, don't give up your seat. But when your self-righteousness results in a cascade of delayed and cancelled flights because crews couldn't get to their aircraft in the manner required by the FAA - then I hope the airlines pass those costs on TO YOU instead of the rest of the passengers. Idiot.
Bernie20910
Bernie Behling 1
Speaking of acting childish...

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

klimchuk
Nikolay Klimchuk 1
Hopefully airlines that can't reserve space for dead heads will go out of business
srobak
srobak -7
I guess you must like road trips - because that is what this mentality will send us back to if the cost to keep those non-rev seats doesn't get passed on to the rest of the passengers.
klimchuk
Nikolay Klimchuk 1
Ever heard about competition? The best will survive, United should go away
srobak
srobak -9
In case you have been checked out for the last 40 years - there has been plenty of very stiff competition in the airline industry. United has survived - and even purchased out competitors they have beaten as a result. United is just fine. Idiots who violate federal law are the ones who should go away. That reserved space costs the airlines money. ALL of the airlines. If you are so eager to remove revenue generation from the airline in the form of those seats - then you should be the one who gets to pay for that lost revenue. Not the rest of the passengers. United operates more than 4500 flights per day. If you exclude as few as 3 seats per flight from generating revenue at an average of $180 per seat - that is OVER $800,000 in lost revenue PER DAY. How do you think the airline is gonna make up that loss? Yep - passing it on to the rest of the passengers. F that. You want those seats reserved so fkin bad - you pay for it out of your own wallet. Dipshidiot.
yr2012
matt jensen 2
I hope it cost them a bundle
linbb
linbb -2
It will end up costing every passenger due to his actions. He could have left easily rather than acting like a spoiled child and sued later. Most people walk not scream and have to be dragged. How stupid.
yr2012
matt jensen 4
Haven't you heard today, UAL reduced prices. Anything to win back the pax.
srobak
srobak -6
This is a short-term fix. The long term will see higher prices at all the airlines due to massive and expensive changes in overbooking and cancellation policies.
klimchuk
Nikolay Klimchuk 1
Don't fly United and you good
srobak
srobak -5
Don't violate federal law and you will be even better. Even if on United.
busheyrk
Richard Bushey 1
Posted to wrong squawk
Viperguy46
Jesse Carroll 0
Okay folks, "Want to be a MILLIONAIRE"....sue the airlines, doesn't matter which one! Just say you are insulted by the service or something stupid they did!
ATCguy1
ATCguy1 -6
So lets recap...four passengers are told to leave by crew members to accommodate other airline employees. Three of the four leave without incident but one refuses, prompting the airline to call airport police in order to have the passenger removed. Passenger now disobeys crew AND police orders to leave aircraft so he is forcefully removed. Now 100 other passengers are going to be late to their destination along with the crew members just because some idiot wanted to make a scene. I can't believe how many people think he's a 'victim'.
klimchuk
Nikolay Klimchuk 4
Crew went crazy with their demands, police shouldn't be called and so on. But OK you can continue...
srobak
srobak -4
It was FAA regulation - not crew demands. Had that crew not been able to get to the next flight - then 186 passengers on that flight would not have been able to fly from that airport. And if any crew were dead-heading on that flight - then the flight(s) they were going to would also be unable to fly. So - what do you think makes more sense? Inconvenience 4 passengers and financially compensating them while ensuring their crew gets to the next flight in the manner required by FAA regulations - or inconveniencing 186 people at an absolute minimum? THINK.
roebuck85
john roebuck 7
Can you link to the FAA regulation requiring passengers to give up their seat to dead heading crew members. I was looking about a week ago and couldn't find anything, you seem like a person who might know.
yr2012
matt jensen 3
That's b/c there's no reg for it. The FAA says you cannot bump rev pax for non-revenuse
srobak
srobak -4
No it doesn't. That's outside of the FAA's purview.
srobak
srobak -5
In fact - here is the FAA's position. I highlighted a part for you:

Overbooking

Overbooking is not illegal, and most airlines overbook their scheduled flights to a certain extent in order to compensate for "no-shows." Passengers are sometimes left behind or "bumped" as a result. When an oversale occurs, the Department of Transportation (DOT) requires airlines to ask people who aren't in a hurry to give up their seats voluntarily, in exchange for compensation. Those PASSENGERS BUMPED AGAINST THEIR WILL are, with a few exceptions, entitled to compensation.

You can read all about passenger rights per the FAA here: https://www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/fly-rights#Overbooking
srobak
srobak -5
There are no regulations for that. That is a part of the contractual agreement that you make with just about every airline. The regulations portion is when he re-boarded the flight on his own - running onto the plane, screaming and flailing his arms. The other part is when he was ordered off the flight by first crew and then law enforcement. The final part is with regards to "must-ride" situations for crew that is heading to another aircraft at another airport. You can read about some of these thigns here: https://www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/fly-rights, and I will try to find the "must-ride" regulations.

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

klimchuk
Nikolay Klimchuk 5
You're delusional.
ATCguy1
ATCguy1 2
You're uninformed.
srobak
srobak -6
Nope. He is right on the money. Read the regulations.
klimchuk
Nikolay Klimchuk 2
Nonsense
Until doors closed captain is not complete authority
srobak
srobak -6
Wrong. And despite that - the aircraft, the jetway, the tarmac and the terminal are under federal jurisdiction and subject to FAA regulations. When you violate federal law by running onto a plane you were just told to leave, while screaming and acting erratically and then you ignore law enforcement's demands to exit the aircraft - then yes - you bet your ass YOU GET PHYSICALLY REMOVED!

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

Srwalter
Steven Walter 3
You must be part of the "I am airline pilot and therefore God" clique
srobak
srobak -3
Has nothing to do with being a pilot. When you are not on a plane or have been removed from a plane - running back on to it while screaming and ignoring orders by flight staff to stop *IS* in fact a violation of federal law. That airplane, the tarmac, the jetway and the terminal are under federal jurisdiction.
Chirurgo
Domenic Esposito -8
This guy is a degenerate sex for drugs offender who should have his medical license revoked for not listening to the authorities while on an aircraft. He was still on probation for his offense. I wonder how many unsuspecting women or children he has violated. That being said United sucks as an airline. Flew them 2 days ago.
davidlapworth
davidlapworth 2
How sure are you of your facts? Was he really a sex for drugs offender, or have these charges been made up to make people think he deserved what he got so it was OK for United Airlines to treat him that way?
srobak
srobak -5
As much as I fault him for first breaking federal law, then refusing United's demands to deplane, then law enforcement's demands to deplane and finally resisting arrest by law enforcement - you are seriously overstepping by trying to hang anyone's licensure to practice whatever their chose field is due to their conduct on an airline... unless they are a pilot or flight/ground/airline crew.

登入

還沒有帳戶嗎? 現在就註冊(免費),設置諸多客制化功能、航班提醒等等!