United Airlines forcibly removes passenger from overbooked flight

[DarloRich]

I see the Daily Mail has joined the victim blaming game now with his private life and family photos published, as if it makes the slightest difference to what happens on the plane itself.

He could be an, as yet, uncaught serial killer and he'd still not deserved to be treated like that.

exactly - but it is a common part of corporate media management. This cycle is now about what an awful person the victim is to ensure a watering down of public sympathy for the victim and to try to reduce any settlement by showing the victim isnt worthy of it.

 

[jon0844]

I see the CEO of United has apologised.. Wonder if it has anything to do with the drop in share value and the effect on the pacific market.

The CEO's apology is far too late. It smacks of having spent an entire day desperately seeking advice from PR people on how to salvage things, and having had the text carefully written for him.

In other words, totally insincere. I have no doubt he'll be gone in the not too distant future.

 

[jon0844]

Question remains why he was chosen. Say he had a wife and children on board.

I believe the computer picked at 'random', except I am not sure how random it really was.

Obviously nothing to do with gender, race or anything - but apparently based on ticket price. And I'd naturally assume it would only pick someone travelling alone (or as many people they need to remove), so they wouldn't pick a family if they only needed one person off.

I guess there would be rules for children and other factors, and maybe we'll find out now this story has become so big. Chances are it won't be as random as United first claimed, but likewise not a conspiracy.

 

[AlterEgo]

I believe the computer picked at 'random', except I am not sure how random it really was.

Obviously nothing to do with gender, race or anything - but apparently based on ticket price. And I'd naturally assume it would only pick someone travelling alone (or as many people they need to remove), so they wouldn't pick a family if they only needed one person off.

I guess there would be rules for children and other factors, and maybe we'll find out now this story has become so big. Chances are it won't be as random as United first claimed, but likewise not a conspiracy.

At the time Dao was offloaded, they needed two people to leave. They required four people from the outset, they got one couple, and one assumes Dao was next (plus his wife?).

 

[AlterEgo]

exactly - but it is a common part of corporate media management. This cycle is now about what an awful person the victim is to ensure a watering down of public sympathy for the victim and to try to reduce any settlement by showing the victim isnt worthy of it.

Not really, unless you're alleging UA are complicit by feeding them this info (which is freely available online).

No, it's just a way of getting more mileage out of the same story, and more website ad revenue.

 

[jon0844]

It seems the media and other people may have in fact confused this David Dao with another David Dao, and legal action may now be taken for defamation given the things that have been said about him.

I can predict the media rapidly deleting articles and requests to forum admins to edit or delete posts in the coming hours.

Haven't we learnt the importance of fact checking yet?

 

[jon0844]

A good read.

My initial reaction is that when police or the captain ask you to get off a plane, you should comply. As a rule of thumb, I think that is good advice. But when I responded to this particular situation the way I did, where I didn’t know the complete facts, that was a mistake — and I apologize for that.

https://thepointsguy.com/2017/04/i-got-the-united-situation-wrong/

 

[AlterEgo]

It seems the media and other people may have in fact confused this David Dao with another David Dao, and legal action may now be taken for defamation given the things that have been said about him.

I can predict the media rapidly deleting articles and requests to forum admins to edit or delete posts in the coming hours.

Haven't we learnt the importance of fact checking yet?

Can't see any reports the media have got the wrong guy - got a link?

 

[jon0844]

Can't see any reports the media have got the wrong guy - got a link?

You got the information before, so I am sure you can find out using the same sources!

I am still trying to find out the accuracy but it would seem that those who have published stories MAY have to backtrack very quickly as, funnily enough, he's alive and talking to the media to give his side of the story.

I don't know the man and don't really care about his past either. I am only interested in what happened.

 

[Merseysider]

This is going to cost United a shed load of money.

A billion dollars, apparently.

In mid-morning trading on Wall Street, shares in the group were down around 4 per cent, temporarily wiping close to $1bn off the company's total market value, according to Thomson Reuters data. Shares recovered somewhat towards the end of the day to close the session 1.15 per cent lower.

United Continental Holdings was also the second biggest faller on the S&P 500 index.

 

[AlterEgo]

You got the information before, so I am sure you can find out using the same sources!

I am still trying to find out the accuracy but it would seem that those who have published stories MAY have to backtrack very quickly as, funnily enough, he's alive and talking to the media to give his side of the story.

I don't know the man and don't really care about his past either. I am only interested in what happened.

Would be astonishing case of mistaken identity if so. A man with the same name, with the same profession, of the same age (going by old news reports of his felony), who is a gambler, and of whom there are multiple photos.

The only post of "mistaken identity" I can find is this one:

The doctor on the plane was David Thanh Duc Dao, MD, not David Anh Duy Dao. Duc Dao has no criminal record.

Which says the guy on the plane is the guy with the criminal record, but cautions about mixing him up with another doctor with a very similar name (it could be his son for all we know, the whole family are physicians apparently).

 

[DarloRich]

Not really, unless you're alleging UA are complicit by feeding them this info (which is freely available online).

No, it's just a way of getting more mileage out of the same story, and more website ad revenue.

The company doesn't have to feed in the information ( usually) but they will very happily point towards that in briefings and then use that media coverage in court to try to reduce the settlement they end up paying out.

Would be astonishing case of mistaken identity if so. A man with the same name, with the same profession, of the same age (going by old news reports of his felony), who is a gambler, and of whom there are multiple photos.

and the statement you make backs up that approach. You are now focusing on an alleged shady past rather than the actions of the company.

 

[jon0844]

Maybe they are one and the same man, maybe they're not.

That's what is being checked now.

Until it's absolutely clear, it's probably wise not to say anything - especially if it doesn't matter one jot anyway. If you're a national newspaper, with an international website, like the Daily Mail then you better be 100% sure.

Interesting to see breaking news that the Daily Mail has just settled damages with Melania Trump over false allegations. Comedy timing huh?!

(I seem to recall that a lot of those allegations where spread all over the Internet too)

Video interview: http://news.sky.com/story/watch-eye...as-dragged-off-united-airlines-plane-10833975

 

[AlterEgo]

and the statement you make back up that approach. You are now focusing on an alleged shady past rather than the actions of the company.

I suppose me previously saying that:

If that's true, then I'm outraged even more...

Jesus Christ, f*** United...

United are still a***holes of course, and won't be getting a penny off me ever...

Still not flying United EVER, regardless of the circumstances this should never happen...

The US is a horrible place to be a customer.

...isn't good enough?

I have focused enough on the actions of the company, and the people who injured him. I'm interested in why the person behaved in such a distressed fashion. I'm interested in how badly he was shook up. The video tells us very little about the back story. My first thought when I saw that video was that the man had a mental difficulty, which increased my sympathy for him as I felt UA should have given him even GREATER duty of care.

Subsequent investigations show the guy does indeed have mental illness, and a history of instability. The Kentucky state report on him is concerning and shows he is, to say the least, a vulnerable and complex man.

This partly explains why he was so distressed and chose to be forcibly offloaded, screaming.

 

[AlterEgo]

Maybe they are one and the same man, maybe they're not.

That's what is being checked now.

Until it's absolutely clear, it's probably wise not to say anything - especially if it doesn't matter one jot anyway. If you're a national newspaper, with an international website, like the Daily Mail then you better be 100% sure.

Maybe so.

I've seen the Reddit thread and think I know where the misinformation is coming from, but it's a meta-discussion.

I'd be astonished if this was mistaken identity, but I accept stranger things have happened.

If it does turn out to be incorrect info I'll start a new thread on it, because the whole media/social discourse around the incident is fascinating. To me anyway.

 

[jon0844]

As I and others have said, his background shouldn't be a factor in ANY discussions.

It can only be as a way of somehow discrediting him so as to lessen the blame on United. Given you've clearly slated United, I am unsure why you even felt the need to bring up his past (if indeed it is his past).

The CEO clearly tried to blame the victim, which has failed and I doubt anyone believes he was sincere with the latest damage limitation Tweet written by someone else and approved by lawyers.

I say that without proof of either having taken place, I might add, but I would be gobsmacked if it wasn't true!

Said doctor, whatever his history, is going to get a lot of money from this. The CEO is on his way out. United is going to have to spend millions restoring its reputation, no doubt with loads of cheap seats to entice those who are planning to boycott to 'forget'.

 

[AlterEgo]

It can only be as a way of somehow discrediting him so as to lessen the blame on United. Given you've clearly slated United, I am unsure why you even felt the need to bring up his past (if indeed it is his past).

Because the footage appalled me. Firstly, I wondered how UA managed to cock this up quite so badly. Secondly, I was shocked at how distressed he was given he was a doctor. My initial suspicion was that his claim to be a doctor was perhaps misreported, but that seems to be true. It seems he has serious personal difficulties and a history of instability, which explains why he was so distressed. It's not to discredit him - I am more sympathetic towards him with this knowledge than I was at the start. He's clearly very anguished and United should have realised his distress and sorted things out pronto.

The CEO clearly tried to blame the victim, which has failed and I doubt anyone believes he was sincere with the latest damage limitation Tweet written by someone else and approved by lawyers.

Agreed. The apology only for "the overbook situation" was crass and quite depressing.

Said doctor, whatever his history, is going to get a lot of money from this. The CEO is on his way out. United is going to have to spend millions restoring its reputation, no doubt with loads of cheap seats to entice those who are planning to boycott to 'forget'.

I hope he sues them for every single dollar. And the CEO will be lucky to last the year. United is a horrible airline and this merely adds to a long list of PR gaffes and institutional arrogance. The fact they can't even see their own gaffe is one of the worst things, IMO.

 

[Merseysider]

The satire is now being published in droves

Ryanair CEO Michael O-Leary is in the crosshairs again today amidst allegations that he hit an Asian doctor around the back of the head with a blackjack and forcibly dragged him aboard a Ryanair flight from Rochdale International Airport to Minsk near Prague.
[...]
O’Leary is thought to have got the idea for press ganging unsuspecting members of the public aboard underbooked flights after United Airlines beat a surgeon unconscious to give his seat to a trolley dolly who needed to get home for the weekend.

United are also being mocked by other airlines...

We would like to remind you that drags on our flights are strictly prohibited by passengers and crew

We are here to keep you #united. Dragging is strictly prohibited

[image of cigarette]

 

[vrbarreto]

New statement by United CEO:

"At United we will now strive to have batter customer relationships. This sorry saga has dragged on for too long and is a really bloody nose for the airline industry.. I feel this needs to be kicked into touch and we are already onboarding the lessons learnt. It's been a real knockout blown for United and we hope you will not be afraid to be re-accomodated by us in the future"

 

[bb21]

"batter customer relationships" indeed.

 

[edwin_m]

Obviously nothing to do with gender, race or anything - but apparently based on ticket price. And I'd naturally assume it would only pick someone travelling alone (or as many people they need to remove), so they wouldn't pick a family if they only needed one person off.

I guess there would be rules for children and other factors, and maybe we'll find out now this story has become so big. Chances are it won't be as random as United first claimed, but likewise not a conspiracy.

If they pick couples they only have to pay for half as many hotel rooms?

 

[Busaholic]

As I and others have said, his background shouldn't be a factor in ANY discussions.

It can only be as a way of somehow discrediting him so as to lessen the blame on United. Given you've clearly slated United, I am unsure why you even felt the need to bring up his past (if indeed it is his past).

The CEO clearly tried to blame the victim, which has failed and I doubt anyone believes he was sincere with the latest damage limitation Tweet written by someone else and approved by lawyers.

I say that without proof of either having taken place, I might add, but I would be gobsmacked if it wasn't true!

Said doctor, whatever his history, is going to get a lot of money from this. The CEO is on his way out. United is going to have to spend millions restoring its reputation, no doubt with loads of cheap seats to entice those who are planning to boycott to 'forget'.

I'm reminded of how poor Jean Charles de Menezes was traduced after his death by elements of the Metropolitan Police, through some obliging contacts in the popular press, as though his being an 'illegal immigrant' i.e. overstayed his visa meant he somehow could not have complained about being mistaken for a terrorist and shot.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Originally Posted by Greenback View Post
This is going to cost United a shed load of money.

A billion dollars, apparently.

Originally Posted by Independent
In mid-morning trading on Wall Street, shares in the group were down around 4 per cent, temporarily wiping close to $1bn off the company's total market value, according to Thomson Reuters data. Shares recovered somewhat towards the end of the day to close the session 1.15 per cent lower.

United Continental Holdings was also the second biggest faller on the S&P 500 index.:

A fall in their share price does not cost a company anything; it costs their investors money instead. what it does indicate is that people are selling the shares because they expect the company to be paying out a reduced dividend, or no dividend at all, if it loses sales as a result of whatever has happened - in this case a load of bad publicity.

A company issues shares to raise money, but once those shares are sold at the point of issue the price can double but the company will not get a penny more than it already has; similarly if the shares halve in value, the company still has all the money it originally raised by selling the shares at the point of issue.

What will cost United money is any compensation they are required to pay out and any lost revenue through fewer people booking to travel with them.

 

[edwin_m]

A fall in their share price does not cost a company anything; it costs their investors money instead. what it does indicate is that people are selling the shares because they expect the company to be paying out a reduced dividend, or no dividend at all, if it loses sales as a result of whatever has happened - in this case a load of bad publicity.

Or simply that the people with the shares see or expect that all the other people with those shares will be trying to sell them. So they themselves try to sell before the price goes down too much.

 

[Merseysider]

Thanks for the explanation

 

[DynamicSpirit]

A fall in their share price does not cost a company anything; it costs their investors money instead. what it does indicate is that people are selling the shares because they expect the company to be paying out a reduced dividend, or no dividend at all, if it loses sales as a result of whatever has happened - in this case a load of bad publicity.

Well their shareholders are their owners, so the people it costs money are the company owners - which is what you'd expect if a company does badly. The owners don't directly decide how the company is run on a day-to-day basis, but - depending how the company is constituted, they'll probably get to vote at an annual general meeting or something similar - and at that point, the directors (who are responsible for day-to-day management) might find they have some explaining to do.

A company issues shares to raise money, but once those shares are sold at the point of issue the price can double but the company will not get a penny more than it already has; similarly if the shares halve in value, the company still has all the money it originally raised by selling the shares at the point of issue.

That is technically true. However, if the company needs capital to invest, or finds itself in short term financial difficulties and needs extra funds, a fall in their share price will very likely impact how much they can borrow.

 

[Antman]

He is starting legal action and good luck to him.

http://news.sky.com/story/united-pa...s-legal-action-over-forceful-removal-10835055

I hadn't realised he is 69 years old. Nobody should be treated like that but particularly somebody of that age.

 

[Groningen]

It seems that everybody from that overbooked flight gets his/her money back.

 

[Greenback]

If United wer elooking to save a bit of money by kicking this guy and others off the plane, then it's backfired spectacularly. I reckon that whoever made this awful misjudgement is already looking for a new career.

I don't think it's a bloody nose for the entire airline industry, but it's far more than that for this airline. The top man might not want it to drag on, but it doesn't look as if it's going away any time soon.

 

[Howardh]

If United wer elooking to save a bit of money by kicking this guy and others off the plane, then it's backfired spectacularly. I reckon that whoever made this awful misjudgement is already looking for a new career.

I don't think it's a bloody nose for the entire airline industry, but it's far more than that for this airline. The top man might not want it to drag on, but it doesn't look as if it's going away any time soon.

If it ends overbooking, then some good will come out of it. Are you turfed out of your seat at the football because they've booked your seat twice? How hard is it to book the exact number of seats available??

Notice at Test matches, even when a ground is full about 100 seats are put aside empty in case people have to be moved - for example if your allocated seat is damaged etc.