Here’s How United Should Have Responded to Violent Removal of Passenger: Viewpoint

By Kara Alaimo | April 13, 2017

  • April 13, 2017 at 1:29 pm
    mrbob says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 22
    Thumb down 5

    Kara Alaimo

    Spot on in all regards. Instead of an airline offering more to get volunteers to give up seats they are now going to end up with devaluation of the company and a very significant legal bill. #neverflyunited

  • April 13, 2017 at 1:41 pm
    Peggy Martey says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 5
    Thumb down 3

    No amount of discount could ever get me to fly United Airlines! I always believe in that usual motto : You get what you pay for : and in this case United demonstrated why I never has flown with them and certainly will never in the future. I live in Atlanta and Delta is my home town based Airlines and next choice is Southwest which is really make a dent in customer satisfaction.

  • April 13, 2017 at 1:48 pm
    Jack Kanauph says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 8
    Thumb down 9

    The glaring error with the article is that the doctor retained a lawyer and they won’t allow United to give Dao and his family free first class flights for life. How would that work? The Dao family gets 100% free flights, and their lawyers get to fly 40% of the way with them?
    Doc should not have gotten a lawyer; he should have waited to hear what United would offer to make this go away. He could have negotiated from that point, and keep it all.
    One other good thing comes out of this. People like me who don’t fly a lot will be getting better priced flights for a while as United will have to lower their prices to overcome the bad actions.

    • April 13, 2017 at 2:34 pm
      Agent says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 3
      Thumb down 3

      Jack, I am sure glad I don’t have any United stock.

    • April 14, 2017 at 12:02 pm
      UW says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 4
      Thumb down 1

      This is dumb. First almost nobody has a chance of they negotiate against a corporation like this without a lawyer. Fur example, you apparently think he should have accepted lifetime free flights. If he did that United could refuse to negotiate any more and say free flights was their settlement, they would pay no more, and they would probably win.

      This guy reportedly got knocked out, a concussion, lost teeth and broke his nose. He should get a lawyer and United should be on the hook for his medical bills, as well as being responsible with the security company for tens of millions of dollars in punitive damages.

      If you are an Agent, which of course you are, your are not competent if you are giving the same advice to you customers.

  • April 13, 2017 at 1:54 pm
    Nancy says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 20
    Thumb down 2

    I think the airlines have forgotten that even though they make the rules, their business does involve customer service. Airline passengers have been reduced to being herded like cattle. This is a disastrous public relations fiasco & I agree, it was handled wrong from start to finish. Why can the airlines overbook & then demand paying customers deplane because of a scheduling problem? I think an employee on the plane decided that they didn’t like this guy & he had to go. Otherwise, it’s hard to believe that some other passenger wouldn’t volunteer to take the money offered to give up their seat & fly on the next flight.

  • April 13, 2017 at 2:10 pm
    Don Diego says:
    Hot debate. What do you think?
    Thumb up 12
    Thumb down 8

    United’s response to the doctor’s refusal to leave the aircraft was wrong, but the doctor has some culpability. He disobeyed a lawful order to exit the aircraft. Then he was subjected to possibly unlawful conduct. Allegedly his injuries require reconstructive surgery. All of this could have been avoided if he had simply obeyed the lawful order. We see the same thing happen when law enforcement improperly handles a situation that could have been avoided if the other party simply obeyed lawful commands. This in no way justifies how United handled the situation, but it does illustrate that the situation could have been avoided by both parties. Of course, the way it went down will result in the doctor becoming very, very wealthy.

  • April 13, 2017 at 2:14 pm
    Normct says:
    Hot debate. What do you think?
    Thumb up 12
    Thumb down 20

    AA is not my favorite airline. That said, where is personal responsibility. 3 other people exited the plane with no injuries, no hassle. One convicted drug offender (gives me the opinion he is used to breaking the law) decides he is better than everyone else, puts up a battle and is injured. One report said he was off the plane and ran back to his seat and resisted being removed. Airport security officers (employees of he airport) had to use force to remove him from the plane. Sounds like the airport should be the defending party, not AA. Maybe they should have announced the flight was being delayed until he vacated the seat or the flight would be cancelled. Bet the rest of the passengers would have helped him off the plane then.

  • April 13, 2017 at 2:19 pm
    Celtica says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 27
    Thumb down 2

    The way United should have handled it was to fly the 4 United employees who were taking the seats on a private plane to Kentucky — or even on a competitor airline.

    • April 13, 2017 at 2:29 pm
      Dave says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 1
      Thumb down 10

      The article was about how United should have reacted AFTER the incident occurred, not whet they should have done instead before it occurred. Your comments are better suited on another article/topic.

      • April 13, 2017 at 3:03 pm
        Celtica says:
        Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 12
        Thumb down 0

        Well, if they had handled it as I suggested DURING the incident, there would be no need to react AFTER because there would be no need.

    • April 14, 2017 at 8:59 am
      knowall says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 7
      Thumb down 0

      Celtica: that was my first reaction as well; the industry could work together to shuttle employees as needed. What’s the difference?

  • April 13, 2017 at 2:28 pm
    Jon says:
    Hot debate. What do you think?
    Thumb up 10
    Thumb down 16

    I discussed this with a flight attendant friend of mine.

    She confirmed every airline has the right to kick you off an airline, for whatever reason they really deem fit.

    It’s all in the Contract of Carriage.

    Once Dao refused to leave–he broke the law by trespassing.

    United was right to call in the authorities to help remove him.

    The Chicago ASO were clearly in the wrong by brutalizing the man. Walking someone who doesn’t want to walk should be the first thing they learn how to do. Barring that, they should’ve called the actual CPD at the airport to remove him.

    Either way, he didn’t deserve to be beaten like that.

    Regardless of the fact he was previously a class A scumbag.

    • April 13, 2017 at 2:48 pm
      Retired UW says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 10
      Thumb down 3

      Just because they could, doesn’t mean they should.

      A billion dollar+ mistake, and United’s CEO will lose his job over this.

    • April 13, 2017 at 2:55 pm
      Mr. Solvent says:
      Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 24
      Thumb down 1

      That’s complete horse manure. The contract-of-carriage specifies the reasons you can be denied boarding and reasons you can be removed from the aircraft. United (and the other majors as well) spells out that you can be denied boarding in an oversold situation. This was not an oversold situation and Dr. Dao had already boarded. The only possible argument they have is on the removal from the plane which can be due to failure to comply with crew instructions along with a myriad of drunken and disorderly reasons. Because the crew’s instructions violated the contract-of-carriage, I’d argue that he was under no obligation to comply.

      Flight attendants have very little actual knowledge of the 46 pages (in United’s case) of legalese. They know that the airline regularly gets away with violating it which therefore makes it OK.

  • April 13, 2017 at 2:32 pm
    Jax Agent says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 13
    Thumb down 2

    I find it funny that the Washington D.C. chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians rushed to pile on United, when their governing body chose to take this man’s license to practice medicine for using that privilege to breaking laws doing things that are not included in the Hippocratic Oath. Everybody wants to pile on.

    • April 14, 2017 at 12:18 pm
      UW says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 10
      Thumb down 2

      His previous actions have nothing to do with this case of assault.

    • April 17, 2017 at 12:48 pm
      Hmmmmm says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 2
      Thumb down 0

      Using the passengers past history is like saying someone who has done something wrong in the past can have others do wrong against him and don’t have to take responsibility. United was wrong. If the United employees flying didn’t get to the gate in time before boarding started, then they should be re-booked to a different flight, not passengers already seated. United could have upped the compensation and someone would have volunteered.

  • April 13, 2017 at 10:06 pm
    RWilson says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 1
    Thumb down 0

    I’ve been shocked by what is apparently corporate culture at United. I have an old high school friend who has spent her career as a United Flight Attendant. I am shocked on Facebook by her posts, trashing this passenger both for his background and behavior. She has repeatedly mentioned that people “don’t know our rules” and continues to cite legal jargon from their fine print. Amazing. According to her it is his fault fro not obeying the rules and directives of her company.

  • April 14, 2017 at 9:29 am
    mprankster says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 1
    Thumb down 0

    Fly the (un)Friendly Skies of United!

  • April 14, 2017 at 4:49 pm
    UW says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 4
    Thumb down 7

    I think what is complete horse manure is that this idiot is garnering so much attention. He should have gotten off the plane when asked. United being stupid about shuffling employees around has nothing to do with the fact that it is not HIS plane. It’s United’s plane. They can very easily give him his money back or book him on a competitors plane etc. The whole thing is a cluster and really all parties involved look bad. United is not the CPD or Airport police who chose to remove this guy the way they did. United did not hold a gun to the CPD’s head and say,”remove him by force..” they chose to. The CPD or AP could have tazed his butt and then what are folks going to say? I mean that lady screaming could have very easily gotten up and surrendered her seat but decided she was too important too. The folks videoing who got paid for their videos could have very easily gotten up and surrendered their seats. There’s lots of blame to go around in this case. I would bet he does not get as much as you all think…

  • April 17, 2017 at 10:45 am
    Kimberly Taylor says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Well stated, Kara. United should hire you to help them with their crisis management in the future!

  • April 17, 2017 at 4:52 pm
    Roberto Gil says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Our nation is no longer governed as much by law, as by the capricious aggregation of the visceral emotions of the small proportion of its inhabitants who are not so far gone on opioids or weed that they still pay attention to the “news.”



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*