Man Violently Dragged Off Plane After United Airlines Overbooks Flight

a reply to: Aazadan
they weren't offering money, they were offering vouchers...
I've never flown in my life, outside of a small private cessna. I never had reason to. So let's say that someone died in my family and I had to fly home for a funeral, and let's also say that I really don't want to spend that much time with family or for some reason, have to fly in the day before the funeral. if united were to do this, not only would they have ruined my plans to go to the funeral, but they also would have eliminated the need to use their airline... they wouldn't have had to pay for a hotel room for me, or pay me extra, but I would expect that they give me a cash refund for the ticket since, I wouldn't have any plans to fly on their airlines again in the near future more than likely.. and, maybe, just maybe, I could have used a cash refund for an alternate way to get there... in time... like a bus!!!
if you pay cash for the ticket, then I am sorry, if they don't deliver the goods, you should be given a cash refund, and I am not sure if they give you that option??

although I kind of agree that he should have just gotten off when the security forces showed up, I think that not delivering on the goods that were sold is a crappy way to do business and would be reason to give them a hard time about it. and, there is no way that I would take vouchers from them to use at a later date and give them the opportunity to treat me that crappy again!

originally posted by: bphi1908
Selective quoting...nice work. (I included my original quote that explains who I think is to blame in more detail for your reference below.)

Yes I blame him... AND the airline. Why? Because in my experience a person's actions are a direct result of another's. In this case the airline has a stupid policy probably presented in a poor manner causing this man to act out and throw a temper tantrum causing the airline employees to lose patience and act very unprofessionally.

Cause and effect. He bears some of the responsibility.

People need to learn there are consequences for their actions, he acted like a child. It should come as no shock that he was treated like one.

I am not absolving the airline of any wrongdoing, clearly there was an overreaction on their part and they deserve the coming lawsuit. They will pay a steep fine for the actions of their staff, deservedly so.

Nice! Very well placed into perspective. This constant misrepresentation of the "blaming the victim" argument leads many to hold up the doctor in this story as some kind of heroic "martyr" worth defending no matter what. Even a hint at the suggestion that he might be partially responsible for his own downfall is silenced with the automatic "don't blame the victim!" retort.

This type of awful reasoning to justify an absurd position sounds so familiar for some reason...

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: yuppa
As if you never used a source or a tweet that was proven wrong before.

I can tell you I have never used Twitter as a source. Know why? Because it is wholly unreliable.

And you never make up anything ? a story? a joke?

Telling a fictional story or a joke, when your audience is aware of this, is not lying. You really are very poor at moving goalposts. Almost as bad as your fact checking skills.

I like how you cruised right past the link I gave you to the information you claimed was not posted on the website. Did you get this 'fact' from Twitter too? Maybe it was Instagram.

OH no YOU missed my meaning about making stuff up here. your qualifyer is what i was pointing out. You said "YOU DONT MAKE ANYTHING UP."

That includes stories and anything else does it not?

SO even making up a fictional story CONTRADICTS your statement OF "I DONT GO MAKING STUFF UP" since we are being So literal. YOU CONTRADICTED YOURSELF AND I POINTED IT OUT.

And By your own words and measure you are also guilty of lying and or source checking. Stop trying to weasel out of it.

Anyway point is My information was wrong. I even said so but apparently you missed it earlier.

UA was wrong. end of story. (caps for emphasis as in speaking very slowly and clear )

originally posted by: dawnstar
they weren't offering money, they were offering vouchers...

They were offering vouchers when they were looking for volunteers. Once it moves to an IDB situation the DOT mandates you get compensated in cash or the equivalent (check or gift cards), not vouchers.

originally posted by: yuppa
OH no YOU missed my meaning about making stuff up here. your qualifyer is what i was pointing out. You said "YOU DONT MAKE ANYTHING UP."

That includes stories and anything else does it not?

No, I get your insipid semantic attempt, I just ignored it like I should. We are discussing facts here and your misuse of them, not intentional fictional story telling.

And By your own words and measure you are also guilty of lying and or source checking.

Then it will be easy for you to show which sources I used are fictitious, like yours.

Anyway point is My information was wrong.

Because your 'information' was some tool's opinion on Twitter. But hey, if 144 characters for the reading impaired is your bag, good on you.

originally posted by: Jiggly
not sure if brought up yet... but remember when the news ran with this doctor had drug related offenses? well...they were wrong

David Anh Duy Dao is the guy with the record... The doctor on the plane was David Thanh Duc Dao

this guy's gonna own an airline, police force, and now a newspaper by the time this is all done.

Do you have a reputable link that you could share?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

You just hate i called you out. get over yourself. lol.

No you wanted to be literal thats what you got. I pointed out your statement. never ever say you do not do anything.

And Bad form calling me names. Arent you better than that?

And My source wasnt ficticious it was incomplete. big difference there. I did link it i think originally didnt i? I post so much its hard to keep track.

Also I am not ignoring you so you who is the better man?

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Aazadan
they weren't offering money, they were offering vouchers...
I've never flown in my life, outside of a small private cessna. I never had reason to. So let's say that someone died in my family and I had to fly home for a funeral, and let's also say that I really don't want to spend that much time with family or for some reason, have to fly in the day before the funeral. if united were to do this, not only would they have ruined my plans to go to the funeral, but they also would have eliminated the need to use their airline... they wouldn't have had to pay for a hotel room for me, or pay me extra, but I would expect that they give me a cash refund for the ticket since, I wouldn't have any plans to fly on their airlines again in the near future more than likely.. and, maybe, just maybe, I could have used a cash refund for an alternate way to get there... in time... like a bus!!!
if you pay cash for the ticket, then I am sorry, if they don't deliver the goods, you should be given a cash refund, and I am not sure if they give you that option??

although I kind of agree that he should have just gotten off when the security forces showed up, I think that not delivering on the goods that were sold is a crappy way to do business and would be reason to give them a hard time about it. and, there is no way that I would take vouchers from them to use at a later date and give them the opportunity to treat me that crappy again!

Once on the plane, there's laws that require them to offer cash. That said, I don't think they should be able to offer vouchers at any time, because the vouchers just aren't as good as cash. They'll offer things like $500 in vouchers, but they'll give you a stack of 10, each for $50, and only allow one to be used per flight. The majority of them go unused. That's an area of the law that should be addressed, and maybe it will be now that there's a high profile airline case, but it's not really relevant to this situation at the point where security showed up.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: dawnstar





Man. Every time I read something new about this case it paints UA in a worse light. These guys will be paying out a HUGE settlement to this guy.

I was listening to a radio show yesterday, Hannity I think it was, that was blaming the victim because he was a former drug addict and criminal. Therefore he deserved the treatment.

they mixed him up with that other dr with the same last name....and if it was him bad stuff done 14 years has NOTHING to do

originally posted by: yuppa
You just hate i called you out. get over yourself. lol.

So you think me telling jokes is the same as you making fictitious statements in a debate? Any other aspects of everyday communication you confused about so I can keep track of them? It's cool, if you ask nice I am more than happy to help continue your education, the lessons will obviously be of benefit.

Maybe next time you try to use Twitter as a 'source' you might think twice about taking that course. Or maybe not since you seem to be too busy playing semantics.

Another video was posted showing the doctor talking to security before the incident. He seems to be of sound mind as he argues with security. He mentions he may bring a lawsuit against United as he refuses to leave and says he has to work.

originally posted by: EchoesInTime
He mentions he may bring a lawsuit against United as he refuses to leave...

I get the feeling this was why his identity found its way to the press and the smearing began.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

BUT IT WAS NOT AN IDB EVENT THAT HAPPENS WHEN THEY STOP YOU FROM BOARDING AT THE GATE THIS GUY WAS BOARDED.
whole team at that gate responsible for this fubar event needs to be terminated. if they had to deadhead which truthfully they did not they should have loaded there butts on plane first then stopped last 4 at gate.and the fact that they tried to villify this man by putting out there he was a drug dealing doc who had his license suspened and guess what abunch of places ran the story without checking it guess what it wasn't talking about him but some other doc with similar name. shame shame united. my advice always leave open 4 or 5 seats just for deadheading crews

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
I get the feeling this was why his identity found its way to the press and the smearing began.

Do you REALLY think the doctor expressing his views to bring forth a lawsuit was unexpected by anyone who has ever witnessed an unhappy customer doing anything they can to get what they want (which includes 100% of the people inside the plane, including airline staff.)

Yes, there are obviously people who stand to gain directly, by destroying the credibility of the doctor so that anything he says is unlikely to be believed. While you and many others seem to think the obvious benefactor is the airline, you would be wrong. If anything, I'd say the person most likely to gain from destroying his reputation are lawyers who want him to go ahead with the lawsuit but are so confident he will lose that they are adamant on representing the winner: the airline.

If you don't believe me, ask yourself this: would the airline itself prefer a lawsuit against them to go ahead and be uncertain of the result, or would they prefer to remove the risk of losing one altogether and instead not have to try defend itself? If you truly believe that an airline that has now received so much negative publicity, so much unjust hatred and so much ridicule because they made a mistake, are bursting with the opportunity to go to trial? If so, the you are GROSSLY mistaken.

And if you can make a direct link between the highest potential benefactor on one side (the doctor) and the potentially biggest loser on the other side (the airline), you really need to start using your brain. Now is the time. Do it!

And the TRUTH shall set you free!

After drawing criticism by claiming the passenger was “disruptive and belligerent”, United Chief Executive Officer Oscar Munoz later issued Dr Dao a grovelling apology.

The embattled CEO has appeared on US TV overnight in full corporate damage control.

“You saw us at a bad moment and it can never and will never happen again on a United Airlines flight and that’s my promise,” Mr Munoz told Good Morning America.

Asked what he thought when he first saw the footage, he said: “The word shame comes to mind.”

“That is not who our family at United is.”

Mr Munoz said the company would no longer use law enforcement officers to remove passengers from overbooked flights.

And people still claim that corporations have all the power and can easily control their customers, despite in this particular story which showcases the CEO of the company blatantly lying to appease the sensibilities of those who were offended and threatening boycotts in an effort to protect the company (or rather, his place and salary he benefits from his position in the company) of which he heads? Now that enough evidence about the situation has come out, the only person who should be fired is the CEO of the airline company for lacking the ability to show some backbone, lacking the ability to stand by his principles and falling for the "everyone can be a victim" brigade that "forced" his hand.


How many more examples do we need of people regretting that they jumped on the enticing bandwagon without at least seeing an opposing side to the official narrative that they first encountered before this thing will stop happening? Never, probably...

originally posted by: Dark Ghost

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
I get the feeling this was why his identity found its way to the press and the smearing began.

Do you REALLY think him expressing his views to bring forth a lawsuit was unexpected by anyone who has ever witnessed an unhappy customer doing anything they can to get what they want (which includes 100% of the people inside the plane, including airline staff.)

Nope. But I do think that once he said that, United Airlines' liability insurer went to work along with their PR department.

They didn't wait for him to come forward or file suit before his identity (and his wife's) were leaked to the press by someone in-the-know and in possession of his passenger file.

He may have been counseled by his attorney and decided not to sue so all his details weren't blasted through the press. But I think his statement was enough for them to start leaking his personal deets.

Since federal regulations bar airlines from disclosing passenger contact info to the public, I think United skated a very fine legal line.

Who needs to worry about that kind of breach of trust when you pay $500 to fly 3 hours one way?

According to this one website, the four employees who needed to board are required under UNION contract to get so many hours of sleep and that required they get to where they needed to be in a certain time frame.... then there was the issue of another entire flight of passengers who would have not been able to get where they were going. The blogger ends with this being part of the result of 9-11...he also says the police did not handle it properly.

You can read it here

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: Indigo5

Haha on UA I guess, that 1600 denied has cost them about 750,000,000..so far in 4% stock dropping.

Maybe the most expensive power trip of the year. Woot
that's a kick in the sirloin.

As I may not even be through 2/3 of the thread by now, just
one blip and I'm back to reading. For you and Krazy, what might
the consequences be if this doctor filed for consequential
damages on behalf of the people he was sworn to treat:
and denied unjustifiably by the airline willfully not following
its own contract conditions?

I get it that you can be involuntarily jettisoned after boarding
only for a medical or legal emergency; as defined in their own
contract of carriage.
Oh the irony, UA created both flavors for only themselves.

Video compilation of a bunch of and new footage of the event

At the risk of sounding cold...who cares? Why is this such a huge story? Front page everywhere...was this guy jesus?

Seriously, seems like an inconvenience yes, bad business practice yes, but why is it even being reported like it's proof of Bigfoot or something.

Diversion? Programming/Conditioning? There's a lot more I'm worried about than some random guy getting kicked off a plane.

Not empathetic I know, but there are much worse things going on...who gives a f if this dude got removed from a plane...he will be fine...just sue them and boycott.