Don't fly United

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:United's stock has already fallen 3.8% (830 mn$ in value).

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/uniteds-stock-is-set-to-fall-5-and-wipe-1-billion-off-the-airlines-market-cap-2017-04-11

Yes, all the way down to where the stock was on March 27.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"David Dao, the Elizabethtown doctor who was yanked off an overbooked United Airlines flight Sunday, has had a troubled history in Kentucky.

Dao, who went to medical school in Vietnam in the 1970s before moving to the U.S., was working as a pulmonologist in Elizabethtown when he was arrested in 2003 and eventually convicted of drug-related offenses after an undercover investigation, according to documents filed with the Kentucky Board of Medical Licensure last June. The documents allege that he was involved in fraudulent prescriptions for controlled substances and was sexually involved with a patient who used to work for his practice and assisted police in building a case against him.

Dao was convicted of multiple felony counts of obtaining drugs by fraud or deceit in November 2004 and was placed on five years of supervised probation in January 2005. He surrendered his medical license the next month."

http://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/local/2017/04/11/david-dao-passenger-removed-united-flight-doctor-troubled-past/100318320/

I don't care about this guy's background. If he is lying about being a doctor and having patients to see, that's pretty low, but it doesn't change the principle of the issue at hand.

He regained his medical license (with restrictions) in 2014 and returned to medical practice in 2015. In 2011 he was evaluated, with the following recommendations:

1) He attend a residential program to address his character deficits.

2) He completes a polygraph without evidence of deception.

3) He completes a professional boundaries course.

4) He submits to random urine and polygraph examinations.

5) A highly structured practice plan with a restricted DEA license is set up if/when he is able to return to medical practice.

He also has a past history of depression, anxiety and trauma - which may have played into his reaction and response on the plane.

So, what is your point? Rather than drag him out they should've knocked him out cold?

No, my reply was to someone wondering if he actually had a medical license and patients to see or if that was a lie. My point was he had gone through the process and retruned to practice and had some health issues that may have contributed to why he ran back on the plane in a panic and saying I need to go home and kill me.

His past really has nothing to do with the event, other than it seems he was telling the truth. It doesn't matter if it was a doctor or unemployed person. The incident on the airline is separate.

NP here. Your first post and your PP reek of victim blaming, so just stop. You could've just pointed out that he is, in fact, a doctor and left it at that, but you didn't.

You have a strange definition of victim blaming. This guy has a past - it is all over the web, I am not sharing personal secrets. As I said, his past being brought up has led to people wondering if he was telling the truth and there have also been lots of questions as to the unusual behavior he showed. Providing more information to speak to those points isn't victim blaming.

[Anonymous]

why is the passenger's personal info at ALL RELEVANT? should airlines bump customers based on a subjective assessement of what "good reasons" they have for wanting to go on the flight that they booked and paid for?

I'll bite: I think that if it is an unemployed person that person should be automatically bumped first. He or she doesn't have to get to work so they aren't a priority

Do you see how ridiculous this exercise is?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:why is the passenger's personal info at ALL RELEVANT? should airlines bump customers based on a subjective assessement of what "good reasons" they have for wanting to go on the flight that they booked and paid for?

I'll bite: I think that if it is an unemployed person that person should be automatically bumped first. He or she doesn't have to get to work so they aren't a priority

Do you see how ridiculous this exercise is?

I agree. Which is why "I'm a doctor, I need to see patients" isn't a good excuse to avoid the bump. Everyone on the plane has a valid reason to be at their destination in a timely manner.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:why is the passenger's personal info at ALL RELEVANT? should airlines bump customers based on a subjective assessement of what "good reasons" they have for wanting to go on the flight that they booked and paid for?

I'll bite: I think that if it is an unemployed person that person should be automatically bumped first. He or she doesn't have to get to work so they aren't a priority

Do you see how ridiculous this exercise is?

I agree. Which is why "I'm a doctor, I need to see patients" isn't a good excuse to avoid the bump. Everyone on the plane has a valid reason to be at their destination in a timely manner.

He does not need an excuse. He is a paying customer, he does not have to beg to stay on the flight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:why is the passenger's personal info at ALL RELEVANT? should airlines bump customers based on a subjective assessement of what "good reasons" they have for wanting to go on the flight that they booked and paid for?

I'll bite: I think that if it is an unemployed person that person should be automatically bumped first. He or she doesn't have to get to work so they aren't a priority

Do you see how ridiculous this exercise is?

The passenger was the one who brought it up. He told people he was a doctor and had to go see patients.

Someone else could have another reason.

No one is saying his personal information or that of any other passenger is part of the decision making about bumping

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:why is the passenger's personal info at ALL RELEVANT? should airlines bump customers based on a subjective assessement of what "good reasons" they have for wanting to go on the flight that they booked and paid for?

I'll bite: I think that if it is an unemployed person that person should be automatically bumped first. He or she doesn't have to get to work so they aren't a priority

Do you see how ridiculous this exercise is?

I agree. Which is why "I'm a doctor, I need to see patients" isn't a good excuse to avoid the bump. Everyone on the plane has a valid reason to be at their destination in a timely manner.

He does not need an excuse. He is a paying customer, he does not have to beg to stay on the flight.

+1000

At the end of the day, this is all that matters. And people are outraged because it could have been any one of us in his shoes. They offered him a flight that would get him home more than 24 hours later. Some of us have patients, need to care for kids/elderly parents, need to take time-sensitive medication, have appointments, or simply can't miss work.

No one should need to "donate" 24 hours of their time to a corporation that made billions in profit last year. It's unacceptable.

[Anonymous]

i'm so confused... why would anyone who doesn't work for United even try to defend United in this incident? people get bumped every day but never one made headline news like this... and you think United didn't screw up here?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:why is the passenger's personal info at ALL RELEVANT? should airlines bump customers based on a subjective assessement of what "good reasons" they have for wanting to go on the flight that they booked and paid for?

I'll bite: I think that if it is an unemployed person that person should be automatically bumped first. He or she doesn't have to get to work so they aren't a priority

Do you see how ridiculous this exercise is?

I agree. Which is why "I'm a doctor, I need to see patients" isn't a good excuse to avoid the bump. Everyone on the plane has a valid reason to be at their destination in a timely manner.

that's not true. some reasons are more important than others--like visiting a dying relative, a wedding or a critical job meeting. if united had offered a more compelling price to be bumped, people would have taken it...when I didn't have kids, I used to wish to be bumped so I could get a voucher. United just didn't handle it well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"David Dao, the Elizabethtown doctor who was yanked off an overbooked United Airlines flight Sunday, has had a troubled history in Kentucky.

Dao, who went to medical school in Vietnam in the 1970s before moving to the U.S., was working as a pulmonologist in Elizabethtown when he was arrested in 2003 and eventually convicted of drug-related offenses after an undercover investigation, according to documents filed with the Kentucky Board of Medical Licensure last June. The documents allege that he was involved in fraudulent prescriptions for controlled substances and was sexually involved with a patient who used to work for his practice and assisted police in building a case against him.

Dao was convicted of multiple felony counts of obtaining drugs by fraud or deceit in November 2004 and was placed on five years of supervised probation in January 2005. He surrendered his medical license the next month."

http://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/local/2017/04/11/david-dao-passenger-removed-united-flight-doctor-troubled-past/100318320/

I don't care about this guy's background. If he is lying about being a doctor and having patients to see, that's pretty low, but it doesn't change the principle of the issue at hand.

He regained his medical license (with restrictions) in 2014 and returned to medical practice in 2015. In 2011 he was evaluated, with the following recommendations:

1) He attend a residential program to address his character deficits.

2) He completes a polygraph without evidence of deception.

3) He completes a professional boundaries course.

4) He submits to random urine and polygraph examinations.

5) A highly structured practice plan with a restricted DEA license is set up if/when he is able to return to medical practice.

He also has a past history of depression, anxiety and trauma - which may have played into his reaction and response on the plane.

I think his reaction did suggest someone reliving past trauma.

The flight crew and officers should have realized the situation was getting out of hand and found another way to approach the issue. Manhandling him and causing injury is unacceptable, and the complete lack of remorse from United suggests exactly how they view their customers.

[Anonymous]

Screw united. I hope they go down the tubes and all of their employees lose their jobs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:i'm so confused... why would anyone who doesn't work for United even try to defend United in this incident? people get bumped every day but never one made headline news like this... and you think United didn't screw up here?

Don't assume identity of posters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are fares dropping in response to the collective freak out? I would like to get some cheap fares to Asia.

They might not have enough paying customers to fill their seats, so don't wait too long!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:why is the passenger's personal info at ALL RELEVANT? should airlines bump customers based on a subjective assessement of what "good reasons" they have for wanting to go on the flight that they booked and paid for?

I'll bite: I think that if it is an unemployed person that person should be automatically bumped first. He or she doesn't have to get to work so they aren't a priority

Do you see how ridiculous this exercise is?

I agree. Which is why "I'm a doctor, I need to see patients" isn't a good excuse to avoid the bump. Everyone on the plane has a valid reason to be at their destination in a timely manner.

He does not need an excuse. He is a paying customer, he does not have to beg to stay on the flight.

Yep. He paid his fare. If United wanted HIM off the flight they needed to offer a price point that he would have accepted. And perhaps money wasn't an issue, in which case United obviously should have regrouped and come up with another option. It's pretty frightening that an airline like United was so out of its depth on this "crisis" situation which did not have to escalate the way that it did. I sort of wish this would happen to me so that I could sue and never work again. The use of the work "voluntary" by United is so odd. Don't they have legal counsel who can at least use a dictionary? And now this passenger is being trashed and criticized in the media?! The lawsuit is just getting bigger. He could be a convicted felon. Who cares? He paid his fare, he had a ticket that correspond with his seat, he was seated. Policy or not United did a very boneheaded thing that they will regret for many financial quarters to come. And you people who love to be contrarian and talk about "policies" and technicalities need to ask yourselves how indignant you'd feel about being told you MUST VOLUNTEER to get off of a flight you paid for and needed. Would you be OK with being asked to give up your seat at a concert or sporting event once you're seated?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The problem for me is the mixed discussion of legalities and what United and the police "should have done". The two are different.

First, let's get a couple of things clear. The O'Hare Airport Police are police. That's it. They are certified law enforcement officers and you listen to them the same as you would a Chicago PD officer, because that's what they are. They don't have to wear a uniform, some are plainclothes, and there is no question that all of them identified themselves to the doctor as to what they were. The plainclothes officer displayed a badge. None of this is in dispute.

It's probable that the gate agent didn't communicate to the police the reason the passenger was being deboarded. Airport police deal all day with people who have to be deboarded because they are drunk, belligerant, crazy, etc., and many of them don't want to get off and have to be forcibly removed, just like some drunks in bars. It isn't pretty, but the protocol is the same, as mentioned above: ASK, then TELL, then MAKE. I appreciate the comment by some LEOs that if they knew that a person was simply being deboarded as an overbook and the person refused, they would put it back on the gate agent to try to work it out before using force. I commend that approach, but these guys were under no obligation to take it when the passenger defied a direct instruction, and more than likely the Captain or someone else in authority had told the police that the person's license to travel was revoked, that they were now a trespasser, and needed to be removed. The outcome of the people dragged off to the cheers of the passengers is usually that the cops don't arrest the person and they work out whatever they work out -- usually a flight the next day -- with the airline after the incident. The police use force to remove the person, then go on their way.

The reason for the outrage is the nature of the "offense" by the person sought to be removed, which was simply to refuse the airline's revocation of his license to travel on their airline after he had taken his seat on the plane. There's no question legally that the airline is within its rights to revoke that license in the face of positive-space company travelers on an otherwise-full flight, and there is no question that when asked to remove a passenger by the Captain or other airline authority, the police are entitled to use force if the person refuses. It's always ugly, which is why imperious gate agent idiots should call the police only as a last resort, and should exercise judgment before doing so.

In the case of an otherwise-appropriately-behaving overbook who refuses to leave the plane, probably supervisors or the station manager should be involved before calling the police; it should not be a gate agent decision. That should be an important policy change at United and its express carriers. There should also be some guidance, if there isn't at present, as to what to do if crew shows up with positive space (or higher) priority at the gate after a full flight has been boarded and not enough volunteers come forward. There is an amount of money that, if offered, would have secured volunteers. In hindsight, it would have been worth spending that amount of money last night. After that, you can IDB people who have already boarded, but if they refuse to go, common sense has to prevail before you call the cops. They got 3 off without the police being involved. It was an enormous mistake by the airline's people to call the police instead of taking a step back and seeing if they couldn't find a single volunteer for $2000, or call the station manager for guidance, etc.

That said, the doctor should have complied with the police instruction. I have seen enough of these incidents to know that the police tell you very quietly and calmly after making the request and then the instruction that you refuse, that you are going to be leaving the plane and that they will be taking you off if you don't go voluntarily. At this point, it was extremely poor judgment for the doctor to refuse to go. There were many other alternatives available to him; creating a disturbance like that is entirely-bad-judgment. The AIRLINE may be in the wrong for taking you off, but it isn't up to the police to arbitrate this stuff, and likely they only knew that the person had been deemed by the airline to be a trespasser at this point.

And, frankly, it's pretty self-important to refuse the police request and then instruction, and to think that if you make enough of a scene, you won't have to go. What the doctor did was wrong, regardless of whether the airline should have handled the situation better, which there is no question that they should have.

I certainly don't want to see how much acting out by passengers is now going to occur when the police ask them to get off the plane. Saying that the police shouldn't have done this, blah blah, is only going to cause more delays as more idiots create more drama when asked to leave the plane. And I'm sure that politicians are going to leap all over this and try to impose stupid rules that won't help the problem.

What should happen, I think, is that airlines should put in place policies to avoid dragging folks off the plane for higher-priority passengers. And they should take the authority to involve the police away from the gate agent when the issue is merely boarding priority, not bad acts by the passenger. It isn't that hard to imagine how one might set this up, and I think Oscar and his senior people and advisors should take a crack at coming up with a new policy before the politicians impose a stupid one on them.

At the end of the day, though, I still put the major fault for this incident on the guy who said "screw you" when told by police that he was about to be dragged off the plane. United shouldn't have put him in that position, but ultimately he was the author of his own destiny.

The airline is NOT within its rights to lock someone off for an overbooking situation once he has boarded. The ticket terms only allow them to "deny boarding," not force you off once boarded. The fact that they got police officers to do it is irrelevant. If you convinced police officers to shoot someone under false pretenses, that's still murder on your part.