
United isn't entirely to blame for David Dao's controversial removal from flight - curtis
http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/19/opinions/united-fiasco-context-opinion-abend/
======
notacoward
As a pilot, the author should know that Dao was _not_ interfering with a crew
member, because the flight attendants did not become crew members in law until
the door was closed (according to 49USC§46501) and/or the aircraft was moving
under its own power (according to 14CFR§91). Yes, it's silly, and
counterintuitive, and even contradictory. Welcome to law. This is the law that
United's defenders keep trying to invoke, but they clearly do not know what
the law actually says or means. It's an appeal to an authority that doesn't
actually support them. In other words, it's BS.

The point about the deadheading crew is more interesting IMO. It's their
arrival that triggered the whole thing. Why were they so late arriving? Did
United's logistics screw up by not putting that crew on another flight, or did
the crew themselves screw up by not showing up for it? United still hasn't
clarified. It is perhaps worthy of note that the deadheaders were the only
ones here who were United's responsibility; the rest (and worst) of what
happened was on either Republic or Chicago aviation security. United might be
faced with a choice between admitting their own direct responsibility for
causing this mess vs. having to explain to AFA why they threw union members
under the bus. Silence might seem preferable to either of those.

~~~
jjeaff
I really hope that specific law comes into play. Especially since it seems to
be used to justify not paying flight attendants until they are "officially"
part of the crew.

------
sugarpile
"Passengers were first offered voluntary removal incentives until, I suspect,
the agent's authorized limit was reached and involuntary removal became
necessary."

Looks like United's fault to me. On a side note, I'll never understand
_wanting_ to side with a corporation on a matter like this.

------
jeffjose
I'm sorry, I don't agree.

The offending party (in the court of law) might be the security officers. But
as a passenger, Dr. Dao bought the ticket from United and it was their
responsibility to treat him with dignity and safely transport him to his final
destination. The situation arose due to lapse in United's protocols -- which
was probably enforced by Chicago Airport Security officials.

I could make another argument, for the security officers, that they were just
following protocols. Maybe the gate agents let the security know that the
passenger isn't leaving even after "politely" requesting him to. The security
officers, hence rightfully, assumed he was a threat to other passengers and
used force.

All of this comes down to the fact that United started this, and they could
have easily avoided the whole thing.

------
jmount
Actually it sounds like they broke their own rules which seem to not allow
removal of passengers for crew (but do allow it for overbooking, which is a
different situation): [http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2017/04/united-
passenger-remo...](http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2017/04/united-passenger-
removal-reporting-management-fail.html)

------
userbinator
The whole incident reminds me of this amusing post about memory overcommit in
Linux: [https://lwn.net/Articles/104185/](https://lwn.net/Articles/104185/)

------
k-mcgrady
While the violent part of the incident is the fault of security (why should a
non-violent, non-threatening passenger have violence used against him???) the
airline should never have been in this position. Stop overbooking flights. Pay
to put your 'deadhead' crew on another airline. OR offer passengers an
incentive above the one they are entitled to by law instead of trying to get
them to accept less than that before giving up. It's just terrible business
practice because they know they can usually get away with it and can save
themselves a few $.

~~~
rhizome
_Stop overbooking flights._

The flight was not oversold. There were 70 seats, 70 passengers, and 70
tickets. It was _only_ the four deadheaders who put capacity over the limit.

~~~
k-mcgrady
Yes, in this case. But overbooking is common, causes similar issues, and this
incident has at least highlighted it in the media.

------
Karunamon
_Passengers were first offered voluntary removal incentives until, I suspect,
the agent 's authorized limit was reached and involuntary removal became
necessary._

The fact that there is an "authorized limit" is squarely on United. Start
offering cash money to give up your seat, rather that near-worthless vouchers,
as they are authorized and supposed to per FAA regs, and eventually, I guaran-
freaking-tee you will find takers.

60% United, 40% hired security goons. United could have _very easily_ avoided
calling them in the first place

~~~
toufka
>United could have very easily avoided calling them in the first place.

Yep. And that actually yet further shifts the blame towards United even from
your split. If you call in security goons, you can't get mad when they act
like security goons. Just because United didn't bust the guy's lip doesn't
mean they couldn't reasonably foresee that happening once they picked up their
telephone to call in security.

------
alphonsegaston
Reads to me like the airline industry is trotting out it's PR team to try and
prevent regulatory reform of their customer-hostile practices. If you watch
the press session with Dr. Dao's lawyer, he framed the attack on Dao as only
the most extreme example of the pattern of mistreatment and disregard airlines
have for their customers.

------
rhizome
This is not a good take, and poorly written besides. I think it's apparent
that the good pilot hasn't been a paying passenger in quite some time.

Nothing in this distinguishes the facts as we know them so far, and doesn't
even mention the changes in legality incurred once a paying passenger sits in
their purchased seat. For me, the contract of carriage is an important aspect
of this story. Heck, I don't even think I've read anything that implicates the
pilots on the Dao flight _at all_.

It reads more as submarine PR to take the heat off the airline and square it
on the police, who essentially have zero oversight in Chicago, and which would
put the matter into a territory of blamelessness. Further extrapolating, in
the inevitable civil case(s), I wonder if the pilot's reasoning could work to
reduce punitive damages.

------
powerfoolx
Some people seems to be really buying the shit united was selling with CNN.
Using a contract seems to be the silver bullet to get the company of
everything.

That's just pathetic, as a consumer, if you buy a ticket from United. The
thing is between you and the United, no matter how United manage their
business, it's completely irrelevant for the consumer.

If we buy a poisoned food, I have no interest in finding who's responsibility
it is, I go directly to the person who sells it. It's falls on the United to
file lawsuit etc to determine their messy relationships and responsibilities.

Consumers don't need to know that, the case for contract. Period

------
andreyf
United is who called airport security to forcibly de-board someone, likely in
violation of their contract with them:
[https://www.facebook.com/erik.bauman/posts/10106083654220072](https://www.facebook.com/erik.bauman/posts/10106083654220072)

The crew should absolutely have exhibited some agency and basic human dignity
and intervened to prevented airport security for de-boarding a passenger who
had already been seated. It would have saved everyone tons of time and their
company a ton of horrible PR.

~~~
notacoward
> United is who called airport security to forcibly de-board someone

Actually no, it was Republic who did that. United definitely screwed up, but
not in that particular way.

~~~
andreyf
Fair 'nuff, didn't realize another airline was involved. Seems clear to me
that everyone is at fault for not standing up in the face of something so
blatantly wrong and inhumane happening.

------
drivingmenuts
Get that water-carrier outta here.

As a passenger, I am not there to solve a problem for the airline. Their
failure to have a crew somewhere else is not my problem to solve.

------
sergiocarnitas
I think there are two issues here:

1) That United could have him removed to begin with. Call this the social
issue.

2) That he was removed violently. Call this the physical issue.

It's because these things are _combined_ that we get the outrage we're feeling
now.

Police interact violently with people all the time. Often it gets overlooked
because they were doing something wrong to cause it.

People also get removed from flights all the time, but usually it gets ignored
because we can't _see_ their frustration as easily as we could see blood on
Mr. Dao's face.

United is _absolutely_ responsible for the social issue, but I don't agree
that they're responsible for the physical one. The police should have explored
other options that didn't involve violence in order to get him off of the
plane.

At the point Mr. Dao was at, he was essentially trespassing on United's plane
(not something I agree should be the case, but the way that I understand the
policies of the airlines' governing body, that is the way it is looked at once
they decide he should leave).

------
y4mi
what a silly article. just unfounded claims not based in reality.

probably an article by the united PR department.

------
msimpson
> I should also emphasize that the nationwide attention to this
> incident...came because of the actions of Chicago airport security...

> But this whole nightmare occurred because a "deadheading"...

> But let's put the blame squarely where it belongs: on the Chicago airport
> security officers.

Way to scapegoat airport security, Les. Next time just blame the victim
outright.

I'm sure Dao deserved it because he was perpetrating a sit-in protest without
a permit on private property. Right?

------
charles-salvia
Good article. But I have to ask for clarification for this statement:

"Empty seats cost the airlines money, and they need to recoup those losses
somehow."

What does this mean? The issue here is _overbooked_ seats. If a seat is
physically empty during the flight because the passenger just doesn't show up,
the airline doesn't _lose_ any money - the ticket/seat is still (pre)paid for.
Overbooking is simply a way for the airlines to make _extra_ money on top of
what they would normally make, gambling on some percentage of customers not
showing up for the flight.

So, is the airline industry operating on such a slim margin that giving up the
practice of overbooking would force airlines to take noticeably drastic cost-
cutting measures?

~~~
grecy
> _If a seat is physically empty because the passenger just doesn 't show up,
> the airline doesn't lose any money - the ticket is still paid for.
> Overbooking is simply a way for the airlines to make extra money on top of
> what they would normally make_

Your logic is perfectly reasonable and sound, and it took me many years of
working for Big Corp (TM) to understand that is simply not how a big
corporation thinks.

Once they have a revenue stream, anything that diminishes it is a "loss", even
if that revenue stream was kind of fake or invented anyway.

The massive company I worked for was making millions per week from something
that was accidental and they shouldn't have been. But it went on for so long,
they got so attached to it (those millions looked great on year-end reports)
that soon any talk of "fixing" the problem was referred to as a "revenue loss"
and it was completely unacceptable to the business, unless your proposed
change kept the revenue.

~~~
maxerickson
Is it somehow controversial that selling more tickets for flights will tend to
lower costs per ticket?

The particular incident isn't really a good one to base discussions on, it was
so egregious that the discussions are boring. It shouldn't have happened.

There is a more interesting discussion to have about overbooking, whether to
allow it and how to deal with the situation where they get it wrong and don't
have enough seats. Maybe the minimum payout for denied boarding should be
higher. Maybe the airline should have to _start_ their offers for voluntarily
taking a later flight at that price. Maybe the sale process for all tickets
should include an option to actually reserve the seat (for a fee).

But there isn't a discussion to have about whether a business should call the
police to beat up a customer that they just don't want to serve.

~~~
charles-salvia
Some upper-scale restaurants charge you a "no-show" fee, using the credit card
used for the reservation. Maybe airlines could do this? (Of course, the
difference is that restaurants don't receive the _actual_ payment for services
with no-shows.)

~~~
misingnoglic
Why would that make sense for airlines? Missing a flight and then paying extra
sounds awful, especially since the justification is "we could have also sold
your seat to someone else."

------
cm2012
I don't buy this argument. He tries to remove blame from the airline because
they were just following procedure. But the issue is that the procedure was
stupid and greedy.

------
usaphp
I wonder why was that exact passenger picked to be removed?

~~~
rchowe
Probably because he paid the lowest fare for that segment and had no frequent
flyer status. When involuntarily denying boarding to a passenger, an airline
in the US has to provide 4x the fare paid for that _segment_ , up to a maximum
of $1350. Some articles incorrectly reported this as "the computer randomly
picked" vs "the computer picked".

The insidious part of it is that on more complex itineraries, the regional jet
segments are priced rather low. I've flown from Montreal to Dallas-Fort Worth
to Tokyo multiple times on American Airlines, and each time the ticket shows
the cost of the business class YUL-DFW segment to be $232. If I was IDB'd from
that segment (which also wouldn't happen to business class passengers without
some major extenuating circumstances), all I would be legally required to be
paid would be $232 * 4 = $928. I've seen economy fares on regional jet flights
on complex itineraries of about $50, so the legal requirement to deny boarding
to that passenger would be $200 cash.

------
nerdponx
Thoughtful, measured, and evidently informed. Thanks for posting!

