Current Events > Beaten and dragged Doctor from United flight is a father of four Doctors

(+) Yeah! (+)

Four Doctors
One Lawyer
Five Children
And many grandchildren
---
He was beaten and dragged off United flight 3411 to make room for United employees
---
He survived tge Vietnam War and escaped to Anerica
---
He is a talented poker player and chef as well a Pulmonary Speciliast
---
---

This is a disruptive post
---

It's also been reported he takes dumps.
---

Johnny_Nutcase posted...

It's also been reported he takes dumps.

No way!!!!?
---

And this matters because?
---

He also threw a tantrum on an airplane and refused to leave when he was lawfully asked to.
---

gatorsPENSbucs posted...

And this matters because?

People are trying the man in the media
---

Mr Sandbag posted...

He also threw a tantrum on an airplane and refused to leave when he was lawfully asked to.

I forgot getting the shit beat out of you is a "tantrum" now.
---

Mr Sandbag posted...

He also threw a tantrum on an airplane and refused to leave when he was lawfully asked to.

Actually many lawyers are saying United breached their own contract.
---

CrimsonAngeI posted...

Mr Sandbag posted...

He also threw a tantrum on an airplane and refused to leave when he was lawfully asked to.

I forgot getting the shit beat out of you is a "tantrum" now.

In the wrong topic bro. twitterfriends posted...

Mr Sandbag posted...

He also threw a tantrum on an airplane and refused to leave when he was lawfully asked to.

Actually many lawyers are saying United breached their own contract.

That may be true but you don't sit there and argue that when you're asked to leave a plane.
---

I don't get why they felt the need to resort to violence to get this man off the plane. There's probably a couple hundred other passengers on the plane. They couldn't just move on to someone else to see if they would agree to get off?
---

twitterfriends posted...

Anerica

Land of the fee
---

DeathByMusic68 posted...

I don't get why they felt the need to resort to violence to get this man off the plane. There's probably a couple hundred other passengers on the plane. They couldn't just move on to someone else to see if they would agree to get off?

Yep and the United employees could have gotten a taxi to their job people are pointing out.
---

they ended up paying a full refund to everyone on the flight, plus the millions of dollars they will pay to the doctor, and all the money they lost in the stock market. they should have just offered more money to get him off the plane. $10,000 might have done it.

Well hopefully the lawsuit brings that sort of policy change to ALL airlines, the maximum voucher offered needs to be risen substantially like you said.
---

gatorsPENSbucs posted...

And this matters because?

his life matters.
---

DuranOfForcena posted...

Mr Sandbag posted...

That may be true but you don't sit there and argue that when you're asked to leave a plane.

why the fuck not

Because you will be forceably removed from the plane by security and lawfully so. Duh. Didn't you see the video?
---

Mr Sandbag posted...

DuranOfForcena posted...

Mr Sandbag posted...

That may be true but you don't sit there and argue that when you're asked to leave a plane.

why the fuck not

Because you will be forceably removed from the plane by security and lawfully so. Duh. Didn't you see the video?

Actually, once a passenger has already boarded the plane, United cannot forcefully remove them from the flight.


So yeah, they're 100% in the wrong.
---

Mr Sandbag posted...

CrimsonAngeI posted...

Mr Sandbag posted...

He also threw a tantrum on an airplane and refused to leave when he was lawfully asked to.

I forgot getting the shit beat out of you is a "tantrum" now.

In the wrong topic bro. twitterfriends posted...

Mr Sandbag posted...

He also threw a tantrum on an airplane and refused to leave when he was lawfully asked to.

Actually many lawyers are saying United breached their own contract.

That may be true but you don't sit there and argue that when you're asked to leave a plane.

Wrong
---

RchHomieQuanChi posted...

Mr Sandbag posted...

DuranOfForcena posted...

Mr Sandbag posted...

That may be true but you don't sit there and argue that when you're asked to leave a plane.

why the fuck not

Because you will be forceably removed from the plane by security and lawfully so. Duh. Didn't you see the video?

Actually, once a passenger has already boarded the plane, United cannot forcefully remove them from the flight.


So yeah, they're 100% in the wrong.

actually they can for all sorts of reasons

you are basically arguing that once on the plane you have a right to be there which is not true

planes get de-boarded all the time

like say the plane won't fly or there is no crew that shows up on time to work the flight
they will deboard the plane

but by your logic I can just sit there and they have no right to remove me
---

darkphoenix181 posted...

planes get de-boarded all the time

like say the plane won't fly or there is no crew that shows up on time to work the flight
they will deboard the plane

Not even remotely close to the same situation but okay.
---

RchHomieQuanChi posted...

darkphoenix181 posted...

planes get de-boarded all the time

like say the plane won't fly or there is no crew that shows up on time to work the flight
they will deboard the plane

Not even remotely close to the same situation but okay.

it is important because the contract that people say is supposedly breached doesn't mention cases like this

like it doesn't say "if crew don't show up to flight and plane cannot take off we have right to remove you from your seat"

but that is common sense right?

however, it could very well happen one day that a guy just sits there and is he going to argue he can because of this?

so you also have precedence of other airlines also to look at and many of them do this too

if it is wrong to ask passenger to give up seat for last minute crew change then not just United should be sued by class action for doing this in the past to many people

and if contract of carriage is the end all be all then you cannot deboard a plane when the pilot fails to show up for his job or something like that
---

darkphoenix181 posted...

it is important because the contract that people say is supposedly breached doesn't mention cases like this

like it doesn't say "if crew don't show up to flight and plane cannot take off we have right to remove you from your seat"

Irrelevant, because a vast majority of the time, passengers AREN'T removed from the flight for cases like this. They are told to sit tight and be patient while the crew comes in/the flight gets fixed/whatever. I know, because both of these exact situations have happened to me.


The only time a passenger will be asked to leave a flight in this case is if the crew is going to take too long to show up or the problem will take too long to be resolved, in which case, ALL passengers will be asked to leave the flight in order to board another plane, and this is done as a convenience to the customer in order to get them to their destination as quickly as possible despite the delay.

This situation is not that. This situation is "We fucked up with booking the flight, our plane is perfectly functional, but we're going to force paying customers off of the flight for our own employees and cause a great inconvenience to them."

One practice is in the interest of customer service, the other practice is "Fuck you, we don't care about where you need to be."
---

I heard he worked with Ghandi
---

RchHomieQuanChi posted...

The only time a passenger will be asked to leave a flight in this case is if the crew is going to take too long to show up or the problem will take too long to be resolved, in which case, ALL passengers will be asked to leave the flight in order to board another plane, and this is done as a convenience to the customer in order to get them to their destination as quickly as possible despite the delay.

Oh? It is just simply a convenience? So you don't actually have to get up and board the other plane? You can just sit there eh?
---

RchHomieQuanChi posted...

This situation is not that. This situation is "We f***ed up with booking the flight, our plane is perfectly functional, but we're going to force paying customers off of the flight for our own employees and cause a great inconvenience to them."

Actually it isn't a mess up of booking. It has to do with crew availability. This wife of a pilot explain it to us people who don't know much about it:

https://thepilotwifelife.wordpress.com/2017/04/11/i-know-youre-mad-at-united-but-thoughts-from-a-pilot-wife-about-flight-3411/

3: “So what’s this ‘must ride’ nonsense anyway? They shouldn’t bump a paying customer for a free employee ride!” I’m afraid you’re going to have to take this up with the federal government, not United. And it’s actually pretty important to you as an airline traveler anyway. They were not ‘freeloading home’. That’s called non-rev and they have to wait in line behind your checkbook and often don’t make it home to their families if flights are booked (believe me, I know). No, this was a must fly, a positive space situation. In layman terms, it means that a crew must be flown to an airport to man a flight in order to avoid cancellation of said flight due to crew unavailability. This is a federal DOT regulation, not an airline one. The airlines are required to do so to avoid disruption of air traffic. In other words, if there are no willing volunteers and they need seats to get a crew somewhere to avoid disruption of aviation flow, they can, will, must by federal regulation bump people for the better good of the 1000’s. Why? Because one cancelled flight has a serious domino affect in the delicate, complicated world of connections and aviation law.

apparently it is literally federal law to bump people off the flight in this case
---

why can't people admit they were wrong and get on with their lives

you double down on your wrongness and then you just turn it into trolling because you have nothing else to say
---

darkphoenix181 posted...

Oh? It is just simply a convenience? So you don't actually have to get up and board the other plane? You can just sit there eh?

Not necessarily, but it's a case of "why wouldn't you?" for the customer, since it'd allow them to depart the airport in the quickest amount of time.

There's absolutely no benefit for the customer to have them forcefully thrown off of a functioning plane, other than free flight they'd get for volunteering to leave, which might not even be worth it depending on why they're traveling in the first place.
---

United runs with the scissors pointing up.
The doctor walk with the scissors pointing down.

United keeps its cap on in its playmate's room.
The doctor removes his cap at the door.

United throws stones at birds.
The doctor scatters feed for birds.
---

darkphoenix181 posted...

RchHomieQuanChi posted...

This situation is not that. This situation is "We f***ed up with booking the flight, our plane is perfectly functional, but we're going to force paying customers off of the flight for our own employees and cause a great inconvenience to them."

Actually it isn't a mess up of booking. It has to do with crew availability. This wife of a pilot explain it to us people who don't know much about it:

https://thepilotwifelife.wordpress.com/2017/04/11/i-know-youre-mad-at-united-but-thoughts-from-a-pilot-wife-about-flight-3411/

3: “So what’s this ‘must ride’ nonsense anyway? They shouldn’t bump a paying customer for a free employee ride!” I’m afraid you’re going to have to take this up with the federal government, not United. And it’s actually pretty important to you as an airline traveler anyway. They were not ‘freeloading home’. That’s called non-rev and they have to wait in line behind your checkbook and often don’t make it home to their families if flights are booked (believe me, I know). No, this was a must fly, a positive space situation. In layman terms, it means that a crew must be flown to an airport to man a flight in order to avoid cancellation of said flight due to crew unavailability. This is a federal DOT regulation, not an airline one. The airlines are required to do so to avoid disruption of air traffic. In other words, if there are no willing volunteers and they need seats to get a crew somewhere to avoid disruption of aviation flow, they can, will, must by federal regulation bump people for the better good of the 1000’s. Why? Because one cancelled flight has a serious domino affect in the delicate, complicated world of connections and aviation law.

apparently it is literally federal law to bump people off the flight in this case

It's a blogger's word vs numerous lawyers that have said United breached their contract.
---

RchHomieQuanChi posted...

darkphoenix181 posted...

RchHomieQuanChi posted...

This situation is not that. This situation is "We f***ed up with booking the flight, our plane is perfectly functional, but we're going to force paying customers off of the flight for our own employees and cause a great inconvenience to them."

Actually it isn't a mess up of booking. It has to do with crew availability. This wife of a pilot explain it to us people who don't know much about it:

https://thepilotwifelife.wordpress.com/2017/04/11/i-know-youre-mad-at-united-but-thoughts-from-a-pilot-wife-about-flight-3411/

3: “So what’s this ‘must ride’ nonsense anyway? They shouldn’t bump a paying customer for a free employee ride!” I’m afraid you’re going to have to take this up with the federal government, not United. And it’s actually pretty important to you as an airline traveler anyway. They were not ‘freeloading home’. That’s called non-rev and they have to wait in line behind your checkbook and often don’t make it home to their families if flights are booked (believe me, I know). No, this was a must fly, a positive space situation. In layman terms, it means that a crew must be flown to an airport to man a flight in order to avoid cancellation of said flight due to crew unavailability. This is a federal DOT regulation, not an airline one. The airlines are required to do so to avoid disruption of air traffic. In other words, if there are no willing volunteers and they need seats to get a crew somewhere to avoid disruption of aviation flow, they can, will, must by federal regulation bump people for the better good of the 1000’s. Why? Because one cancelled flight has a serious domino affect in the delicate, complicated world of connections and aviation law.

apparently it is literally federal law to bump people off the flight in this case

It's a blogger's word vs numerous lawyers that have said United breached their contract.

lawyers did not say this isn't a law and United's own contract is quite different from DOT regulations which appear to not be so readily found

but yes it is a bloggers word
---

What does it actually matter? Even if he was an unemployed alcoholic, no one should be treated that way.
---

pinky0926 posted...

What does it actually matter? Even if he was an unemployed alcoholic, no one should be treated that way.

but you know United got some people to look into that guy's past to distract people
---

Bok_Choi posted...

pinky0926 posted...

What does it actually matter? Even if he was an unemployed alcoholic, no one should be treated that way.

but you know United got some people to look into that guy's past to distract people

Suspect they did, but still.
---

RE: Federal regulations

It's been thoroughly proven that United had other ways to get their employees to their destination to avoid cancelling the other flight.

Unless someone is a security problem, you generally cannot kick them off a plane once they've boarded it. As a matter of fact, you cannot even voluntarily leave unless you do something that makes them want to arrest you or there is a medical emergency.

It would be different if he wasn't allowed to board the plane in the first place. United would have been well in their right to say he couldn't board, but you shouldn't ever kick people off once they boarded.
---

pinky0926 posted...

What does it actually matter? Even if he was an unemployed alcoholic, no one should be treated that way.

I agree and disagree. I'm not a lawyer and have seen lawyers argue both sides of this. If United has a right to bump him and he wouldn't leave his treatment was fine.

What I will say is any personal details about him at all is irrelevant and I don't know why people always try and vilify or make a Saint out of people in situations like this when it doesn't matter.
---