Moose135 wrote:

FlyHossD wrote:

As I understand it, it wasn't an airline employee that dragged Dao off the plane - it was the City of Chicago Department of Aviation Police. Is that incorrect?

Yes, but at the request of the airline. They didn't just board a random flight and drag off a passenger, they wouldn't have been there if the airline hadn't asked them to remove someone.

Trust me, you do not want the sort of transferable liability you are arguing in favor of to exist in this country.

If you have a guest in your home who, for whatever reason, you decide needs to leave, but they refuse to do so and you call the police for assistance, who then rough him up, do you really want to be held accountable?

If there were evidence United employees had said something like "do whatever it takes," you might be making a relevant point because they might be argued as having solicited a crime.

As is, United is at fault for poor planning of crew relocation, and a bumping of undefined acceptability under their contract of carriage, not assault.

iamlucky13 wrote:

As is, United is at fault for poor planning of crew relocation, and a bumping of undefined acceptability under their contract of carriage, not assault.

Do we know if it really was UA who was at fault as my understanding is the crew were employed by Republic Airways? The same company also runs express flights for AA and DL.

I remember Jeff Smisek was blaming Colgan Air when a Continental Express flight crashed many years ago.

xiaotung wrote:

The figure circling in Chinese social media is he got $140 million. Is that even possible?

Maybe that's in Yuan? That'd be about $20M USD I think.

xiaotung wrote:

iamlucky13 wrote:

As is, United is at fault for poor planning of crew relocation, and a bumping of undefined acceptability under their contract of carriage, not assault.

Do we know if it really was UA who was at fault as my understanding is the crew were employed by Republic Airways? The same company also runs express flights for AA and DL.

I remember Jeff Smisek was blaming Colgan Air when a Continental Express flight crashed many years ago.

The Colgan Air plane crashed at the hands of Colgan Air pilots. This was all carried out by UA employees and policies. The positioning of the Republic crew may have been what created the conflict, but all the UA folks had to do was say "Sorry, we boarded everyone already." and dealt with the repercussions later.

ikramerica wrote:

I'm sure it was for more than he deserved but not as much as he was hoping. Avoiding a trial and all the discovery of his past behaviors being made public was good for him.

By extension I guess we could also assume that it was good for the security guards, the air crew/ground staff, and United as a whole. I'm sure they also have 'past behaviours' that they wouldn't want to be made public.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

xiaotung wrote:

The figure circling in Chinese social media is he got $140 million. Is that even possible?

Maybe that's in Yuan? That'd be about $20M USD I think.

No, in USD. Even though I don't really believe that figure, it is now doing a massive favor for UA as everyone is now saying UA is their first choice of airline in the States. They hope that they would get beaten up and get a massive payout too. Sarcasm or not, most people would just believe what they are told.

So somewhere between a brand new B737NG and B787-9. Good for him.

I think Oscar's communication to employees should be a one liner. "Don't do anything which will cost company $$$,$$$,$$$"

ikramerica wrote:

I'm sure it was for more than he deserved but not as much as he was hoping. Avoiding a trial and all the discovery of his past behaviors being made public was good for him.

That smear campaign is irrelevant to this particular case. I hope the settlement gives uniteds management sleepless nights.

iamlucky13 wrote:

Moose135 wrote:

FlyHossD wrote:

As I understand it, it wasn't an airline employee that dragged Dao off the plane - it was the City of Chicago Department of Aviation Police. Is that incorrect?

Yes, but at the request of the airline. They didn't just board a random flight and drag off a passenger, they wouldn't have been there if the airline hadn't asked them to remove someone.

Trust me, you do not want the sort of transferable liability you are arguing in favor of to exist in this country.

If you have a guest in your home who, for whatever reason, you decide needs to leave, but they refuse to do so and you call the police for assistance, who then rough him up, do you really want to be held accountable?

If there were evidence United employees had said something like "do whatever it takes," you might be making a relevant point because they might be argued as having solicited a crime.

As is, United is at fault for poor planning of crew relocation, and a bumping of undefined acceptability under their contract of carriage, not assault.

If you have rented out a room in your home, the guy occupies it. When now your doughtier unexpectedly arrives and you call the local rent a cop to throw the renter out. If these rent a cop rough up the person thrown out, I am sure you have to pay, perhaps you land in prison.

727LOVER wrote:

Does settlement with United cover Republic?

Republic was not involved. They do no ground handling and the crew completely stood back. This was handled by UA ground staff and the police.

mjoelnir wrote:

If you have rented out a room in your home, the guy occupies it. When now your doughtier unexpectedly arrives and you call the local rent a cop to throw the renter out. If these rent a cop rough up the person thrown out, I am sure you have to pay, perhaps you land in prison.

Interesting rebuttal. But to carry that one more step, the lease* with your tenant allows you to terminate the lease at your discretion. And when evicted, the tenant refuses to leave despite multiple requests. At what point do you call the police?

BTW, personally, I'm opposed to overbooking. Rather, I'd prefer to see a system like hotel reservations - if you don't cancel your reservation, you get charged whether you show up for the flight or not.

*IOW, the Contract of Carriage.

FlyHossD wrote:

Interesting rebuttal. But to carry that one more step, the lease* with your tenant allows you to terminate the lease at your discretion. And when evicted, the tenant refuses to leave despite multiple requests. At what point do you call the police?

*IOW, the Contract of Carriage.

There was no notice of eviction (or) removal notice explaining per passenger rights per DOT regulations.
There were no multiple requests. According to other passengers, FAs asked one time.
In 30 seconds, mall security saying "Lets go" multiple times is not considered multiple requests.
There was no official police request.

Sure you can evict anyone from your property as long as there is due process.

Dr Dao may end up the loser in the long run. Now he is flush with money and will no doubt be constant TMZ fodder, and as his past has shown he loves sex and gambling. Expect him to be in the news again.

FlyHossD wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

BTW, personally, I'm opposed to overbooking. Rather, I'd prefer to see a system like hotel reservations - if you don't cancel your reservation, you get charged whether you show up for the flight or not.

*IOW, the Contract of Carriage.

Novel idea, but how about those on flex fares?

The only reason anyone choose to pay the higher fares for Economy is due to the flexibility it allows in changing their own travel plans.

Prolly change the name to Dr. Dao Airlines. His picture on the vertical stabilizer of every UA aircraft a la Frontier. Might not be a bad idea, at that...

That is the best idea I've heard! Now that's an airline I would put my trust and loyalty behind.

floridaflyboy wrote:

727LOVER wrote:

Does settlement with United cover Republic?

Republic was not involved. They do no ground handling and the crew completely stood back. This was handled by UA ground staff and the police.

That's not entirely true....from what I understand the one hour rule (meaning deadheading crews need to show up an hour before the flight) was put in place because Republic failed to notify UA in a timely manner (UA had boarded the flight before the deadheading crew arrived at the gate) they would need to deadhead a crew to Louisville. A case could have been made that Republic was partially liable if it had come to pass a lawsuit was filed and it had gone to court.

That being said no suit was actually ever filled against any party in this matter and my bet is this is over...I don't think the aviation department, individuals involved or Republic will face any further action.

Had a thought, in the anual report to shareholders would this figure be published? They clearly have to account for the monies so do they hide it in some way or other? Not an accountant type person.

727200 wrote:

I wouldn't have given this clown a dime. Go talk with the City of Chicago PD who did the damage. All this is going to do is encourage others to try the same thing. You should see all the crap airline employee's have to put up with since this happened. Its ridiculous the garbage they now encounter.

Yes let's stand by and see how many passengers strike up a deal with airport policing units to have themselves dragged off airliners in order to make a few fast bucks. meanwhile broken teeth and faces are all part of the illusion I presume ? ... I see the United apologists are out in force again.

I bet he got a ton. Imagine what it was worth to UA from a PR point of view to keep this from going to trial? Even if UA would have won, the damage of a trial going on for a year would be tremendous.

readytotaxi wrote:

Had a thought, in the anual report to shareholders would this figure be published? They clearly have to account for the monies so do they hide it in some way or other? Not an accountant type person.

No..legal payouts are lumped in under misc. usually and accounting rules do allow for confidential legal proceedings to remain undisclosed.

While I have no idea what the settlement actually was there is virtually no chance this would be large enough to trigger any sort of special reporting...all large companies budget for legal proceedings and this will simply come out of that budget. My bet is the payout won't be as large as some people on here think...

[quote="Okie"]No indication of if or when the City of Chicago is going to settle with the "security guards" bashing Dr. Dao's face and knocking his teeth out at United's directions.

More still to come I am thinking.

Okie

Apparently, the City of Chicago won't be on the hook at all. Someone with some knowledge of the settlement said that United has taken full responsibility, meaning that UA cannot turn to the City for contribution.

As much as UA was responsible for calling airport security, UA probably wasn't expecting security officers (most of the force are retired Chicago Police officers) to treat Dr. Dao like a common criminal who ran from officers and fought being handcuffed and put into a patrol car.

I don't think this incident has been put to rest, in terms of the City of Chicago. The head of security at ORD/MDW was terminated, because he didn't disclosed that Illinois Toll Highway Authority fired him because of sexual harassment allegations, and the Aviation Commissioner had very few answers, when she testified before a City Council committee. Add to the mix that she ordered security officers at ORD and MDW to stop wearing attire emblazoned the word "POLICE" in January, and that order was being ignored in April. The City Council believes that she is unable to exert any authority.

Jerseyguy wrote:

Moose135 wrote:

FlyHossD wrote:

As I understand it, it wasn't an airline employee that dragged Dao off the plane - it was the City of Chicago Department of Aviation Police. Is that incorrect?

Yes, but at the request of the airline. They didn't just board a random flight and drag off a passenger, they wouldn't have been there if the airline hadn't asked them to remove someone.

Your right they wouldn't have been there but the airline never requested that the police literally drag the passenger off the plane, they just asked to have the passenger removed which they had a right to do. If the police used excessive force to do so after Dr. Dao refused that is their fault not the airlines.

I think we all agree that, at best, UA handled the situation poorly. Agents should have offered more $, crew skd shouldn't have booked this crew at the last second, etc... That being said, the agents followed the established procedure for removing pax. The actual removal itself was all po-po. Not much different than when a bar kicks someone out and they refuse to leave. You refuse a cops order and it doesn't end well (I know from experience). IMO his beef is with the po, but that's not how it works in the US sue friendly climate. You go after the deep pockets (UA). In this case they've also lost the court of public opinion and a trial would not have gone well for UA, to put it mildly. The public already hates airlines so this just gives them a rallying cause.

As a former Chicagoan, it irks me that the cops basically get a free pass on this one. For those that don't know, Chicago police are known for their brutality.

Summary: UA followed their (admittedly stupid) policy, called the po-po when pax refused to deplane, then pax acted like a total arse with the po-po and now he's going to be rich which just emboldens others to follow suit. 'Murica the great!

Imagine if you were one of the pax that was asked to leave, and you complied. How's that $800 feeling?

727200 wrote:

Anet was in need of more pot stirring accounts posting obnoxious and in your face comments! Thank you so much for coming here!

The facts that you clearly choose to ignore are facing you in bold neon lights.

UA didn't attack, remove, or drag this clown off the plane that wasn't theirs; representatives of the City of Chicago did. No matter how you attempt to manipulate that, those are the facts. Jeez, know what you are talking about before you open up your pie-hole.

Generally speaking, this line of argument has not held up in court in these types of situations.

Also, I suspect that United's lawyers, risk managers and PR folks took a look at what a trial with the Chicago PD would mean, including subpoena and testimony from United employees, United training manuals introduced as evidence and the ensuing media storm and figured that just taking blame and paying the settlement in exchange for no further legal proceedings was probably better for shareholders, their top line and their bottom line.

Chicago and Republic are at bat.

Flighty wrote:

My guess is he opened at 25 million. They replied with a confidentiality agreement and $500,000.

My guess is it was 2-5 million, but it could be more like 8-9. In any case, it is vital that United put this behind them, and the confidentiality suits both parties, we might guess. Both are weary of the attention.

Certainly 7 figures. I agree likely 12 to 30 million. Such cases are so rarely handed to lawyers.

A sealed case helps the other lawsuits.

I really doubt the plaintiff's lawyers started as low as $25 million.. Forget the law, they had the PR card to extract far more and keep this in the news.

United's heavy use of IDB made this a question of when, not if. And his butt was in the seat. Transportation law was on his side.

Lightsaber

BN727227Ultra wrote:

Prolly change the name to Dr. Dao Airlines. His picture on the vertical stabilizer of every UA aircraft a la Frontier. Might not be a bad idea, at that...

Like this? https://i.redd.it/1mmggk9kpqqy.jpg

By the way....one aspect we haven't covered....what heads will roll @ UA? Or even ORD/Chicago & Republic? Has anyone yet been fired?

btafan wrote:

BN727227Ultra wrote:

Prolly change the name to Dr. Dao Airlines. His picture on the vertical stabilizer of every UA aircraft a la Frontier. Might not be a bad idea, at that...

Like this? https://i.redd.it/1mmggk9kpqqy.jpg

(snort!)

After the handling of the event perhaps UA might fire their PR firm if they have one.

xiaotung wrote:

The figure circling in Chinese social media is he got $140 million. Is that even possible?

haha that would be insane!
i was generally guessing around the 5 mill mark as were most posters here.
Would be great to know how much.

Let's not forget he'd have to pay 40% tax on whatever he gets ?

727LOVER wrote:

By the way....one aspect we haven't covered....what heads will roll @ UA? Or even ORD/Chicago & Republic? Has anyone yet been fired?

Couldn't tell you about Chicago but MUN/O has already said no one will be fired at UA....the issue with firing anyone at UA is UAs employees actualy followed policy.

ahmetdouas wrote:

xiaotung wrote:

The figure circling in Chinese social media is he got $140 million. Is that even possible?

haha that would be insane!
i was generally guessing around the 5 mill mark as were most posters here.
Would be great to know how much.

Let's not forget he'd have to pay 40% tax on whatever he gets ?

Does anyone remember the McDonalds hot coffee incident from years ago...that ended up being settled for 600K. Could not tell you what the exact dollar amount is but it may not be as high as people think...probably low 7 figures if I were to hazard a guess. A huge percentage of that will go to the attorneys and another large chunk in taxes....

ahmetdouas wrote:

Let's not forget he'd have to pay 40% tax on whatever he gets ?

United1 wrote:

Could not tell you what the exact dollar amount is but it may not be as high as people think...probably low 7 figures if I were to hazard a guess. A huge percentage of that will go to the attorneys and another large chunk in taxes....

Payments designated for medical expenses and pain and suffering are generally not subject to federal income taxes. A properly-structured settlement will result in little, if any, tax liability.

alfa164 wrote:

ahmetdouas wrote:

Let's not forget he'd have to pay 40% tax on whatever he gets ?

United1 wrote:

Could not tell you what the exact dollar amount is but it may not be as high as people think...probably low 7 figures if I were to hazard a guess. A huge percentage of that will go to the attorneys and another large chunk in taxes....

Payments designated for medical expenses and pain and suffering are generally not subject to federal income taxes. A properly-structured settlement will result in little, if any, tax liability.

Interesting...I didnt realise that part...I suppose that properly-structured are the operative words.

United1 wrote:

alfa164 wrote:

ahmetdouas wrote:

Let's not forget he'd have to pay 40% tax on whatever he gets ?

United1 wrote:

Could not tell you what the exact dollar amount is but it may not be as high as people think...probably low 7 figures if I were to hazard a guess. A huge percentage of that will go to the attorneys and another large chunk in taxes....

Payments designated for medical expenses and pain and suffering are generally not subject to federal income taxes. A properly-structured settlement will result in little, if any, tax liability.

Interesting...I didnt realise that part...I suppose that properly-structured are the operative words.

Indeed. I had a family member receive a payout following an accident many years ago, and it was not subject to tax liability. Any attorney worth his salt will structure the payout so that this settlement would be for pain and suffering.

readytotaxi wrote:

After the handling of the event perhaps UA might fire their PR firm if they have one.

Social media team officially didn't jump the gun, they were actually asking for details from video poster. Leggings taught them a great deal.

Oscar jumped the gun the with his tweet and internal support letter. Went south from there.

Of course, fanboys used not-mainline excuse, quoted several irrelevant rules, dug up dirt about his past, made condescending statements to make the problem go away. I am using the term fanboys, because no one associated with the airline can do this legally. If they did, they actually forced airline to pay more.

FlyHossD wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

If you have rented out a room in your home, the guy occupies it. When now your doughtier unexpectedly arrives and you call the local rent a cop to throw the renter out. If these rent a cop rough up the person thrown out, I am sure you have to pay, perhaps you land in prison.

Interesting rebuttal. But to carry that one more step, the lease* with your tenant allows you to terminate the lease at your discretion. And when evicted, the tenant refuses to leave despite multiple requests. At what point do you call the police?

BTW, personally, I'm opposed to overbooking. Rather, I'd prefer to see a system like hotel reservations - if you don't cancel your reservation, you get charged whether you show up for the flight or not.

*IOW, the Contract of Carriage.

The comparable situation would be terminating the lease after the boarder moves in, when the lease contract allows to terminate before the boarder moves in.

Chicago Airport Security Chief fired after United-airlines-debacle

Looks like a head finally rolled on the law enforcement side...first person fired over incident

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-04-28/chicago-airport-security-chief-fired-after-united-airlines-debacle

xiaotung wrote:

iamlucky13 wrote:

As is, United is at fault for poor planning of crew relocation, and a bumping of undefined acceptability under their contract of carriage, not assault.

Do we know if it really was UA who was at fault as my understanding is the crew were employed by Republic Airways? The same company also runs express flights for AA and DL.

I remember Jeff Smisek was blaming Colgan Air when a Continental Express flight crashed many years ago.

xiaotung please review the official report posted in a separate thread. Page 3 helps understand the beginning of the sequence of events with the 4 crews. See below:

DIRECTFLT wrote:

United Express Flight 3411 Review and Action Report

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/docume ... port/2418/

readytotaxi wrote:

Had a thought, in the anual report to shareholders would this figure be published? They clearly have to account for the monies so do they hide it in some way or other? Not an accountant type person.

Out of court settlement is business as usual. Corporations of that size do it all the time, and have insurance for these matters.

727LOVER wrote:

By the way....one aspect we haven't covered....what heads will roll @ UA? Or even ORD/Chicago & Republic? Has anyone yet been fired?

In the spirit of "Tone at the Top" OScar fired himself from chairmanship per the company proxy filing https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/20 ... 100761368/

Legally, United is easily jointly liable for the injuries. If you are jointlty liable for someone's injuries you can be made to pay for all of his injuries. It would then be up to United to go and collect damages from the City of Chicago and Republic for their fair share.

OA412 wrote:

United1 wrote:

alfa164 wrote:

Payments designated for medical expenses and pain and suffering are generally not subject to federal income taxes. A properly-structured settlement will result in little, if any, tax liability.

Interesting...I didnt realise that part...I suppose that properly-structured are the operative words.

Indeed. I had a family member receive a payout following an accident many years ago, and it was not subject to tax liability. Any attorney worth his salt will structure the payout so that this settlement would be for pain and suffering.

AFAIK the only tax liability from a lawsuit payout or settlement is only for the amount of a settlement attributed to loss of income, which likely doesn't apply in this case to any significant degree if at all.

mjoelnir wrote:

The comparable situation would be terminating the lease after the boarder moves in, when the lease contract allows to terminate before the boarder moves in.

The contract is for carriage, not for a specified seat on a specified flight, so any lease/rent arguments are invalid.

afcjets wrote:

OA412 wrote:

United1 wrote:

Interesting...I didnt realise that part...I suppose that properly-structured are the operative words.

Indeed. I had a family member receive a payout following an accident many years ago, and it was not subject to tax liability. Any attorney worth his salt will structure the payout so that this settlement would be for pain and suffering.

AFAIK the only tax liability from a lawsuit payout or settlement is only for the amount of a settlement attributed to loss of income, which likely doesn't apply in this case to any significant degree if at all.

Punitive and/or exemplary damages are subject to taxation as well; interest, if added, is also subject to taxation.

smaragdz wrote:

ikramerica wrote:

I'm sure it was for more than he deserved but not as much as he was hoping. Avoiding a trial and all the discovery of his past behaviors being made public was good for him.

By extension I guess we could also assume that it was good for the security guards, the air crew/ground staff, and United as a whole. I'm sure they also have 'past behaviours' that they wouldn't want to be made public.

Gotta love the 'logic' that so many people default to - "[person] was No Saint™, therefore they deserved [injustice that befell them in completely unrelated case]!"

dtw2hyd wrote:

Of course, fanboys used not-mainline excuse, quoted several irrelevant rules, dug up dirt about his past, made condescending statements to make the problem go away. I am using the term fanboys, because no one associated with the airline can do this legally. If they did, they actually forced airline to pay more.

EA CO AS wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

The comparable situation would be terminating the lease after the boarder moves in, when the lease contract allows to terminate before the boarder moves in.

The contract is for carriage, not for a specified seat on a specified flight, so any lease/rent arguments are invalid.

I can well understand that this is your opinion. But you can write a lot in a COC, that will never hold up in a court of law, and that is the main reason we will never see the airlines going to court in those cases.
If the contract is always for an unspecified flight, how are airlines able to sell you a ticket that you can use only on a specified dates on a specified times. If you miss one of those flights, the rest of those flights are cancelled Those tickets are defined by the date and times, you do not get refunds when you want to change date and time. If you show me a court case, where the definition of date and time holds up in regards to the passenger, but not for the airline, I would like to see it.

I'm glad for him. I'm not going to speculate on the amount, but I've been involved in cases where there was no NDA because the victim wouldn't accept it and I say good for them too.

Now, we need more people to lawyer up over these silly IDB and thrown off situations to get these airlines to really fall in line.

And there is another point dear EA CO AS, where in the COC is it mentioned that the airline has the right to use physical force when it wants to prepossess the seat its has aloud its passenger to board into? What if the passenger just says, sue me to enforce your COC?

Airlines seem to think they have acquired powers comparable to law enforcement or governments and that a COC amounts to law of the land. It is time that those views are cut down to size again.

flyingcat wrote:

Dr Dao may end up the loser in the long run. Now he is flush with money and will no doubt be constant TMZ fodder, and as his past has shown he loves sex and gambling. Expect him to be in the news again.

Stop pissing on his parade

mjoelnir wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

The comparable situation would be terminating the lease after the boarder moves in, when the lease contract allows to terminate before the boarder moves in.

The contract is for carriage, not for a specified seat on a specified flight, so any lease/rent arguments are invalid.

I can well understand that this is your opinion.

It's actually a fact, but hey, don't let that get in the way of a good ol' fashioned "Airlines are eeeeeeeeeevil!" mjoelnir rant...