The crew directed the passenger to deplane as he had been selected for involuntary bumping as is allowed via DOT regulation. Since the passenger refused, he interfered with the duties of the crew to operate the aircraft in a safe manner. This interference directly resulted in the aircraft being delayed for departure.
I disagree. DOT’s own statement about passenger removal state that such removal cannot be arbitrary. Such selection must be based on safety or security concerns. I don’t believe that Dao would meet that criteria. Again, there are specific ,under their own contract, instances when a passenger may be told to leave a plane after having boarded. His being allowed to remain in his paid for seat would not equal interference. It was their unreasonable demand, one which went against UA’s own policy that solicited his justified reaction. In short UA owns this.
Should he have behaved differently? Probably, and if UA had arranged for him to make another flight he might have. We don’t know if he was ever told that was a possibility. His rather instant response to threaten a lawsuit is telling. UA would have been smart just to move on and make other arrangements for the crew members.
I had read elsewhere that the plane had already been delayed.
If this goes to civil trial I would expect that responsibility will be divided between UA and Dao. Having to reschedule patients because of a flight delay is not that outrageous and it would be fairly simple to figure out loss of income from that. As to the injuries, though they looked bad they obviously were not serious and I doubt they would interfere with his ability to practice medicine. UA though can expect to take a beating and most likely will settle out of court.
Anyway, thanks for remaining civil in this thoughtful discussion though the subject has raised some ire among fellow Freepers.