United was 100% in the wrong up until the point that Dao refused to obey the orders of the flight crew to disembark (they were wrong to order him to disembark, but once they did and he refused, he was in violation of 49 U.S. Code § 46504, which comes with a 20 year prison sentence).
Again, don't think that I agree with United for removing Dao once he was seated on the aircraft or that I agree with the totalitarian situation that exists in airports or on airlines; I am merely stating that this is the reality in which we live these days.
The normal procedure for dealing with unruly passengers (to include those who don't obey orders) is to, when they are on the ground, call the cops and have them removed from the plane. If they are in the air, the procedure is to either restrain them until the plane lands (turning them over to the cops at that time) or to divert the plane and turn them over to the cops. We see stories on a regular basis of this happening -- most of the time it's when there is a physical altercation or a direct threat; however there have been some egregious examples out there (to include this example of when a family objected to being forced to watch a movie with "adult themes" in it).
When Dao refused to obey the orders of the flight crew, they called the airport cops on him -- at that point in time, he was in violation of the law. When he refused to obey the orders of the airport cops, the airport cops did what any cop does when you don't comply: they made him comply.
What all of us saw on that video was the result of refusing to comply with the orders of a peace officer (which, oh, by the way, is yet another separate crime on top of the one he already committed when he refused to comply with the orders of the flight crew).
If you are subject to a traffic stop and the cop orders you to get out of the car slowly, you're going to obey that order, right? Even if there was no good reason for the cop to pull you over in the first place...
If you don't obey the order to get out of the car, there are going to be consequences -- whether or not there was a just reason for the traffic stop in the first place. We all know this -- we all accept this.
If that same cop then orders you to assume the position and pats you down, whether or not there is a reason to do so, you are going to comply...otherwise there will be consequences. Again, we know this and we mostly accept this.
We MAY want to take the cop to court after the fact for violation of our civil rights, but the fact of the matter is that we're not going to refuse to comply in the instant, because there are going to be consequences.
I don't know of anybody who would disagree with the analysis of the traffic stop situation just described. But that is basically what happened in the Dao situation: United shouldn't have given the order for him to disembark, but once they did, he was legally obliged to obey that order. The only reason why that's not patently obvious is that there is a viral YouTube video and saturation coverage on all the news networks.
Frankly, I've never been a big fan of United, but since they decided to cave, my unwillingness to fly them is now extended to the point of being willing to pay extra or incur extra time to never set foot on a United flight again. (i.e., if I have to fly from BWI to SEA, I'll pay extra and allow several hours extra to fly through ATL (DL), DFW (AA), or CLT (AA) rather than fly through ORD (UA)). Because if they're going to be wimps on that, they're going to allow anybody else to push them around. And that's not good for safety or comfort.
Sir, He did not violate 49 Us Code 46504... flight crew did not order him off the plane... Gate agent owns the plane and passengers till the door is closed and beacon turned on.. Gate Agent will go to jail as will the cops...Flight crew had zero authority.. hence the harsh statements from ALPA about the gate agents and United Management...
United did violate the contract of carriage Hague Convention for ICAO transportation rules... hence the quick settlement.
Doa was not unruly... nor a safety risk... not even close. he merely said no to an illegal order by the United GATE Agent!!! United under ICAO laws for passenger carriage can not remove you from a flight once you are seated, ticket scanned at the gate for any reason other than for your safety... period... over booking was not the case nor is moving flight crew a valid reason...unless you volunteer and are compensated... United did neither... United violated International Law and a Hague Treaty... Let alone enabling a beat down. Doa never volunteered nor was paid.. United had zero legal authority to remove him or the other three from the flight for any reason...other than flight safety once the ticket is scan at the gate.
United clearly made huge mistakes and will pay bigly!! United might even be sanctioned via landing rights to other nations because of this event per the International ICAO rules...Think civil rights in the 1960’s.. that’s when all the ICAO rules for carriage were written... to prevent the abuse of the black community while flying...removal from a flight for other than flight safety is a basic right per ICAO rules which US airlines all operate under via a Hague Treaty..
United will also pay huge sums of money to the other three people told to leave the flight as well... they had their rights violated as well. United will pay them huge sums as well.
Doa was a modern day Rosa Parks in some way, most likely by happenstance.. with International Law and Treaties on his side as with the other 3 removed involuntarily from the flight.
All issues aside about who Doa is or was:
United Gate Agents illegally removed 4 people from the aircraft to dead head a flight crew... legal options were to ask for volunteers and compensate or find another way to move the flight crew. Ordering paying seated passengers off a plane at the gate is a huge violation of the law.
United Gate Agents authorized the Airport police to illegally remove a passenger
United Gate Agents and the Airport Police violated the civil rights and committed several felonies on a legally seated passenger
United is going to pay and will pay a huge sums of cash to make this go away... It really shows that United employees and its management have zero understanding of its basic duties under International Laws and ICAO agreements as a passenger airline. I suspect the FAA even threatened to pull its operating certificate over this... what else is United not understanding that is so basic to operating an airline??? what other basic operating rules are being ignored?? The FAA loves to ask those big questions when events like this happen... been there... seen that!
“United was 100% in the wrong up until the point that Dao refused to obey the orders of the flight crew to disembark (they were wrong to order him to disembark, but once they did and he refused, he was in violation of 49 U.S. Code § 46504, which comes with a 20 year prison sentence).”
1. You are wrong. You repeatedly refuse to acknowledge that it would have had to have been Dr Dao INITIATING an assault or intimidation against a flight crew member. 2. The code you cite imputes that the initial actions of “the flight crew member” are legally supported in the first place. And they were not. They were not legally supported because a contract is contract, and legally binds the parties thereto, and United’s contract, it’s terms of service DO NOT provide for involuntary removal of a boarded passenger for any cause other than for safety or security. Dr Dao was not in violation of those terms, but United WAS. Dr. Dao was not in violation of the code you cite. If you were right, then someone who refused to jump out of a plane in flight, merely on orders of the flight crew, just to vacate their seat, would still be in violation of the code you cite. You’re wrong. The code assumes any initiating action by the flight crew can itself be lawfully supported. They couldn’t, by United’s own contract.
“he was in violation of 49 U.S. Code § 46504, which comes with a 20 year prison sentence).”
Please tell me the name of the prison Dr. Dao will be serving his 20 year sentence.
Or perhaps you can at least tell me when Dr. Dao was indicted for violation 49 U.S. Code § 46504.