United Airlines had nothing to do with beating the poor doctor

[AngryAmish]

It was a United Express flight. United Express is a consortium of 9 regional airlines. This one was flown by Republic Air.

United Express trademark is owned by the parent company of United Airlines. They lease the trademark to the 9 airlines. It makes United seem larger and has frequent flyer benefits.

The employees who overbooked the flight, Republic Air employees. The dudes that beat the shit out of the doctor? Chicago cops.

So, yeah, everyone went off half cocked.

Did we learn anything from Shirley Girard? Duke lacrosse? Phi Psi at UVA? Planned Parenthood "selling body parts"?

No, we have not.

[Laurian]

1. Then why is the CEO of United speaking to the problem

without mentioning the other entities?

Seems United feels they are under their leadership/rules/policies.

[AngryAmish]

2. He is the CEO of United Express as well.

He is the CEO of the holding company that owns both United and United Express.

YUM Foods owns both Taco Bell and KFC. It is like yelling at Taco Bell for something some KFC employee did.

[Laurian]

3. I guess I don't understand why you think this distinction has a bearing

on the situation. Do you think United Airlines should not be held accountable?

[SecularMotion]

7. It's a FUD attempt

Fear, uncertainty and doubt

Fear, uncertainty and doubt (often shortened to FUD) is a disinformation strategy used in sales, marketing, public relations, talk radio, politics, religious organizations, and propaganda. FUD is generally a strategy to influence perception by disseminating negative and dubious or false information and a manifestation of the appeal to fear.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt

OP is trying to muddy the waters.

[AngryAmish]

55. Ты сдул мое укрытие.

[SecularMotion]

56. Undercover?

You couldn't be more obvious

[NCTraveler]

78. They aren't the ones who did it. nt.

[Doodley]

84. Do you have to attack the OP in this way? Completely uncalled for.

[AngryAmish]

8. Yes.

[MADem]

12. Looks like the CEO at UNITED doesn't care what you think.

He's delivered a rather fulsome apology and changed policy as well.

FWIW, if an agency wears my uniforms and displays my logo, I wouldn't blame the public for assuming they work for me. There's a business/pecuniary relationship between these two entities, even if you don't like it. The CEO at UNITED recognizes this. Thus, his extreme damage control....

[PJMcK]

11. What about the Chicago Aviation Department?

I believe the OP's point is that there were several parties involved in this ugly incident. After all, it wasn't United's employees and physically assaulted the passenger; that's on Chicago's Aviation Department.

There's plenty of blame to go around and perhaps United shouldn't have to bear all of the responsibility.

[MADem]

13. Someone made the decision to call the police and brief them as to the problem.

UNITED should bear all of the responsibility--you don't rip paying customers who do not want to leave out of their seats. Either up the ante to get them to agree to give up the seat, or put that crew on a train or another plane. Or cancel the flight they were meeting, if they couldn't find aircrew to fly in from another location. That'll teach 'em. Prior Planning Prevents Pisspoor Performance, and all....

It's not ok to beat people up after you've sold them something (in this case, a seat on a shitty plane) because you suddenly decide you need that something back. That's what precipitated this mess.

[PJMcK]

20. I don't agree, MADem

The Chicago Aviation officers who assaulted the doctor were not employed by United. You cannot hold United responsible for the officers' actions.

United and its affiliates have plenty to answer for. The policies and practices that airlines use today have driven me away from air travel. Whenever possible, I'll take a train, bus or drive almost anywhere under 750 miles. Still, I'm confident that the doctor will rightfully receive a sizable settlement from United and others including Chicago's Aviation Department.

[Demsrule86]

30. They are responsibile for the entire thing start to finish.

[PJMcK]

38. Your response is not legally supportable

I understand and appreciate the visceral and emotional responses that we all have when following this terrible story.

While your opinion of who bears responsibility represents your personal morality, legally there are several parties who will be targeted by the doctor's lawyers. After all, the Chicago Department of Aviation has put the officer on leave pending an investigation. Would they take such a step if there weren't the possibility of them facing legal action?

“The incident on United flight 3411 was not in accordance with our standard operating procedure and the actions of the aviation security officer are obviously not condoned,” Aviation Department spokeswoman Karen Pride said. “That officer has been placed on leave effective today pending a thorough review of the situation.”

There's more here: http://chicago.suntimes.com/news/video-appears-to-show-passenger-being-removed-from-united-flight/

Look, I think what happened is reprehensible. I want everyone who bears responsibility to be brought to task. Don't let the cops off if they acted inappropriately or illegally. And I definitely hope that United gets creamed with the legal settlement that'll be negotiated.

[Swagman]

57. According to a lawyer quoted on here United

breached their own contract by forcefully having a passenger removed who had been checked in and seated as their policy only states a passenger can be refused a flight at check-in.

Hence their offer of cash for volunteers but no-one was obligated to accept the offer.

Not unusual for flight attendants etc to be ignorant of their own rules.

Guess it will all be sorted out when the law suits start flying.

[MADem]

60. Why are you blaming the flight attendants?

This was a SCHEDULING decision. The FAs or the gate crew didn't decide to do this. They didn't make the call.

Scheduling needed to get four assets to another airport to crew another flight. THAT's why this all happened.

I also suspect that there's a caveat in UNITED's own rulebook for operational considerations (We reserve the right to remove passengers IF...).

I think the requirement for arbitration still applies.

[MADem]

59. I think it is more likely than not that if an officer is involved in an altercation

that draws extreme PUBLIC scrutiny, making it difficult for that person to do their job, that they are placed on leave. "Investigation" is a tool to create distance from the actual event.

It's not always about the "legal action." It's also about the exposure of the officer to unwanted harassment. I wouldn't be surprised if it's with the full support of the officer's union to put members on leave if they make the headlines.

Imagine the guy/guys trying to do his work and being hounded by reporters--it's a nonstarter. Leave is the way to go. They do it every time an officer is involved in a shooting, too. In this case, the officers' behinds (if not their faces, so much) have been broadcast round the world. Someone surely has their names. There needs to be some space between this event and the officers' return to work.

I'd bet that--at worst--the officers will be "counseled" or "advised" or "instructed." The truth is, the instruction will probably be on the lines of "If you're in a place where there are lots of cellphone cameras, be sure to bellow 'Please stop resisting, sir--I don't want to have to use force to restrain you' early and often."

I know that sounds like I'm tolerant of their behavior, though I'm not. I've just seen this kind of thing before. The aviation cops aren't going to sacrifice THEIR guy(s) on the altar of UNITED's dumb call--count on it.

[PJMcK]

86. More developments

My dear, MADem, I hope you'll allow me to continue our conversation about this matter in the respectful manner we've discussed it so far.

Here's a very interesting analysis that provides some new insights:

http://abovethelaw.com/2017/04/united-passenger-lawyers-up-will-likely-re-accommodate-airline-in-court/

Once again, please let me articulate that I want EVERYONE who acted illegally/inappropriately/rudely/whatever to be held accountable and be liable for any damages due to the passenger. It seems that the net of responsibility will be cast widely.

As always, I've enjoyed your lively discussion! Have a good evening.

[MADem]

88. I have no doubt attempts will be made via the legal system to gain justice

for Dr. Dao. Those attempts will serve two purposes:

They will threaten to bring the issue back up in the public eye after UNITED has tamped it down somewhat and is trying to shift blame to the police (after the attempt to call Dao a nutter failed);

They'll encourage UNITED to up the ante and provide a larger settlement amount to keep this issue out of the news.

The bottom line, though, is that UNITED does have that "arbitration first" clause if you are a pax suing them about your treatment. Someone can bring them to court, of course, and re-ignite the issue, even if the case is eventually referred to arbitration (the whole "standing" thing doesn't go away just because Dao hired a big shot attorney). And of course, if arbitration fails, the courts are still there as a recourse. It's not "arbitration or bust," it's "arbitration first."

It's in the interest of UNITED, all that said, to throw money at this mess and get it behind them. Start with "settlement" and see how it goes. They'll now have to provide two good paydays--one to Dao, the other to his lawyer.

The article provided incorrectly makes an issue of "overbooking" as if that's a hook upon which to hang their complaint - but the fact of the matter is, this flight was NOT overbooked. It was fully booked, and then. subsequently, the airline had a need (probably because of a delay elsewhere in the system) to get a crew to a base because, most likely, the crew that was supposed to take the flight they were meeting had exceeded crew rest parameters. Those crewmembers were non-rev deadheaders enroute to an assignment--not "overbooked passengers." There's a distinction there, and a difference. Again, the fuckups came from SCHEDULING--they'd have been better off shifting a reserve crew from another base that was perhaps further away but with more opportunities to accommodate non-revs, perhaps on more than one flight. This was a management problem, not an overbooking problem.

Also not mentioned in that article are the people who actually dragged the guy off the plane--UNITED worked swiftly to brand them as assholes when all they were was good little robots doing as they were told (and who knows WHAT they were told, really...if someone needs to be removed from a plane, the status quo is to assume the pax is "disruptive" and some sort of FAA breach of conduct is the cause). The police have a very good union--you're not going to hear the NAMES of those officers, who are on leave, with full pay. They're better protected by their agency and union than Dao, the victim, was, certainly. They'll probably go back to work after receiving a bit of "guidance" (i.e. after the heat dies down).

UNITED is like most corporations--quantity over quality, fast dimes are better than slow dollars, charge the most for the least you can get away with, etc. And that includes their WORKERS, who are a) Paid in the dark with ever-shrinking benefit packages, b) Overworked and harassed by management to push senior people out to be replaced by lower-salaried newbies, and c) Not backed up by corporate management when they do what management tells them to do.

It's real easy to find the "blame" lying at the feet of a flight attendant or gate agent (who isn't the "Captain" of the aircraft and doesn't get to make decisions of that nature as to what happens on said aircraft) and ignore the demands coming from the Scheduling Department, as passed down by the Board of Directors in order to squeeze a few more dimes outta the system. It's a pernicious thing. The torches and pitchforks tend to gravitate towards the easiest and most likely schmuck to burn/stab--i.e. low-level employees who do the grunt work, not their bosses who order them about.

The fact of the matter is that the UNITED CEO, who eventually shuffled onto TV and gave a teary, heartfelt interview, is the guy who should have gotten out in front of this first with a flat out "WE fucked up and WE are sorry," and not tried to blame everyone from his own junior personnel to the cops to the victim.

His policies, coming from his boardroom, caused the incident in the first place.

[PJMcK]

97. Your essay is remarkable!

Thank you for the time, logic and energy for your continued posts on this story, MADem. Your thoughtfulness, interest and passion have been palpable!

When I read earlier today that Dr. Dao had settled with United, I wasn't the least bit surprised. Like Fox News with their harassment issues, United wanted to put this story behind them. Obviously, the terms of the settlement were undisclosed and I'd be surprised if some kind of non-disclosure clauses weren't included in the deal.

Have a good weekend!

[MADem]

96. There will be no day in court.

As I anticipated, Dao and United have settled. The terms, as they always are, are "undisclosed."

I'm betting he's feeling reasonably content, and his lawyer is likely thrilled, too.

[csziggy]

72. Does the Chicago Department of Aviation have an agreement to provide security?

Does United - or whichever of their subsidiaries or associate companies - have an agreement or a contract with Chicago Department of Aviation to provide security? If so, United is liable for what their subcontractors do.

If Wal-Mart hires off duty police to provide protection against shoplifters and those personnel injure a suspect, Wal-Mart is liable for damages. The people are not working for the police at that point, they are working for Wal-Mart.

This is my opinion - I am not an attorney - but it is formed from a lot of years of experience.

[MADem]

73. It might be more complicated than that--not a "contract" type arrangement.

It could all fall under FAA regulations, which are federal, or city regulations, or even state regulations....but that's down in the weeds. An airport is like a city, and they need law enforcement.

I don't think these guys have the same (lack of) authority as a mall cop. I suspect they're duly sworn officers of the law. They're certainly empowered to detain by force.

[PJMcK]

83. Good question

However, it's irrelevant because the Department is an agency of the City and its law enforcement organizations. Accordingly, the City of Chicago is responsible for any actions taken by the Department and its agents. It doesn't matter who called the police.

Most probably, this law enforcement Department was formed after 911 because, you know, terror.

[MADem]

37. You don't send three cops onto a plane to drag a passenger off

without knowing, or assuming, that they will do just that. Did they think these guys would deploy their magic "Dr. Phil" talking techniques? Of course not. They figured the guy would be INTIMIDATED, at a minimum, or manhandled/dragged off, at worst--and possibly gotten his arm twisted or tased in the bargain.

Bottom line is this: UNITED has taken responsibility. As they should. They ARE responsible. THEY wanted four payiing passengers removed from a fully booked plane to accommodate THEIR aircrew that were scheduled to work another UNITED flight.

Had THEY not sicced the cops on that guy, this incident would not have happened.

They made this happen. Not the aviation cops. The aviation cops were merely the muscle, the tool, the instrument of the desires of UNITED. They were given a task by UNITED--remove a passenger from a seat--and they carried out that task. United (and by extension the aviation police) performed this task with 'cover' from FAA regs, but the cops would not have removed that guy had not UNITED demanded it.

You don't blame the baseball for breaking the window--you blame the kid who threw it.

[PJMcK]

43. The Aviation officers don't report to United

If you call the police because you witness a crime and then the police act outside their legal authority, you cannot be held liable for the cops' actions. You're suggesting that you would be responsible for the police action.

Please see my response #38.

Ultimately, I don't want anyone to slip away from this episode, not United, not the cops, not the flight crew and not the ground-based representatives of the airlines. They should all pay a heavy price.

[MADem]

49. They were called to remove a stubborn passenger. They did that.

Your assumption that the police "acted outside their legal authority" is subject to debate. They'll say he resisted, and I've not seen any video that shows clearly what happened to this guy before he was dragged down the aisle.

When people resist, they often get hurt.

Now, let me make a few things clear, because this is DU and people sometimes like to fight about bullshit. I think UNITED did the wrong thing, I think they shouldn't have removed the passenger, they should have tried harder to induce someone else to leave the plane if they really needed the seat, and I think they might want to think about adding a few more jumpseats on those a/c if this is going to become a habit.

That said, I also think the police were the tools of the UNITED personnel who called them and asked them to perform a task--removing the pax. I don't think the police will be punished, and the only punishment UNITED will take is in their goodwill and stock prices for the short term.

That passenger can try to retrieve damages via arbitration, and he probably will get a nice little payday for his trouble, but I don't think he'll ever sue anyone or even go to court. This will be hammered out in an arbitration..

FAA regs give broad authority to airline personnel to do this kind of thing--you might not like it, but that's what it is.

When you're on a plane, even if you've "rented" "your" seat, you're subject to the orders of the captain/aircrew, and if you fuck around, disobey, or give them lip, they will take you off. At that point, you become an "unruly passenger" and you're treated as such. You don't have rights and they do have authority. You can be fined, imprisoned, etc., if you don't get the spirit. I wouldn't be surprised if, during arbitration, UNITED will drag out this aspect to try to lower their exposure and reduce their total payout.


Ask Arianna Huffington--she didn't have to be dragged, but she was "escorted off" when she refused to sit her ass down and get off the phone on a NYC-DC flight shortly after Nahn Wun Wun. Passengers have almost no recourse when they fail to obey aircrew orders--it's just what it is. They have rights when it comes to flight delays, and sitting on the taxiway for too long, but not when it comes to obeying orders of aircrew. Planes are not "public spaces" like a sidewalk or a public park--the FAA can and does constrain behavior. They constrained this guy's behavior. A crew needed to get somewhere; he was "less important." It was a stupid call in terms of PR, but they've got legal cover.

[tblue37]

92. I had a flight cancelled because they couldn't get the crew to D.C. on time, so they CAN do that. nt

[MADem]

95. They absolutely can do it, but they HATE to do it.

It affects their "ON TIME" stats at the end of the year, and they hate to go down in those rankings. It's an industry sore point to lose ground in terms of on-time performance.

I still think all these airlines should just suck it up and buy sufficient NETJETs shares to hump their people around if needs must.

[LisaL]

14. No, the officer was NOT from Chicago police department.

"After Dao repeatedly refused to leave his seat, security personnel from the city's aviation department pulled him from it, dragging him down the aisle and off the aircraft. Cellphone videos of the incident quickly went viral."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-united-passenger-dragged-fallout-stock-0412-biz-20170411-story.html

[PJMcK]

17. Thanks for the correction

I've updated my response.

Nonetheless, I still believe that the blame for this event should be spread far and wide since the whole airline industry has been corrupted. After all, the people who assaulted the doctor were not employees of the airline.

[PJMcK]

23. Another thought

While I was initially incorrect about the officers' affiliation, the Chicago Department of Aviation is controlled by the City of Chicago. Ergo, the men who assaulted the doctor are law enforcement officers employed and controlled by the city. They're just a different police force.

[MADem]

32. Someone from CPD stuck their beak in, which created the confusion

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/zorn/ct-united-passenger-chicago-police-statement-perspec-0412-20170411-column.html

[eShirl]

5. Not only that, he adressed United employees in a letter that same day.

[bmbmd]

54. Pretty sure the gate employees

belong to United lock, stock, and barrel.

[MADem]

10. Bingo--if they wear the UNITED logo (and they did), they take the UNITED hit.

That guy was dragged off that plane to accommodate UNITED aircrew.

UNITED owns this mess, and the CEO has acknowledged that.

[Voltaire2]

4. If my well pump breaks I'll call you.

[janterry]

6. Did they beat him?

I didn't see that. They dragged him and used force. He was injured and hurt. He was bleeding and hospitalized. But all I saw was that as they dragged him, and he hit his head.

I find the incident upsetting, like others. And I hope the airline is responsible - but I don't see a beating.

Did I miss something (did it take place off camera?)

[OldHippieChick]

19. This is relevant to what?

If he wasn't actually "beaten" does this matter in some way to you? Does it make a difference as to who is responsible? If he was not actually "beaten", does that mean e was not hurt by others?

[janterry]

31. I thought I read that people were calling it a beating

So, I wanted to see if this was true.

[anneboleyn]

68. He was bleeding from his mouth. That qualifies as a "beating." Full stop.

[janterry]

80. Well

someone below wrote up a helpful post. That seems to be what I was looking at. TY, though .

[MADem]

89. He lost a couple of teeth and had some surgery--jaw, maybe? nt

[janterry]

94. Yes, I had seen what's been written

but thank you

[anneboleyn]

70. These pro-United posts are making me VERY depressed about the state of DU. I don't believe for

a minute that these posts come from serious progressives, and it creeps me out how they keep popping up on this topic, blaming the doctor and/or trying to exonerate United. WTF?!

[Iggo]

91. Same thing happened a couple years back when those accelerators were sticking.

By sheer coincidence we were overrun with shills for Toyota expressing their concern and doubt.

Ugly then. Ugly now.

[Coventina]

93. Consider the source. This is very typical behavior.

I still have to believe that most DUers are good-hearted progressives who don't buy into the corporate whitewash.

[Demsrule86]

35. Yes they beat him clearly.

They slammed his head against the head rest ...a blonde passenger says 'look what you are doing to him' in one of the videos...should all be suspended. But United caused this by their ill advised attempt to kick this man off the plane so their employees could fly. I would like to see a picture of who else was asked to leave...were they poc?

[janterry]

39. It was on purpose and

they slammed his head? Then that would clearly be too much use of force. I hope that's on tape.
ETA: that's interesting, thank you

[Iggo]

58. That's cops. That's who they are. That's what they do.

[janterry]

75. I thought they weren't police?

I think they are security hired by the airport. I'm not sure what their training is, if that's the case.

[Iggo]

85. A cop's a cop. (n/t)

[anneboleyn]

71. Look on YouTube. There are a thousand different posts of it on YouTube.

[MADem]

40. They probably had tickets purchased from PRICELINE/ORBITZ/CHEAPTIX, etc.

The frequent flyers and full fare pax are the last to get bumped.

[janterry]

44. I read that, too

that they bump people who pay the least. I guess as a business model, you wouldn't bump first class (though I wish they would) - but to go down the line and look for whomever paid the least is pretty marginalizing.

[MADem]

50. Also, if you're travelling alone, you're ripe for the plucking.

They're less likely to demand that a family or couple get off, but some families will volunteer; they see a nice payday if they're offering eight hundred bucks per pax and free hotel rooms--if you're not on your way to Disneyland, hell, take the cash and spend a day being a tourist on the airline's dime.

[JTFrog]

36. He is in the hospital with a broken jaw according to CNN. That beaten enough for you?

For fuck's sake.

[pnwmom]

77. They smashed his head into the metal arm rest. n/t

[LP2K12]

9. Except

You can book flights for United Express via the United Airlines standard site. In addition to leasing the trademark they provide regional airlines with access to their booking system. This means that a United Express employee may have never been involved with the booking. If there were 100 seats and 100 of them booked using the United Airlines site, then United is still at fault.

Especially because United, as well as other airlines, are well known for the practice of overbooking.

It’s a pretty good business model for regional airlines. Typically regional airlines get paid a fixed cost for operating certain routes, and then all the risk lies with the major carrier they’re flying on behalf of.

The reason the risk lies with United is because their Express trademark isn't just flown by one regional airline. If you book a United Express flight you could be serviced by the following: Air Wisconsin, Cape Air, CommutAir, ExpressJet, GoJet Airlines, Mesa Airlines, Republic Airline, Skywest Airlines and Trans States Airlines.

Most likely the passenger would sue both Republic and United. The overbooking issue would be the fault of United systems and practices.

[MADem]

16. Several points, here.

The plane was not OVERbooked. It was fully booked.

UNITED (not the subsidiary) needed to move 4 aircrew to another airport to meet/work another flight. Thus, UNITED decided to boot 4 paying people from the plane. This wasn't a case of too many paying customers/not enough seats--everyone who paid had a seat until UNITED decided to steal the seats from the least important customers (the ones who bought their seats at a discount website, e.g., who aren't frequent flyers or full fare customers).

When you book with UNITED, as a consequence of booking, you agree to ARBITRATION -- thus, you're constrained from suing them. It's in the fine print...sucks, doesn't it?

[Demsrule86]

24. Ah Assault and a civil rights violation are not protected...

And it will never get to court...stock took a beating yesterday.

[dalton99a]

33. +1

[MADem]

53. Though it seems counterintuitive, that is correct.

When that passenger refused the orders of the aircrew, under FAA regs, he became an "unruly passenger."

Thus, the charge of assault by police against him won't fly. He disobeyed, and the aircrew took steps to enforce compliance by calling in the police to remove him. You could try making "unreasonable force" arguments, but I don't know how much anyone actually SAW with three hulking fellows surrounding that guy. And again, he was the "unruly passenger" who refused to comply with aircrew demands, so he has no leg to stand on. There's no video of the cops doing anything beyond dragging the guy down the aisle.

Technically, he could be fined and imprisoned for failing to obey the orders of the aircrew to vacate the seat. No, I'm not kidding.

People don't have "rights" --civil or otherwise -- on airplanes. This isn't a Trump thing, either (though it does seem that law enforcement brutality is exercised "con brio" under the Trump regime) -- it's an FAA thing.

Again, because this is DU and people sometimes misinterpret, I am not "pro-airline" in this matter at all but I do know how the game is played. I think UNITED needs to find a better way to get their crews on station--they can't rely on buying seats from passengers who don't want to vacate. Maybe they should consider getting a NETJETS subscription and fly their staff on private LEARS? It would probably be just as cheap in the long run, and with fewer issues....

[treestar]

65. The OP information is useful for what entities to

sue. But as a public relations nightmare, it belongs to United.

[eShirl]

15. United Express is a branch of United Airlines.

Thanks for providing the link to the wikipedia article on it in another thread.

United Express is the brand name for the regional branch of United Airlines, under which nine individually owned regional airlines operate short and medium haul feeder flights.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Express

"United Express" is just a brand name!

[MADem]

18. No, it isn't "just a brand name"--they have a formal business relationship.

They are formally partnered and UNITED sells tickets on their airplanes.

Major airlines in the United States had long maintained relationships with regional carriers which fed passengers from small markets to larger cities. The Airline Deregulation Act spurred industry consolidation both vertically and horizontally, and as the hub system became more pronounced, airlines formalized these relationships through code sharing, shared branding, and listing regional partners in computer reservations systems. On May 1, 1985, United formally partnered with Air Wisconsin, Aspen Airways, and WestAir as United Express, feeding its hubs at Chicago-O'Hare, Denver-Stapleton, and San Francisco International Airports. Air Wisconsin and Aspen would merge in 1991.

[eShirl]

21. It's the brand name for the regional branch of United Airlines.

Says so right in the first sentence.

[MADem]

42. I think we're on the same page, here. They're a branch of UNITED. nt

[Demsrule86]

22. Are you kidding? It carries United's trademark ...thus they are liable for anything done

in their name...and just an FYI those kids were not innocent at Duke...read the latest book about it...shocking.

[hatrack]

25. Distinction without a difference

.

[KingCharlemagne]

27. +Infinity - nt

[uponit7771]

52. +1

[KingCharlemagne]

26. What's your point? Who summoned the cops? - nt

[bullwinkle428]

28. 1. Shirley Sherrod. 2. Flight was NOT overbooked. Airline made last-minute

decision to put some employees on flight, which supposedly gave them the right to kick off paying passengers.

[JTFrog]

29. I guess someone had to post the stupidest thing on the internet today.

Congrats.

[DrDan]

47. yep - hard to beat this one

[Hugin]

34. Well, with the sale of a trademark comes responsibilities.

Not only cash... So, yes, I'm not letting them off the hook. I've seen responsibilities watered down by sales and trades way too often, especially in the financial and healthcare sectors.

IMNSHO... United can suck it. If you roll with the dogs you get to share their fleas.

[athena]

41. "Republic Air"? Are you sure it's not "Republican Air"?

That would explain a lot of things.

In any case, United doesn't get to pass the buck on this. The flight carried the United name, and United has to take responsibility.

[mainer]

45. But United Airlines royally screwed up the aftermath

They got in a hole and just kept digging deeper.

[DrDan]

46. ridiculous - The CEO has apologized and promised to do better

So everyone (including the CEO) has "went off half cocked"????????????

I see some uncalled-for, extraneous nitpicking with this post.

Absolutely no-way the CEO would issue those statements had UAL not been responsible.

[tallahasseedem]

48. Yeah, nice try.

[WoonTars]

61. Right?

[MineralMan]

51. Completely irrelevant to the discussion, really.

The plane had United on its tail. The passengers had tickets that said United on them. The message board with the flight on it at the airport identified the flight as a United flight. It was a United Airlines flight.

United is responsible. Period.

[LanternWaste]

62. Pssst.... your Freudian slip is showing.

Cover up before we see a noodley narrative staining your brief biases.

[treestar]

63. They were flying under their label

They know they will take the heat. Somehow they are working with Republic Air and responsible down that line.

[Mad-in-Mo]

64. This is like Lowes telling me that the contractor they hired to

remodel my kitchen and his lackeys are not in their control. I signed a contract with Lowes to do a remodel and they brought in doofus inadequate workers. I think I have a beef with Lowes. The passenger has a beef with United.

[anneboleyn]

66. HERE WE GO AGAIN WITH UNITED IS HOLY AND INNOCENT POSTS. I thought this shit ended yesterday

but apparently we have sock puppets/corporate shills running around on DU in numbers that are very depressing. Really? On DU we are going to see yet another round of posts attempting to defend United and recite the corporate talking points? How many minutes until new smears about the doctor appear (using yet another incorrect name of course)?!

The United CEO is out doing damage control for this so your post is not relevant and seems to be another attempt to confuse people and muddy the waters.

[Renew Deal]

67. You should let the United CEO know what you found out

[JTFrog]

69. Haven't seen this much fail since Will Pitt's attack on the ACA. nt

[sarcasmo]

74. Ha. You must have United stock. United had everything to do with this insanity.

United was booting four paying customers off a flight, so four United employees could get on the flight

[LisaM]

76. If they license their name to another company

then it can be concluded that they are the source of sponsorship. It's one of the basics of owning a trademark. You are assumed to have control over the goods and services of the companies you've licensed to.

[pnwmom]

79. They weren't "Chicago Police" i.e. members of the CPD. They were aviation police,

whatever that means.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/zorn/ct-united-passenger-chicago-police-statement-perspec-0412-20170411-column.html

More curious still was that CPD wasn't involved in the attempt to "re-accommodate" the man, as United chief executive Oscar Munoz later described it, and had no firsthand knowledge of the incident. As the statement itself noted, these were officers from the Department of Aviation, a separate department.

[NCTraveler]

81. This is funny. Thanks. nt.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

82. Flights on United Express are listed as United flights.

When you go to United's web site to buy a ticket and request a flight from ORD to LEX, you'll see, in small print, "Operated by SkyWest as United Express" or "Operated by ExpressJet Airlines as United Express," or whichever other regional carrier operated the flight under contract with United. The listing includes the United logo.
https://www.united.com/ual/en/us/flight-search/book-a-flight/results/rev?f=ORD&t=LEX&d=2017-04-17&r=2017-04-19&sc=7,7&px=1&taxng=1&idx=1

When you get to the airport and go to your gate, the airplane you see will be painted with United colors. Since United is essentially representing the flight as being theirs, they will be responsible for it. I am assuming United will go to the regional airline and demand they retrain their staff; they could also terminate their contract with them, although that's doubtful. Of course some of the consequences will trickle down to the actual operator, but it's pretty hard to wiggle out of a situation that you have represented to the public as basically owning. The lawsuit will most likely name United, United Express d/b/a Republic, and the Chicago police and they'll have to sort out the liability among themselves.

[geek tragedy]

87. Those weren't cops, they were airport security whose salaries are paid by big airlines in Chicago

Guess which airline has 50% of the gates at O'Hare?

When a company licenses out its trademark, the corporate veil is pretty easily pierced especially if there are rules set as conditions for using those trademarks, and when those flights are held out to the flying public as being part of the trademark holder.

[WinkyDink]

90. Tell that to United CEO Munoz.