General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsChicago aviation security officers are not supposed to board planes unless
there is an imminent threat.
They are not part of the Chicago Police Dept and they don't carry guns -- so it's not clear how they're supposed to be handling a threat. In any case, the stubborn doctor wasn't a danger to anyone.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/removal-united-passenger-shines-light-airport-police-46790388
Evans said the officers were ordered in January to take the word "Police" off their jackets in favor of "Security," but that nobody followed through. Millions of people saw the word "Police" on the officers' jackets in the video of Kentucky physician David Dao being dragged off the jet.
There was even confusion among officers about their duties. Jeff Redding, the deputy commissioner of security for the aviation department, said officers are instructed not to board planes unless there's an imminent threat.
SNIP
If the aviation department's police force disbands it would bring to an end a decidedly Chicago story. The police force was started decades ago when the long-running Mayor Richard J. Daley allowed the chief of his bodyguard detail to retire and start an airport security force manned by people who, according to Zalewski, knew the right people at City Hall.
Even if the force survives, Burke suggested the officers' job won't be the same.
"Chicago employees should not be doing the dirty work for the Friendly Skies airline," he said.
Hekate
(91,005 posts)brer cat
(24,646 posts)I didn't know the background and certainly didn't realize they were not supposed to board the planes. Thanks for posting.
HAB911
(8,945 posts)yardwork
(61,772 posts)Even though they had nothing to do with it, the Chicago police made a statement to the media about it. Their statement claimed that Dr. Dao "fell" while disembarking. Obviously they hadn't seen the videos.
What a window into cover ups of police brutality. And a clue as to the peculiar relationship between Chicago police and this airport security force.
randome
(34,845 posts)This is the first thread where I see UA culpability possible. They were not responsible for what the security guards did -unless they shouldn't have called them in the first place.
But I bet they are allowed to use security guards for unruly passengers who wouldn't be, strictly speaking, an "imminent threat". The definition of "imminent threat" might be more than what we assume.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"The whole world is a circus if you know how to look at it."
Tony Randall, 7 Faces of Dr. Lao (1964)[/center][/font][hr]
yardwork
(61,772 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)So there may actually be no specific definition of "imminent threat" that would satisfy anyone.
Which means it would be something for the courts to work out if this goes to trial.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"The whole world is a circus if you know how to look at it."
Tony Randall, 7 Faces of Dr. Lao (1964)[/center][/font][hr]
pnwmom
(109,024 posts)Every single report I've seen says that he was behaving perfectly well till he was illegally man-handled by these airport thugs.
Also, the Dean of Cornell University explains why UA shares legal culpability here:
http://www.newsweek.com/why-united-were-legally-wrong-deplane-dr-dao-583535
Although this depends on the facts, news reports suggest that Dao was not upset, and was minding his own business until he was told that he was being involuntarily removed and he was dragged kicking and screaming from the aircraft.
SNIP
In contrast, the object and purpose of the contract of carriage is, among other things, to require the airline to transport the passenger from location A to location B aboard aircraft C. Being on the aircraft is the whole point of the contract, and it specifically lists the situations when the airline may deny transport to a ticketed customer.
Since the airline did not comply with those requirements, it should be liable for the damages associated with their breach.
randome
(34,845 posts)I would think that "imminent threat" could be expanded to include flying a plane with more passengers than legally allowed, which is the case since, with the addition of the 4 staff members, the plane was overloaded unless 4 passengers were removed.
At least I could see that kind of back-and-forth with a judge and jury.
But this is the only point I've seen so far that COULD be trouble for United. Everything else comes down to Dao purchased a ticket to get from one destination to another, he did not purchase a seat and plane-specific ticket.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"The whole world is a circus if you know how to look at it."
Tony Randall, 7 Faces of Dr. Lao (1964)[/center][/font][hr]
pnwmom
(109,024 posts)a limo and had it drive their crew members the 4 hours to the destination. Problem solved.
They also could have taken bids from the entire remaining passenger list, to see what was the lowest amount any passenger would accept to leave. This is the method Delta routinely uses, with success.
(But the only option they gave to the doctor was to wait a full day -- till the next afternoon -- for another one of their flights; even though they had multiple other flights during the 24 hours and other airlines were flying that route as well.)
randome
(34,845 posts)...there are strict limits about how much sleep they get before taking the wheel.
But I didn't know that he had to wait another 24 hours or that UA had other options to re-seat him. That puts things in a different light, too. I suppose the only question remaining is do we actually know he was given this information?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"The whole world is a circus if you know how to look at it."
Tony Randall, 7 Faces of Dr. Lao (1964)[/center][/font][hr]
malaise
(269,278 posts)They do what they want with us peons - few are punished.
dalton99a
(81,700 posts)until then they just get a nice forced vacation, and taxpayers are left holding the bag
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)on American. No complaints about security but I did have trouble getting information about transit from the airport. It turns out there's a $3 train that runs 24/7, but hell if I could find any info about it posted, or anyone to ask at 1 am; so I took a cab that turned out to be a limo and the ride cost way more than I was told at the airport. Okay that one was my fault, but if the city spends all that money running trains to and from the airport you'd think they'd find a way to let passengers know.
p.s. it's called the Blue Line and until you know that it's not so easy to find online info either.