Someone has been digging, haven’t they?

Revealed: US doctor who was dragged off flight was felon who traded prescription drugs for secret gay sex with a patient and needed anger management because of ‘control’ issues
Married Dr David Dao was convicted of giving a patient drugs in return for gay sex and barred from practicing in Louisville, KY. He was allowed back after anger management and other counselling – which revealed his mental state. It said that he had ‘a pattern of deception’, ‘lacked the foundation to navigate difficult situations’ a ‘need to control, avoidance, withholding information’ and ‘magical thinking’. The doctor, a 69-year-old grandfather, has received sympathy from around the world in the wake of being dragged off the United flight from Chicago to Louisville by three police officers. One has been suspended. He has yet to speak about the incident.

Bet there’s a bonus on offer to that little investigator.

Oooh, yes, lots of bonuses

Dao joined the World Series of Poker circuit in 2006 and spent the next decade at the tables, earning him $234,664.

45 comments on “Someone has been digging, haven’t they?

  1. So, he was a bad’un as per the previous article, which makes him fair game to be beaten senseless for any reason.

  2. Quite, jgh,

    Airlines should have full availability to a passenger’s criminal record, list of acquittals and all unsubstantiated rumours. Then, when they feel the need to randomly beat a passenger up, they can make a judgement call as to who is most deserving.

  3. Hilariously it now seems possible that the smear campaign (for let’s be honest, that’s what it is) has been directed against the *wrong* David Dao – so United are about to hit with lawsuits for defamation as well as assault etc. I suspect this is going to cost the CEO and a lot of senior management their jobs, as well as costing United a flipping great wedge of cash

  4. The bloke will end up glad he got duffed up because he will be made for life after all the lawsuits.

  5. I thought it would be difficult to hold this company in any more contempt, but they raised the bar spectacularly. Jesus fucking Christ. Don’t just beat up s paying customer, smear him and libel him too.

    The irony is that he may not have been able to sue anyone for the first incident, given that the law allows airlines to sodomise any passenger and if they don’t enjoy it it’s a criminal offence, but can take them to the cleaners if it turns out they have wrongly libelled him. There is a God, after all.

  6. “this is going to cost the CEO and a lot of senior management their jobs, ”

    This is where experts in the ‘leadership’ biz – hitch to the bandwagon. ” a good example of how not to do leadership.. and of process overtaking ppl”

    Good example of looking at terrible outcomes for the company’s bottom line and thinking wooh that is bad…i’ll put a slide on it in my next powerpoint … and say “how could this have been avoided?”

  7. Flatcap Army – “so United are about to hit with lawsuits for defamation as well as assault etc.”

    They cannot be hit with a lawsuit for assault because they were legally in the right. And what is so bad about this new development is that *United* can’t be libeling him. They are an airline. They will not have his records. The *police* do. That is a much more worrying problem. All too common too.

    “I suspect this is going to cost the CEO and a lot of senior management their jobs, as well as costing United a flipping great wedge of cash”

    We can hope.

    MC – “Story seems to have disappeared from the Mail website…”

    TW’s link does not work, but it seems to be still up:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4401980/Dr-dragged-United-swapped-drugs-secret-gay-sex.html

  8. Ta, SMFS.

    What struck me about the story is that the wife who stood by him through all the rent boy shenanigans was also the one who shopped him in the first place.

    Hell hath no fury etc…

  9. Somehow I doubt that it was UAL that revealed the guy’s name. Keeping it secret would be the playbook to avoid the prress interviewing him.

  10. MC – “What struck me about the story is that the wife who stood by him through all the rent boy shenanigans was also the one who shopped him in the first place.”

    What struck me is what sh!ts the Daily Mail are for naming his children and where they work.

    I assume the rent boy sold him out to the media like a shot. How else would the Mail have got his name? They would want to be lawyered up if they are going to name him.

  11. To quote Ron Burgundy, well that escalated really fast didn’t it?

    But it is interesting to think when it escalated. United was clearly used to dealing with White English-speaking people. Who do what they are told. Like sheep. What to do when someone refuses to be spineless like the British and stays in his seat? Having demanded he leave, they can hardly back down and ask someone else to do so. Hence the police.

  12. The videos are out there. UAL talk won’t change that. The moment is gone.

    Yes, but the main point about PR is “When you’re in a hole, quit digging”.

    The United Airlines CEO using bullshit management speak like “re-accommodated” to describe a people being ejected from a flight that they’ve paid good money for in favour of four employees is appalling, it don’t matter what the circumstances or legal position were.

    The guy was clearly frightened and distressed at the events that took place. He probably thought he lived in the Land of the Free, not some place where the management can call the cops whenever they feel like it.

    For the CEO to describe the passenger as being “belligerent” in such circumstances is repulsive.

    The CEO needs to be fired, not for the circumstances which happened (although this should never be repeated), but for his response to the events which have clearly demonstrated that United Airlines don’t give a flying fuck about their paying passengers, they are just cattle.

    United Airlines should also remember that other airlines have gone to the wall for a hell of a lot less than being complicit in the violent assault of a customer.

  13. I thought it would be difficult to hold this company in any more contempt, but they raised the bar spectacularly. Jesus fucking Christ. Don’t just beat up s paying customer, smear him and libel him too.

    Indeed. The poor fucker only wanted to fly from Chicago to Louisville, now his name and gay sex history is on the front page of the global media. What did he do to deserve that?

  14. For the CEO to describe the passenger as being “belligerent” in such circumstances is repulsive.

    This, yes, absolutely. And the rest of your post.

  15. Indeed. The poor fucker only wanted to fly from Chicago to Louisville, now his name and gay sex history is on the front page of the global media. What did he do to deserve that?

    There is some question as to whether this is the same guy or not but regardless who would want to take the risk with flying with United Airlines under such circumstances?

    Pay to fly with United, get hospitalised and have your dirty laundry aired in public.

    What a bargain – quick call SkyScanner!

  16. Tim Newman – “The poor fucker only wanted to fly from Chicago to Louisville, now his name and gay sex history is on the front page of the global media. What did he do to deserve that?”

    Technically he was breaking the law. Not that he had this coming. His children, especially, did not have this coming. But he was breaking the law. You follow the directions of the captain. As stupid as they are.

    I like the other airlines mocking United already. I like the bogus United advertising slogans too. They will pay a big price for this. But ultimately this is an ar$e who going to get a massive pay off for being an ar$e. On the bright side, the company will suffer for lacking all sense of proportion.

  17. Normally in agreement with you, SMSF, but not with this.

    You are obliged to comply with reasonable requests from the crew, not stupid ones. Me being a simpleton, thinks that if I have paid for a ticket, arrived on time and am actually sat in my seat, then it is totally unreasonable to ask me to vacate my seat and get off the plane. Seems the CEO of UA agrees with me:

    http://www.news.com.au/world/breaking-news/no-police-for-overbooked-passengers-munoz/news-story/f883d057030fd2d87dd912fbd326b3ed

    I really don’t see him as being an arse, he did exactly what I hope I would have done in the same circumstances and he has probably ensured that nobody else will suffer such an injustice in the future. Airlines will have to pay what it takes to get the necessary genuine volunteers, rather than pick “volunteers” itself.

  18. Technically he was breaking the law.

    So are most of us in this day and age, it’s kind of hard not to. I understand he is breaking the law, but I think plastering his personal life all over the global media is a bit shit. It’s not like the man himself has gone on Oprah claiming to be an angel. AFAIK he’s not said a word.

  19. There is a well-known mechanism for resolving these disputes; UA failed to use it because they are cheapskates; now with luck they are probably going to pay out several thousand times what it would have cost them and have already lost thousands of times more in lost revenue, good will etc.. So fuck ’em. They were not just venal but stupid.

  20. Exact BICR
    $400?
    no one?
    OK
    $800?
    Still no one

    So we prefer to lose $1 billion of market cap.

    Mind you, given that airline value (most of them don’t even own their planes) is historical value of the landing slots, buying opportuntiy next week.

  21. Being instructed to leave the aircraft does constitute a reasonable request. It’s likely (unless you were on the flight, there’s no way of knowing) that this is what happened initially and the passenger refused. Ultimately, the only sanction available (while still on the ground) is to call in law enforcement, though on US flights there could well be a Federal Air Marshal on board, as well – but I can’t imagine this would have been the first course of action by the cabin crew.

  22. Chris Miller–No. Being ordered to vacate your seat and having your plans fucked–not likely he (or most people) just fly for the fun of it-is NOT “reasonable”. Whatever plans he had were down the bog. For a derisory offer of $400 in fucking vouchers. Not even real green.

    Next time UA should put “We can boot you off your flight and piss all over your plans any time we like. This is what we call reasonable” in their advertising.

  23. Being instructed to leave the aircraft does constitute a reasonable request.

    Absolutely there are circumstances where this applies when the aircraft is in the air and safety and security are primary concerns then instructions from the aircrew have force of law.

    But while the plane was still at the gate and where a passenger has already been boarded by gate staff and occupied their seat then they can only be removed under specific circumstances, none of which applied in this case

    United Airlines own terms of contract allow for a passenger to be denied boarding, but that didn’t happen either as the passenger was sitting in the seat that he had bought and paid for when he was “re-accommodated” with extreme prejudice.

    Even United Airlines own terms of contract (rule 21) only allow for a passenger to removed from a plane under specific circumstances which did not apply
    (govt advisory, force majeure, failure to pay for ticket, etc)

    So the good doctor (regardless of his history) was remove from the plane for reasons which do not seem to be justified by either the contractual terms and conditions of the airline, nor the legal justification for the operational safety of an airplane while connected to the gate.

    There might be some defence in that having been asked to leave by a member of the airlines staff and refusing the passenger was committing an act of trespass and forcible removal of the passenger was the only means of achieving this, but given that he paid for his ticket and was lawfully and peacefully occupying his seat before being told to leave the plane I doubt that any judge or jury would give much credence to this.

    If I was the United Airlines CEO I would be telling lawyers to settle this with the customer ASAP even if it meant paying his weight in gold for his eternal silence.

  24. It’s the T&Cs
    A cut’n’paste from British Rail and downloading an app. Of course he was the only US citizen who hadn’t read the rules (all 155 pages of them, in small print) before he boarded.

  25. This may be the consequence of airline passengers being referred to in the business as ‘self-loading cargo ‘.

  26. Dunno if the same applies in the States or in this case, but there’s also the possibility that there’s stuff in the airline’s Ts and Cs that isn’t enforceable as it breaches some statutory rights.

    BiF mentioned British Rail. The railscum here tried getting out of being covered by the Consumer Rights Act 2015 but ultimately got told to suck it up.

  27. The doctor was not breaking the law in refusing to move. He had a contract to have that seat.

    When they told him to get off, they were in anticipatory breach of contract. At that point the doctor had the choice of accepting the breach and leaving, or insist that they perform the contact. He chose the latter and UA chose to beat him up to allow them to effect their breach of contract.

    Given the yanks’ love of punitive damages, he will be a very rich man.

  28. Given the yanks’ love of punitive damages, he will be a very rich man.

    Yes, indeed, but not directly because of punitive damages.

    United Airlines would be fools to let this go to court. Their lawyers will have this stitched up by the weekend even if it means they have to pay the guy $10 million to do it.

    The cost of PR alone, let alone the volatility of their share price justifies it. I suspect this is why the guy is remaining in hospital, to give time to allow the lawyers to negotiate an agreement with United Airlines.

    Can you imagine the publicity of a court case? Especially given the legal and contractual holes that are already being torn into United Airlines case…regardless of their contractor’s employees complicity in effecting an assault on a paying customer.

    Nope. This is all getting buried right now with a watertight compromise agreement and a huge cash settlement to buy this guys silence.

  29. (all 155 pages of them, in small print)

    One early lesson I’ve never forgotten – in a “general” class with the headmaster when I was about 9 – is the way that small print is treated in the UK. I imagine the US must be fairly similar. In short:

    – You may bury something in the T’s & C’s, and subsequently use it in legal proceedings. However:

    a) The T’s & C’s have no force if they contradict the Law.
    b) Using something buried will not only be ruled inadmissible, but will also mean instant defeat regardless, under the “you’re an unspeakable shit” rule.

    I suppose b) is the driver behind the various mis-selling payouts. My head could have saved the banks billions.

  30. Two can play this T&C game.
    The value of airlines is mostly in their landing slots. Hmmm. they have contracts with airports…

    Pilot: Coming in to O’Hare
    OH: No you’re not
    P: Why not?
    AH: Because you’re a shit / your airline is shit.
    P: But, bit but…
    OH: Read the T&Cs matey. Divert to Detroit and hire a bus.

  31. I doubt anyone other than sad sacks like me will look deeper into this. But US law says you cannot compo someone more than a certain % of their fare.
    Nuts. Auction can’t work.
    Could the govt be to blame? Of course not, even though they made the law. Chicago’s finest goons were only doing their duty.

  32. There are no doubt many dimensions to this story. (Theoretical physicists posit at least 11).
    Maybe ants can get by with awareness of only two. (The ants where I am seem to.)
    Obvs, most of us need to know three. Whether you’re a bricklayer ot a drone pilot.

    There’s a certain creature, the sea squirt, that in immature life is free swimming, so is presumably aware of 3 dimensions.

    However, like a CEO who has found his best possible niche, the adult sea squirt attaches itself to a rock. And then eats its own brain. Thereby losing any idea of dimension. A parable for UAL.

  33. US law says you cannot compo someone more than a certain % of their fare.

    In relation to compensation for denied boarding due to overbooking then certainly this is true up to a maximum of 200% of the cost or a value of $1,350 if I recall correctly.

    However the argument here is that the flight was not overbooked. All seats had been sold and all passengers were allocated seats and some of them were even boarded before the requirement to bump passengers for logistical reasons to do with airline operations.

    Whilst this has been described as related to overbooking there is some doubt on the pilot and air travel forums as whether it actually was or not.

    This seems to have been admitted by United, although their reasons for the admission are unclear.

    After United Airlines sparked worldwide outrage Monday due to the forcible removal of a passenger, the company revealed that the flight was not actually overbooked.

    A United spokesperson told USA Today Tuesday that while all 70 seats on the plane were indeed filled, the decision to remove four passengers was made to accommodate crew members who were “needed” in Louisville, Ky. the following day.

    Three of the passengers agreed to leave the plane, but one refused, prompting United to call aviation officials to assist with his removal. The officials forcibly dragged him down the plane’s aisle while he screamed in protest. He suffered injuries as a result of the confrontation, which sparked widespread backlash on social media.

    “I continue to be disturbed by what happened on this flight, and I deeply apologize to the customer forcibly removed and to all the customers aboard,” United CEO Oscar Munoz said in a statement on Tuesday — his second following a statement on Monday that many observers felt was tone-deaf.

    United Flight Passenger Was Removed From Wasn’t Actually Overbooked

    WARNING – Link contains an auto-playing video! (which I really can’t stand nowadays)

  34. DocBud – “You are obliged to comply with reasonable requests from the crew, not stupid ones.”

    It will be interesting to see if the courts agree this was reasonable. Anyway, if you are asked to do something by the police, my default option is to do it. I wouldn’t do it all the time, I hope. But if I want to die fighting on a hill I want to make sure it is a worthy hill to die fighting on. Refusing to sit at the back of the bus? Perhaps. Holding up the entire plane – and potentially two to four other planes? Not so much.

    “Airlines will have to pay what it takes to get the necessary genuine volunteers, rather than pick “volunteers” itself.”

    So they should. Although I think the Feds limit what they can offer. The problem is that they expected compliance. We all benefit when we live in a society where the police can expect compliance. They did not get it. What to do next?

    Tim Newman – “So are most of us in this day and age, it’s kind of hard not to.”

    That is certainly true.

    “I think plastering his personal life all over the global media is a bit shit.”

    And that of his children as well. C*nts.

    Sandman – “The doctor was not breaking the law in refusing to move. He had a contract to have that seat.”

    I think you will find both in the T&C and in custom, the airplane’s captain has the right to remove anyone at any time for any reason.

    “He chose the latter and UA chose to beat him up to allow them to effect their breach of contract.”

    Well no they did not. They chose to call the police. The police did what they had to do. There was no decision to go with the beating. It all just escalated very fast. But what else were they supposed to do once they picked the four?

  35. But if I want to die fighting on a hill

    And what exactly is the problem with a regulation bog standard ditch?

  36. But US law says you cannot compo someone more than a certain % of their fare.

    I don’t think it does. The regulation says “…a carrier…shall pay compensation…to passengers who are denied boarding involuntarily from an oversold flight…Compensation shall be 400% of the fare to the passenger’s destination or first stopover, with a maximum of $1,350…”. I think that’s laying down a formula for mandatory compensation. I don’t believe it’s intended to prevent the airline paying more if it wants to.

    In any case, the obvious solution would have been for the airline to offer passengers a cash payment plus a car to Louisville. I think they’d have got takers for that.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.