From the article: "United and Dao reached a confidential settlement on April 27. At the same time, the airline announced ten policy changes in response to the incident, including increasing the amount of money to passengers "bounced" from flights to up to $10,000 (...)."
I've looked at several sources and not found specified whether this "amount of money" is cash or vouchers. This is an important difference. For people who fly a lot, vouchers = cash. For those who seldom fly, the offer is nowhere near cash -- in some cases it is worthless. Hope you (someone, anyone) can learn which it is and add it to the above. Thanks. Hordaland (talk) 18:44, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
My research indicates they offered vouchers. Specifically the link below. CNN interview with two passengers. Go to 3:06 in the video. Passenger John Klaassen says, "They were offering $800.00 in United dollars which isn't a whole lot, because it's only for United... it's only for air travel."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xiPOqR_pQM — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 13:15, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
After initially assuming the mention that Mr. Dao is Asian-American was unnecessary, further study of the footnotes details that there are suggestions that he may have been treated the way he was because of racial prejudice (links to various articles about Asian-American travelers). That is clearly an important notion that should remain in the article, but I wonder if it can be more organically integrated. I am considering breaking it into its own paragraph, so that the fourth paragraph is not so jarring and so that it is clear that his race not being brought up for no apparent reason. Thoughts?
- Further down in the "Incident" section, the text says: "Another passenger also reported hearing Dao say that he had been chosen because of his ethnicity." I believe that sufficiently explains the in-text mention of his ethnicity. I don't believe a separate paragraph is needed; there does not seem to be a significantly large amount of sourced material to justify such emphasis. Note: I cut the word "also" from the sentence I've shown here. I think its purpose was to indicate that another passenger 'also' commented on the situation, but the wording made it seem as though multiple passengers commented on the ethnicity factor. DonFB (talk) 04:50, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
The lead here has serious problems.
- The first few sentences seem structured to blame Dao (focusing heavily on him being "uncooperative" and "screaming"); these don't really reflect the sources used (which place very little emphasis on this relative to the injuries he suffered) and definitely don't reflect the article. Those things aren't what make this incident notable; they might be worth discussing further down as details, but currently they're not in the article at all outside the lead, which is the total reverse of how it ought to read. This is the most serious issue, since Dao falls under WP:BLP, so it requires an immediate fix (especially since Dao is in the news again and, therefore, the risk of harm to him from an unbalanced lead is relevant.)
- The lead completely omitted any mention of overbooking; whereas the vast majority of sources focus on it as the crux of the story. It belongs in the first sentence - the entire topic is incomprehensible without knowing that the flight was overbooked (without mentioning that overbooking was the reason for his removal, the implication that the lead gave was that Dao was removed because he was uncooperative, which is backwards and, again, a severe WP:BLP violation.)
- The blow-by-blow is excessive and, again, dwells too much on aspects that seem tangential to the subject.
- The lead says that Dao struck the armrest 'accidentally'; the body, and its sources, say he was 'thrown' against it.
- Most of the 'Prior to the confrontation...' section of the paragraph seems of minimal relevance; the offer of vouchers, etc. isn't really significant to the notability of the incident. It could be condensed down to a sentence or even more brief - it's worth covering in the article, but not the lead.
The key points for the first paragraph of the lead should be - the flight was overbooked (absolutely vital, yet this was somehow omitted), Dao refused to leave, he was forcibly dragged off the plane an injured in the process. Second and third paragraphs can then cover the aftermath. Blow-by-blow details and back-and-forth over what happened can be covered further down. --Aquillion (talk) 03:56, 10 April 2019 (UTC)