Posted on 04/18/2017 5:06:52 AM PDT by pabianice
Terms of service means civil liabilities, but in no way does it give a passenger the authority to start a fight.
“So let me change the question ever so slightly. Is it your position that the airlines have no obligation to make the Rule 25 offer, after they have boarded then involuntarily removed a passenger? “
Technically the question is asked legally backwards, because it is NOT a matter of ANY rules of compensation for “bumping” passengers - no one was bumped, everyone was boarded. What was United STRICTLY obligated to? Not removing Dr Dao.
You are chasing a legal irrelevancy. Technically the rule book was already out the window. Dr Dao should not have been involuntarily deplaned, and United could have offered the sun and the moon, whatever it took to get volunteers, but NO ONE WAS OBLIGATED to volunteer for any amount, or to, forlornly think ONLY those “rule 25” amounts were all they could expect United to pay for United removing them involuntarily.
Like Reagan said of liberals, the problem is they know so much that isn’t true.
FAR. Read it. Google for it. Part 91.
When that situation got out of hand the pilot should have been right there refereeing that situation. He knew there was an ongoing altercation.
I disagree, The question is quite relevant in the Dao case, and whatever construction you put on the rule will play with passengers, going forward.
-- Technically the rule book was already out the window. --
That corresponds with my previous understanding of your position. So if an airline wrongly, in total contravention of the contract orders a passenger to be removed, the rulebook is out the window, and Rule 25, including the compensation specified, no longer applies.
As I said at first, this creates an incentive to break the rules to get out of the requirement to issue the rules-based compensation, by boarding people then kicking them off. Cheaper to break the rule than to follow it.
You position is "they can't break the rules." Okay, fine. But they did, and they might again. What are the ramifications? Or are you going to declare breaking the rules to be an impossibility and leave it at that?
What false claim? United revoked his boarding pass and he refused to leave. How is that a false claim? Don’t lie.
You do not know the pilot was not involved. You have made multiple false statements as fact in this thread. Stop lying.
” it has to have reasons that meet the law “
Since you are not an attorney, nor a pilot, nor an aircraft owner, you might want to rethink that nonsense statement.
“not a personal whim”
Yes, in fact a pilot can. You are obviously not someone who has ever had any authority nor understands authority.
A pilot is in command as soon as he steps on board. If a pilot doesn’t know there is a mini riot going on in the cabin he should be fired for incompetence.
Munoz was asked point blank, on national tv, if Dao had done anything wrong. He saud, “No.”
When the CEO of United exonerates Dao, none of your bluster will change anything. Dao’s in the clear; United is in the cross hairs.
Stop smearing me. It’s jerkish and reflects badly on you.
Pay attention. Its not me—its the ***pilots*** who are denying ***responsibility.***
FULL TITLE: Angry United Airlines pilots’ union issue statement denying ALL responsibility for forcible removal of doctor last week and say Chicago cops are to blame
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3544107/posts
There was no riot. Passengers and video both indicate that Dao wasn’t belligerent. He simply said that he couldn’t “volunteer” [United’s term, not his] because he had to see patients at 8am the next morning. All of a sudden the goons grabbed him and slammed his face into an armrest. Not even that was a ‘riot,’ it was elder abuse, as was the unnecessary tasing.
You don’t know me, nor know what authority I have had (plenty).
Yes, someone in authority can do things on a whim and think they are getting away with it. The laws and terms on conditions that bind their decisions can come back and kick them in the ass, proving they did not “get away with it”.
The immediate sense is not the final ultimate sense. Those who have authority understand that BEFORE they make decisions.
No. United executed his boarding pass, not revoked it. Then they sought to remove him, involuntarily after the fact, and under conditions their own terms of service do not qualify as eligible for that act.
No. It does not give the airline free reign to do whatever the hell it wants because it has already broken its own rule.
Rule 25 simply does not apply in Dr Dao’s case, does not apply ONLY as to any obligation on his part.
As to United’s part, it does not apply because it is not about compensation, it’s about only being allowed to involuntarily remove someone under the conditions allowed by their own terms of service.
It is ALL about nothing else. You are chasing legal mirages.
A distinction without a difference. Lease holder have most of the same property rights as owners. Pretty much the only things they can do are sell it and kick out representatives of the owners.
Breaking a contact is not a legal mirage.
I am asking what the consequences of breaking the contract is, specifically the effect on Rule 25 in the UAL contract of carriage.
Just becasue he wasn’t doing anything wrong doesn’t mean they can’t remove him form the plane. I don’t think Doc Dao is going to bag as much loot as he thinks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.