Posted on 04/15/2017 4:55:16 AM PDT by Kaslin
Trumped by contractural rights. United had a list of reasons that warranted removal from a plane of a seated passenger, such as being disruptive. This was not one of them.
STFU, Joseph Bilello, you effing Nazi punk.
+1
“There were three of them, but they still couldn’t calmly and orderly restrain the man and walk him down the aisle? “
I agree. You’ve put your finger on the problem.
It’s now going to cost United a hell of a lot more than the cost of a smaller private flight from Ky to get those four crew people to Chicago.
Considering it cost $1000 x 3 for those who peacefully exited, now add in the “Dr’s” payout, when/if he should win. United could have purchased a smaller private airplane to fly those crew people. Not a good deal for United.
supposedly they left him alone at the gate to find a wheelchair geniuses
“Trumped by contractural rights. “
You’ve never read the contract. You wouldn’t know.
“The passenger had his boarding pass revoked. He refused to leave the plane. How is removing a trespasser on a plane
illegal?”
Wow - so much wrong in so little space. Other comments you have made to others on this thread show you really need to consider things a bit more before engaging the keyboard.
There was no revocation of his boarding pass. He was boarded on the plane and had every right to be there. Your concept of trespass has no legal support - United’s rights are governed by United’s Contract of Carriage, and once he was boarded the COC’s rule 21 for removal of passengers. I won’t bore you with the details, go read it yourself:
https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriage.aspx
Just the fact that United has allegedly already offered an eight-figure settlement shows you are the one who doesn't know what he is talking about. Someone posted a list of reasons United provided for removal from a plane. Others have posted snippets of federal law regarding this matter. You can only spew absolute concepts about property rights. But property rights are not absolute when mitigated by a contract. For example, a landlord has restrictions on being able to enter a property he has leased to someone. The same applies here.
OK, CT, here’s the list - please point out which one applied here:
RULE 21 REFUSAL OF TRANSPORT
UA shall have the right to refuse to transport or shall have the right to remove from the aircraft at any point, any Passenger for the following reasons:
Breach of Contract of Carriage – Failure by Passenger to comply with the Rules of the Contract of Carriage.
Government Request, Regulations or Security Directives – Whenever such action is necessary to comply with any government regulation, Customs and Border Protection, government or airport security directive of any sort, or any governmental request for emergency transportation in connection with the national defense.
Force Majeure and Other Unforeseeable Conditions – Whenever such action is necessary or advisable by reason of weather or other conditions beyond UA’s control including, but not limited to, acts of God, force majeure, strikes, civil commotions, embargoes, wars, hostilities, terrorist activities, or disturbances, whether actual, threatened, or reported.
Search of Passenger or Property – Whenever a Passenger refuses to submit to electronic surveillance or to permit search of his/her person or property.
Proof of Identity – Whenever a Passenger refuses on request to produce identification satisfactory to UA or who presents a Ticket to board and whose identification does not match the name on the Ticket. UA shall have the right, but shall not be obligated, to require identification of persons purchasing tickets and/or presenting a ticket(s) for the purpose of boarding the aircraft.
Failure to Pay – Whenever a Passenger has not paid the appropriate fare for a Ticket, Baggage, or applicable service charges for services required for travel, has not paid an outstanding debt or Court judgment, or has not produced satisfactory proof to UA that the Passenger is an authorized non-revenue Passenger or has engaged in a prohibited practice as specified in Rule 6.
Across International Boundaries – Whenever a Passenger is traveling across any international boundary if:
The government required travel documents of such Passenger appear not to be in order according to UA’s reasonable belief; or
Such Passenger’s embarkation from, transit through, or entry into any country from, through, or to which such Passenger desires transportation would be unlawful or denied for any reason.
Safety – Whenever refusal or removal of a Passenger may be necessary for the safety of such Passenger or other Passengers or members of the crew including, but not limited to:
Passengers whose conduct is disorderly, offensive, abusive, or violent;
Passengers who fail to comply with or interfere with the duties of the members of the flight crew, federal regulations, or security directives;
Passengers who assault any employee of UA, including the gate agents and flight crew, or any UA Passenger;
Passengers who, through and as a result of their conduct, cause a disturbance such that the captain or member of the cockpit crew must leave the cockpit in order to attend to the disturbance;
Passengers who are barefoot or not properly clothed;
Passengers who appear to be intoxicated or under the influence of drugs to a degree that the Passenger may endanger the Passenger or another Passenger or members of the crew (other than a qualified individual whose appearance or involuntary behavior may make them appear to be intoxicated or under the influence of drugs);
Passengers wearing or possessing on or about their person concealed or unconcealed deadly or dangerous weapons; provided, however, that UA will carry law enforcement personnel who meet the qualifications and conditions established in 49 C.F.R. §1544.219;
Passengers who are unwilling or unable to follow UA’s policy on smoking or use of other smokeless materials;
Unless they comply with Rule 6 I), Passengers who are unable to sit in a single seat with the seat belt properly secured, and/or are unable to put the seat’s armrests down when seated and remain seated with the armrest down for the entirety of the flight, and/or passengers who significantly encroach upon the adjoining passenger’s seat;
Passengers who are manacled or in the custody of law enforcement personnel;
Passengers who have resisted or may reasonably be believed to be capable of resisting custodial supervision;
Pregnant Passengers in their ninth month, unless such Passenger provides a doctor’s certificate dated no more than 72 hours prior to departure stating that the doctor has examined and found the Passenger to be physically fit for air travel to and from the destination requested on the date of the flight, and that the estimated date of delivery is after the date of the last flight;
Passengers who are incapable of completing a flight safely, without requiring extraordinary medical assistance during the flight, as well as Passengers who appear to have symptoms of or have a communicable disease or condition that could pose a direct threat to the health or safety of others on the flight, or who refuse a screening for such disease or condition. (NOTE: UA requires a medical certificate for Passengers who wish to travel under such circumstances. Visit UA’s website, united.com, for more information regarding UA’s requirements for medical certificates);
Passengers who fail to travel with the required safety assistant(s), advance notice and/or other safety requirements pursuant to Rules 14 and 15;
Passengers who do not qualify as acceptable Non-Ambulatory Passengers (see Rule 14);
Passengers who have or cause a malodorous condition (other than individuals qualifying as disabled);
Passengers whose physical or mental condition is such that, in United’s sole opinion, they are rendered or likely to be rendered incapable of comprehending or complying with safety instructions without the assistance of an escort. The escort must accompany the escorted passenger at all times; and
Unaccompanied passengers who are both blind and deaf, unless such passenger is able to communicate with representatives of UA by either physical, mechanical, electronic, or other means. Such passenger must inform UA of the method of communication to be used; and
Passengers who are unwilling to follow UA’s policy that prohibits voice calls after the aircraft doors have closed, while taxiing in preparation for takeoff, or while airborne.
Any Passenger who, by reason of engaging in the above activities in this Rule 21, causes UA any loss, damage or expense of any kind, consents and acknowledges that he or she shall reimburse UA for any such loss, damage or expense. UA has the right to refuse transport, on a permanent basis, to any passenger who, by reason of engaging in the above activities in this Rule 21, causes UA any loss, damage or expense of any kind, or who has been disorderly, offensive, abusive, or violent. In addition, the activities enumerated in H) 1) through 8) shall constitute a material breach of contract, for which UA shall be excused from performing its obligations under this contract.
UA is not liable for its refusal to transport any passenger or for its removal of any passenger in accordance with this Rule. A Passenger who is removed or refused transportation in accordance with this Rule may be eligible for a refund upon request. See Rule 27 A). As an express precondition to issuance of any refund, UA shall not be responsible for damages of any kind whatsoever. The passenger’s sole and exclusive remedy shall be Rule 27 A).
I read somewhere the cops had gone to get a stretcher for him - so if they left him unattended on the jetway, that also sounds against protocol.
Or, by that time, maybe they realized they shouldn’t touch him anymore. Or maybe he was so bloody they were afraid to restrain him without gloves.
The passenger had his boarding pass revoked. He refused to leave the plane. How is removing a trespasser on a plane
illegal?
IF that is what happened, why was he not charged with trespass and resisting arrest? With cell phones everywhere, I believe they know that story won’t work. They would have had to tell him he was under arrest. Also, in the video I saw, one of the so called cops was wearing jeans and a regular old shirt. Who would think they had any authority at all.
I read somewhere the cops had gone to get a stretcher for him - so if they left him unattended on the jetway, that also sounds against protocol.
So many of their actions make zero sense. I heard that he was left alone as well, but he was traveling with his wife. If your spouse was drug out of a plane, out cold and bleeding, you would for sure go with him. So, where was she during this time? Surely she would stop him from getting back on the plane. Or, would they not let her off the plane to attend to him?
It appears some of the United defenders, now armed with a little of the contract, would justify use of Rule 21’s “right to remove from the aircraft at any point any Passenger” to directly send the passenger to the hospital:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mexico-violence-idUSKBN17E2GI
DAO vs United seems to be the story that refuses to go away.
We are now 6 days into the story and it remains in sole first place as the most commented upon story at Free Republic.
Even President Trump weighed in saying it was ‘horrible’.
This was a dumb and pointless article.
The writer confuses obeying a lawful order with an unlawful order. Submitting to any and all “authority” at all times gets you a trip to a gulag or a gas chamber.
I understand the urge to resist, it happens often. I'd guess that alcohol is involved in the majority of those incidents.
Not to blanket defend the cops - that's a job for the courts, one they take up with pleasure.
I suppose it all depends on how frightened a man is.
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.