Posted on 04/13/2017 11:44:28 PM PDT by SteveH
Like all airlines, United has a very specific (and lengthy!) contract for carriage outlining the contractual relationship between the airline and the passenger. It includes a familiar set of provisions for when a passenger may be denied boarding (Rule 25: “Denied Boarding Compensation”).
When a flight is oversold, UA can deny boarding to some passengers, who then receive compensation under specific guidelines. However, Dao was not denied boarding. He was granted boarding and then involuntarily removed from the airplane. What does the contract say about that?
It turns out that the contract has a specific rule regarding “Refusal of Transport” (Rule 21), which lays out the conditions under which a passenger can be removed and refused transport on the aircraft. This includes situations where passengers act in a “disorderly, offensive, abusive, or violent” manner, refuse to comply with the smoking policy, are barefoot or “not properly clothed,” as well as many other situations.
There is absolutely no provision for deplaning a seated passenger because the flight is oversold.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsweek.com ...
This does not make sense. Either a business can write an enforceable contract and offer it to prospective customers, or it cannot. If it cannot, then it should not stay in business, because it is acting fraudulently or negligently.
Well, it matters to the extent that his removal is outside of the (Rule 25) contract parameters for being involuntarily removed.
For argument's sake, I conceded that UAL broke the contract, and that once seated, a passenger cannot be involuntarily removed without breaking the contract.
If we take the beating out of the equation, my question to you, one you have refused to address, is "How much money is he (or anybody similarly situated) entitled to when UAL breaks the contract?"
Again it was not the police but the airport security personnel, one of whom was allegedly wearing a police uniform without being actually a real policeperson, and thus, seemingly, impersonating a police officer.
Something equivalent to the ouster of the current CEO and docking him 1 year of his salary.
My conjecture is that this sort of thing is probably the tip of the iceberg. Most people would have been intimidated so we don’t hear about the other cases.
UAL and it culture of contempt for passengers is ripe for taking down.
Why take the beating out of the equation? It is now a historical fact and part of the interaction between the parties involved.
The only part you have right in the statement is that they were four employees.
The rest of the story is that they were four Airline employees who were required to be in Louisville, KY and on a rest schedule prior to their having flight responsibilities themselves the following morning.
Now, that in no way justifies what UAL did in this case, I'm just correcting the factual record here.
David Dao Versus United: What Does The Airline Contract Say?
Omri Ben-Shahar ,
Forbes
April 14, 2017
[...]
United’s liability would depend on what its contra
UAL is traded company. It is not a private company.
I doubt punitive damages for denying passage, in an industry that has codified the remedy for people denied passage due to overbooking, is going to fly. Dao and others caught in this sort of trap are going to get actual damages, how much are they out on acount of non-performance by UAL. At best.
There are plenty of cases of people denied boarding, millions of dollars worth. federal lawsuit passenger removed from aircraft -dao -united - Google Search
-- UAL and it culture of contempt for passengers is ripe for taking down. --
I agree with that, but the legal system isn't going to be much help, if any. I detest UAL. I badmouth them given the chance. The airline views its customers with contempt, best I can tell, and I return the favor.
The passenger is under no obligation to settle out of court. UA will want to, to avoid the negatives, but unless they cough up some serious cash which I would assume is greater that $10 million this baby is going to trial.
Ironically, to get people to focus more on the beating, and less on the contract.
I think everybody agrees that a passenger who is involuntarily denied passage to the jetbridge is entitled to Rule 25 compensation. There is much argument about the effect of act of seating. Some say that once seated, he gains some legal advantage and "can't" be removed. I'm just rephrasing that to "can't be removed without breaching the contract," and asking rhetorically, "so what if he was?" What is the value of this legal advantage?
I give the point just for argument, because I doubt the law would view the word "boarded" the same as common vernacular, for purposes of settling a legal dispute. But no matter, for argument, I give up the point. Dao has a breach of contract claim. How much is it worth - aside from the beating?
I don't think there is much difference in compensation, between a Rule 25 involuntary rewrite and damages allowed in a civil suit for breach of contract.
Third Circuit upholds summary judgment for airline in overbooking case - 2010
The plaintiff had demanded compensatory damages of $1,433 and punitive damages of $161,600. The appeals court, assuming that punitive damages were recoverable (the trial court had - correctly - held that punitive damages were preempted by the federal Airline Deregulation Act), held that the "drastic ratio" between the punitive and compensatory damages demanded by the plaintiff "would almost certainly violate the constitution."
An interesting story about an aviation lawyer who was bumped (vernacular for involuntary denial) ... When an Aviation Lawyer Gets Bumped, the Airline Pays - 2005
After Continental Airlines bumped Stone and his daughter from a flight last Christmas, Stone sued and took the airline to small claims court in New York. ...So Stone sued, saying the airline had breached its contract with him and committed fraud. On Nov. 10, the court sided with Stone and awarded $3,100 in damages. ...
She awarded Stone $1,360 for his non-refundable lodging expenses, $1,000 for his delay and $750 for the loss of the use of the contents in his luggage.
Delta was fined $750,000 for bumping practices: Delta, the world's largest airline, is fined $750K For bumping passengers - 2013
In March 2012, the Department's Aviation Enforcement Office found that, in a number of instances, Delta failed to seek volunteers before bumping passengers involuntarily, or bumped passengers involuntarily without providing them a written notice describing their rights or informing them that they had a right to cash compensation.
We dont know exactly how he got harmed, was it because of the difficulty in removing a passenger who might have been physically resisting at the time? Was it because it was difficult to pull him over the seats? I dont know that he was purposely "beat up". He asked for this, and he got it. He is also going to get a nice payout regardless of whats "right" or "wrong". Basically, that doesn't matter, its public perception, in the end. But for me, I like to remain as objective as possible. I leave my outrage and emotionality to my younger, liberal days.
“In Tuesday’s New York Times story on the fracas, United’s CEO acknowledged, this was not technically an overbooked flight. And the reason for that equivocation is also clear. The four airline employees who needed the seats, presented themselves to the gate agent after the flight was boarded. Further, they were not fare-paying passengers, therefore not “booked.””
********************************************
In this case equivocation=lie.
That’s a different story. I’m not going to sit here and suggest that UAL — or any other airline — engages in business practices that I would ever use myself.
Better check out the videos. They put the lie to your assertions. The videos are the reason the CEO of United reversed his first statement and took full responsibility saying that Dr Dao had taken no action that was wrong and that United was to blame.
Your description of events is laughable to anyone who saw the videos and since they went viral that’s a lot of folks laughing at your expense.
A compilation of the videos including CEO statement
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dk2Y_VL5e7s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9bRZZmro_s
I'm going to make it a point not to rent from you. And as a property renter with that attitude and failure to grasp the relevant law you better have a lawyer on retainer. You & he/she are going to be best buds.
Why was it his problem? United’s problem not his. When the CEO admits that why don’t you?
No wonder you think you are G*d’s gift and can make pronouncements from on high. Comes with the territory, all hat & no cattle.
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.