So, I guess the question a jury will have to answer will be: Was this passenger being denied boarding even though he had already boarded? What's the correct definition of "boarding"?
Posted on 04/12/2017 6:38:09 PM PDT by Sean_Anthony
The Snowflake generation now uses their rage as a vicious Marxist weapon with the intent to harm the reputation of anything they don't like, especially when it's a large corporation
Okay, I’ve just about had my fill with the news about the United Airlines passenger being dragged off the plane because the company overbooked, but the passenger refused to leave the flight.
Should they overbook? Probably not. There is an average number they have calculated of the number of people they believe will not even show up, so based on those numbers, they overbook a little bit to make sure the seats are full. There is not exactly a very big profit margin in the airline industry, as it is.
So, I guess the question a jury will have to answer will be: Was this passenger being denied boarding even though he had already boarded? What's the correct definition of "boarding"?
Given Munoz' history they probably had their organs harvested.
Leni, my instinct was to side up with the airline.
The first reports I heard were pretty supportive of the airline staff. I just heard another story, and it didn’t sound nearly as good.
I’m going to reserve my judgement still leaning in your direction, but I do want to do a little more digging to make sure.
I understand your reasoning, and it sounds solid to me.
No the left does not like authority. We can take that to the bank!
D1
The Tina Fey Commercial is unrealistic.
She is shown sitting in Coach. Fake, fake, fake...
That is the key I think. When are you actually “boarded”? In honesty, it is this kind of stuff that has kept me from flying the last number of years and when I did, I avoided American airspace whenever I could (taking direct flights from Canada)
I flew standbye within Canada for 10 years to save money and I knew the rules and was treated always with respect even when I was denied boarding (at the gate). The airline staff always felt sorry for me because I was always there early just waiting to see if I could get on. Always the last to board and often didn`t get a meal because it was cancelled. But I did get toast and jam. lol
Exactly, a Doctor in a hospital (assuming not a specialist) makes the 1099 equivalent of $1000 - 2000 a day depending on their contract.
But more important missing a shift could possibly put your privileges to practice at the hospital at risk. Credentials at a new hospital can now take you 6 months to 1 year because you now have the black mark of losing privileges for failure to show up.
So how would most of us act if missing a flight could lose you your job with a high probability of 6 months before you land another job?
Plain an simple United was too cheap to settle the matter in an agreeable fashion. They deserve all they are going to get.
Oh yeah one more thing this snowflake won't be flying United anytime soon..
um....I don’t think the flight was overbooked.
It was full.
They needed to get a flight crew somewhere.
They needed 4 seats that were not available.
I would think his lawyer will argue that when his boarding pass was validated he was boarded.
After being a frequent flier for some 35 years I can tell you Untied is not innocent.
After being a frequent flier for some 35 years I can tell you Untied is not innocent.
After being a frequent flier for some 35 years I can tell you Untied is not innocent.
Sorry, you are legally incorrect.
“No, as a point of fact they have to go by their own policy in their own contract.”
He was still required to leave the a/c. And had he quietly left the a/c, he would have had a $10,000 nuisance claim. His damages would have been “one night in Chicago.”
Now, he has abrogated that, and if United and Chicago want criminal charges, he have them to deal with them..
He gets nothing from his “treatment” as that was all caused by his failure to leave the a/c when ordered to do so.
The author argues that United Airlines actions were O.K. and besides he says:
“United Airlines, last year, had to deny boarding to 3,765 passengers due to overbooking. When you consider they had 143 million passengers in totalin 2016, that’s not a bad percentage of boarding denials.”
Now then, before revealing those numbers he made the claim of the airlines that they HAD to overbook, because they estimate how many people are statistically likely to not show up or cancel their reservation, so they “legitimately” over book.
Bu then the number of those they had to remove from their flights was 3,765 out of 143 million passengers. While it says they had to remove only a small % of customers - actually 0.0026329% - that same figure suggests the claim of “necessity” for over booking is not likely.
Face it, many people try to fly standby, or simply at the last minute. THAT is where the airlines should look to make up for cancelled reservations and no shows, not forcibly removing paid customers off their reserved flights.
The crew directed the passenger to deplane as he had been selected for involuntary bumping as is allowed via DOT regulation. Since the passenger refused, he interfered with the duties of the crew to operate the aircraft in a safe manner. This interference directly resulted in the aircraft being delayed for departure.
Wow! who knew that standing up for the rights of the individual citizen against arbitrary, over-bearing authority by state officials and employees of private corporations was defined as being a “snowflake” now?
When did free-born Americans become such slavish jackboot lickers?
Maybe -maybe- United had the law on its side, although I doubt that the law was designed to give authority to airline staff to simply tell anybody on a flight to do what they are told or be thrown bodily off the aircraft. If the air hostess had asked the passenger to stand up and say “jiggy-biggy-doo, I love United so do you!” or be thrown off the flight would that be ok?
The exact corollary to this is someone going into McDonalds (previous convictions are utterly and totally irrelevant to this matter by the way) ordering a cheeseburger, paying for it, taking it and sitting down at the table, opening the wrapper and preparing to eat it and then have a waitress come over and tell him that he can’t have it.
He can’t have it because they didn’t cook enough cheeseburgers tonight and an off-duty waitress has just walked in, she’s hungry and she wants a cheeseburger and so the man has to hand over his burger -which he paid for- to the hungry member of staff.
Now let’s imagine in some bizarro-world that McDonalds would be allowed to do that, what would the customer’s reaction be?
Simple, it would be one of outrage, he would say he was hungry, it was his burger, he paid for it, he doesn’t give a fiddler’s damn about the hungry waitress wanting his burger he isn’t going to hand over the burger that belongs to him.
The restaurant calls the police and three cops arrive and drag him, busting his mouth, out of the restaurant.
And people here would support the cops and McDonalds because cops and big corporations would never do anything wrong? Is that the standard of freedom we must accept now?
May their chains rest lightly on their shoulders because whatever else they might be they aren’t free-born conservatives.
Not a valid comparison.
A private person (company) owns their property and has the RIGHT to set the terms of sale. In this case, United even though regulated through the DOT did something legal (overbooked the flight) as they have always done. Further, they told PRIOR TO THE SALE, that they overbook their flights and passengers may be required to be involuntarily bumped. The passenger then ACCEPTED the terms of that contract and completed their purchase.
Then they throw a fit when the carrier expects the passenger to ABIDE by that contract.
I disagree. DOT’s own statement about passenger removal state that such removal cannot be arbitrary. Such selection must be based on safety or security concerns. I don’t believe that Dao would meet that criteria. Again, there are specific ,under their own contract, instances when a passenger may be told to leave a plane after having boarded. His being allowed to remain in his paid for seat would not equal interference. It was their unreasonable demand, one which went against UA’s own policy that solicited his justified reaction. In short UA owns this.
Should he have behaved differently? Probably, and if UA had arranged for him to make another flight he might have. We don’t know if he was ever told that was a possibility. His rather instant response to threaten a lawsuit is telling. UA would have been smart just to move on and make other arrangements for the crew members.
I had read elsewhere that the plane had already been delayed.
If this goes to civil trial I would expect that responsibility will be divided between UA and Dao. Having to reschedule patients because of a flight delay is not that outrageous and it would be fairly simple to figure out loss of income from that. As to the injuries, though they looked bad they obviously were not serious and I doubt they would interfere with his ability to practice medicine. UA though can expect to take a beating and most likely will settle out of court.
Anyway, thanks for remaining civil in this thoughtful discussion though the subject has raised some ire among fellow Freepers.
Under what specific UA policy or Federal law or regulation was he required to leave the aircraft?
How many of those have ancient DUI, maybe a juvenile rap sheet for some youthful indiscretion, maybe a scuffle at a bar or a heated exchange with a sorry ass neighbor where the police were called, taxes where a $10 cash donation became a $100, an adulterous affair.....and on and on things that they have settled their legal debt for and yet who knew that their wrongdoing lost them their rights in perpetuity?
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.