Posted on 04/15/2017 6:22:19 AM PDT by Sean_Anthony
But part of the phenomenon long precedes YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, and social media dictating the news. It's the American cult of victimization
Youve been snookered folks! By that poor elderly doctor who was involuntarily dragged from his seat, had his face smashed in, and was beaten unconscious by the evil airport security at the behest of United Airlines.
Because theres no evidence any of that was true. It was in fact a premeditated temper tantrum gone viral, comprising one 69-year-old Vietnamese-American David Dao, a medical doctor who lost his license, planning a lawsuit from the moment United first politely asked him to give up his seat. He demanded to be dragged, did an excellent impersonation of Ned Beattys character in that horrific scene in Deliverance, and struck his lip on an armrest. From the many videos taken by numerous passengers, obviously from numerous angles, theres no evidence of a beating, a serious concussion, or bodily damage beyond that lip.
This site has a long history of dealing with very recent signups who only join to argue a specific issue in a specific manner, i.e. shills and you’re sure starting to sound like one. All the usual attempted shaming and name-calling won’t work here, it’s only going to diminish any persuasion you might be attempting to accomplish.
You are overlooking the relevant provision of Rule 4.G.
Rule 4.G. All of UAs flights are subject to overbooking which could result in UAs inability to provide previously confirmed reserved space for a given flight or for the class of service reserved. In that event, UAs obligation to the Passenger is governed by Rule 25.
If United complies with all of the provisions of Rule 25 by asking for volunteers, offering compensation, applying the priority rules and so forth, and STILL they are overbooked? Then that puts them back into Rule 4.G., which puts the passenger on notice that the passenger may not be able to keep his confirmed reserved space in the event of overbooking.
And Rule 4.G. does not limit itself to passengers who have not yet boarded. It says United can deny someone his previously confirmed reserved space. It does not say United can deny someone his previously confirmed space ONLY if that person has not yet boarded and seated himself in that space.
The relevant question for United now becomes, were they "unable" to provide Dao his previously confirmed space because of overbooking?
If federal rules require United to seat that 4-person crew in order to get them to their flight, then that means United is unable to seat four other people. If United has followed all of the Rule 25 obligations to identify people, and there are still four people they are unable to seat, United has a defensible argument that choosing people by random is an acceptable to way to determine who they are unable to provide space to and must give up their spaces on the plane.
>>>Curious, how do you like it? >>>
Actually, I don’t have one. I have a Kawasaki KLR 650. But we purchased a vacation condo and it’s got a small one car garage so I am looking at them. As you probably know they can hit close to 90 mph and look like fun to ride. I have always had a motorcycle, raced moto cross even, but never ridden a scooter. So I have my eyes out for one. They are expensive....upward of $9000 out the door.
Thanks.....are you interested in one?
United has turned pissing off the customer into science.
And a jury in a hub city like Chicago has more war stories about it than most.
I wouldn't want a jury of them, let alone a judge that having told the gate that he can't be bumped because he has cases in the morning gets a snarky 'Well aren't you special?'
I'm just not so sure about a reversal, United takes it all the way to the Supreme Court and then it turns out Clarence Thomas has been a frequent flyer...
>>>This site has a long history of dealing with very recent signups who only join to argue a specific issue in a specific manner, i.e. shills and youre sure starting to sound like one. All the usual attempted shaming and name-calling wont work here, its only going to diminish any persuasion you might be attempting to accomplish.>>>
Not interested in persuasion or popularity. But thanks now!
I haven’t read the comments yet, but in moral support to you, a person who likely is not the most popular FReeper at the moment, I will again post what I posted yesterday on this:
I thought we FReepers tended to be libertarian-types and supported the right of businesses to serve or not serve their customers - in addition to not allowing ourselves to be PLAYED by the media (i.e., whipped up into hysterics).
But I guess that goes out the window and we become FLAMING LIBERALS when:
1) We dont like the company
2) There is a video
3) The media whips us into a frenzy
So much for us FReepers standing on principle, at least in this case. The guy failed to comply with both the airline and law enforcement. If he had an issue, he should have left the plane and then made his case to the people at the gate or elsewhere in the office - no one was going to die by (maybe) missing an appointment for a stomach ache.
But he was VERY SMART - he knew that if he put on a show (after all, he is a TV personality), particularly against United, he’d be set for life - and I guess that will be case, judging from what I read here.
Two points. 1, United has admitted the flight was *not* overbooked.
2, A couple offered to deplane, but they wanted more money than United had offered [$1,600, iirc]. United didn’t even attempt to negotiate with them.
That's good, since you appear to be achieving neither.
“Airlines kick people off of planes all the time. Because they can and its legal....”
In my many decades of flying I have been fortunate to have never seen anyone “kick[ed]” off an airplane, but have seen many pre-boarding negotiations with resolution, although some may have been dissatisfied.
United and others may have kicked people off airplanes, but unless it was following the Conditions of Carriage, it was not legal. In the present case, it was a culture of arrogance that got United in trouble, relying on the “fine print” saying what they thought it should say, making the airline always right. OOPS - bad analysis. The article says things that United has subsequently admitted are not true, you should really try to keep up.
>>>That’s good, since you appear to be achieving neither. >>>
No, no....one guy asked if I liked my Vespa. LOL!
There are Nazi police here?
Thanks.....are you interested in one?
************
Not in the least. 60+ years ago one got me down and I’ve not been on one since.
>>>There are Nazi police here?>>>
Uh, no, not at all. Nope. (I have to be nice because one guy, Thumper said he’s watching me).....
True!!
Don’t get your artfully flowing scarf or your murse tangled in the wheels.
>>>Not in the least. 60+ years ago one got me down and Ive not been on one since.>>>
Never ridden a scooter, look easy and fun and I did’nt know you can tour and they hit almost 90. Just so expensive. I bet you liked yours.....
>>>Dont get your artfully flowing scarf or your murse tangled in the wheels.>>>>
So thoughtful of you. I’ll keep an eye out for that. Thanks!!
Get in a cab and piss the owner /driver off. I guarantee he can throw you out.
LOL. Well, Nader took his involuntary denial of a seat case to SCOTUS, and got bragging rights.
All of the awards that I see are for "actual damages," and the biggest was won by a retired Illinois Supreme Court judge, who got $7,000 in the end, for he and his wife.
Judges tend against plaintiffs who refuse to follow authority figures, even when the authority figures are in the wrong. After all, a judge is an authority figure, and he doesn't want to endorse disrespect for authority.
-- United has turned pissing off the customer into science. --
I agree. I detest United. I fly maybe 20 times a year on average, and avoid UAL (branded carriers) like the plague. I tend to avoid certain airport as connecting points too (Washington National, Philadelphia), as it has been my experience that mistreatment of passengers is more of a local issue than an airline issue.
Sounds like he considers this an oversold situation.
But for purposes of the point I am making, I doesn't matter what Munoz admits or doesn't admit.
Obviously United is now dealing with this as a public relations matter, not merely a legal matter, and they are saying what they think they need to to try to salvage what they can in terms of public relations.
I would love to see this litigated, but I have to think they will settle this for a substantial sum so as not to have continued bad publicity and on the possibility that a jury decides they used too much force in removing Dao, even if their lawyers tell them have good legal defenses both in removing Dao and under the contract of carriage.
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.