Posted on 04/15/2017 6:22:19 AM PDT by Sean_Anthony
[P]opularmechanics.com references as an authority a third party web site, yes, transportion.gov, but so what? It only talks about bumping which is really just a figure of speech.
With respect to this dispute, that's an undefined term and no one literally is bumped as such, although someone did have the crap beaten out of him. I could see lawyers seeking to define a beating as a bumping, but it doesn't really matter. These are just third parties neither of which has any real bearing.
At no time does the popularmechanics.com article or the transportion.gov web site address the actual language in UAL's Contract of Carriage (CoC) which talks about deny boarding. It's the language in the CoC that controls because it's the actual contract between the two parties.
I'm sure that lawyers for UAL will try to muddy the water as to what constitutes boarding and redefine the term away from the obvious literal meaning because Dao had clearly boarded under any plain meaning (an actual legal doctrine).
Rules simply should not exist, nor be followed if they do exist, because by following them, someone may be able to possess certain rights. This leads us into a law of the jungle scenario. Since the airliner has the power, the might, they have the right. Writing the rules in such a way as to always have a loophole or a specious manner of interpretation inevitably screws the customer. Sadly, too many just accept their master’s commands and demand others also become fellow cucks.
BobL, with regard to your post 147... did you read post 148?
You should.
It’s not a libertarian vs liberal issue here. It’s just a matter of good business practices and basic customer fairness.
While no doubt there is minutia and technically differences between being "in compliance with CoC and in Rule 25" and "out of compliance with CoC" based on whatever sophistry either side decides to marshal, the practical difference between the two in this case is negligible.
It would cost UAL more to argue and WIN the lower cost argument, than to stipulate whichever choice resulted in a greater award against it.
There will not be a bright line rule that strips the airline of control over handling overbooking, and no court is going to reward passenger recalcitrance to follow crew instructions. Dao gets actual damages due to delay, from UAL. The goons defend their handling of the passenger, and if Dao's lawyer demands enough money, the goons will fight like hell against Dao.
Pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered.
In this case, the party itself claims to be “back.” That, I believe, is the definition of a retread.
Vespa300: “And I was here before you were a gleam in your Daddy’s eye I’m just back. So there’s that.”
After this publicity, I'll take that bet.
I'm not going to defend the way force was applied to remove him, ...
Seems to me you are.
"Damages" is where the action is in this case, ...
Disagree. Something much more important is at stake.
Now you’ve gone round the bend. Completely inapplicable in this situation.
You don’t have the legal right to stay in your seat and forcefully resist the owner of the aircraft removing you, as if the seat you are sitting in was a parcel of land you owned or a leasehold in an apartment.
I wonder if you would be posting those exact same words if you were the one told you had to de-plane to make room (as you would find out later) for some non-paying staff... or even for some other paying person who for some reason was “more important than you”.
I find it hard to believe you would post the same words in FR that you posted here today if you had been sitting in that particular airline seat on that particular day.
-- I'd argue you are in fact "boarded" once you set foot on the plane. --
Seriously what difference does it make? Either way the airline screwed you out of the agreed schedule. Either the situation fits in Rule 25, or it fits into outright breach of contract. And even if it's Rule 25, you are not obliged to accept the compensation offer, you can sue for actual damages if you want.
I would suspect that union work rules severely limited UA’s options for crew travel. As many have pointed out, this was a short flight and a limo would have gotten the crew there.
And I'll bet they get brand new uniforms and are never allowed on board another aircraft.
It appears the only thing these characters are cleared for is baggage claim watch and keeping an eye on the perimeter fence.
Except in the case of a cab the fare is paid at the end of the trip; not before the trip.
When bumped, all I’ve ever gotten is a severely restricted voucher which is nearly valueless. Since, it is, in fact, an industry standard brought on by low-cost competition, there is no chance a single airline will do it alone.
The judge likely prefers passengers to follow flight crew instructions...
For the record, Napolitano on Fox News yesterday called the lawyer’s press conference “dress rehearsal for the opening argument to the jury” and went on to say that it was extremely effective and leaves UAL with virtually nothing.
Of course UAL is going to settle. Which means they can’t ...
(fill in the blank)
If called to testify, these three dindunuffins will be coached to plead the 5th.
+100
In this case, the party itself claims to be “back.” That, I believe, is the definition of a retread.
Vespa300: “And I was here before you were a gleam in your Daddy’s eye I’m just back. So there’s that.”
Vespa, what was your former user name? Maybe I knew you.
Who's the chump? LOL. You are entitled to CASH, at least 400% of the value of the ticket if you are more than two hours delayed, or $1,350, whichever is less. If that offer is unacceptable, refuse it, and sue for actual damages.
“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 am a conservative, libertarian-type. I support the right of businesses to determine who their customers are. However, once a business has offered a product or service, prepared a contract using their own words (even if some are in order to meet legal requirements), and accepted payment for their product or service, the contract needs to be met or peacefully renegotiated.
This has nothing to do with liking or not liking the company, watching a video, or the media (really don’t pay attention to them). Likewise it has nothing to do with whether or not the passenger involved is a degenerate or a saint. It has everything to do with expectations in a commercial context. I fly a lot, and could easily see myself in the position of being on a flight that I needed to complete (for any reason - whether to meet with a client or see a sick family member) and suddenly be in the position of being singled out for removal from the plane while others continue on. This was not a mechanical failure, not a weather delay. This was a simple case of economics, and the airline used its position of power to arbitrarily demand people off the plane in favor of other people - in complete violation of the contract I had agreed to (without any opportunity to negotiate that contract).
If they had a problem with needing to get someone of higher priority in their eyes to the destination, they could have delayed boarding and got things resolved in compliance with the contract terms. They failed to do that, boarded the plane, then absent a valid contract position simply strongarmed their will on the passengers - after no one accepted their offer then telling the passengers the plane would not leave until 4 people got off. Threats and intimidation, not a good practice.
Comparison to liberals is backwards. Liberals are always ready to sacrifice individual rights for the collective. That was what happened in this case, and which those who attack the individual passenger here are suggesting. They suggest he should not have stood his ground, it delayed everyone. They suggest he should have simply got off the plane and sorted it out later, simply comply with the “almost a cop” airplane “police” - who have now been banned from United planes. Sorry, I respect law enforcement, several members of my family have been law enforcement officers - but in this case United called in the local goon squad. Several people have suggested that if the actual police had been called and involved, they would simply have told United it was their problem - there was no offense and nothing to arrest anyone for.
I am a capitalist - let the free market decide. United had a contract, they wanted out. All they had to do was offer more money. One couple named the price, they laughed instead of negotiating with them or raising the offer a little to see if there were any other takers. When I have not been time constrained, I have taken voluntary bumps. Someone would have gone, but instead they chose to simply violate the contract and authorize muscle to come in and take an individual off - without strictly limiting what that muscle could do. Very bad form.
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.