This one makes liberals lose it.
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
You’ve 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 there’s 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 Beatty’s 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, there’s no evidence of a beating, a “serious” concussion, or bodily damage beyond that lip.
>>>As I explained before, this was an analysis written by a law prof for a legal journal. It was very extensive and thorough. I’ll take it over Popular Mechanics and CNBC any time.>>>
Of course you would. It agrees with you. Another major publication disagrees with you and the Legal guy....sorry:
http://nypost.com/2017/04/11/airlines-are-legally-allowed-to-kick-you-off-their-flights/
Dao was calm and reasonable until they head-slammed him and injured his brain. If you can get no other fact right, please try to master this one. There is video to prove it.
This one makes liberals lose it.
Find something from a law prof, appearing in a legal journal, and I will give it my full attention.
First of all, I don’t dislike airlines - I fly a lot (my personal flights alone last year were sufficient for frequent flyer status).
Yes, rule 5.G does not use either the term “oversold” or “boarding” - but what it does is state an issue and how that issue will be governed. It does not say that if there is an “overbooking” it can take people off an airplane - it simply states that Rule 25 will govern that situation.
Your conclusion that if Rule 25 does not apply then “United is free to use Rule 5.G. to deny Dao his space on the plane” makes no sense.
Again, 5.G: “All of UA’s flights are subject to overbooking which could result in UA’s inability to provide previously confirmed reserved space for a given flight or for the class of service reserved. In that event, UA’s obligation to the Passenger is governed by Rule 25.”
Overbooking is either governed by Rule 25 or it’s not. Can’t have it both ways.
You state “United has a good argument to make that it “booked” the other flight crew onto this flight, resulting in Dao’s flight being “overbooked.””
One of the primary rules of construing terms in a contract is that the term will be construed against the drafter. Whatever “good argument” they could make will not be good enought - and if it was then we are back to Rule 25 being the governing rule, and thus United needed to take action before boarding Dao.
It really all boils down to a simple disagreement about whether contracts mean what they say or whether, in your view, the “owner of the aircraft” can simply ignore the contract if it wants to, anytime, and the other party will have to sue in court later. I am not an expert in common carrier law (and I believe the same can be said for you), but there are nuances that Dao’s lawyer broached in his initial statements about the duty of care United violated. I believe there may be other issues for airlines, whether by common law or regulation, that may make airlines (as common carriers) not nearly as free to break a contract unilaterally as you suggest. While United’s backtracking may be in part for public relations, I believe there is a significant element of legal review and reflection going on at their headquarters.
At this point we simply will have to agree to disagree.
>>>Find something from a law prof, appearing in a legal journal, and I will give it my full attention.>>>
Forget the dime a dozen law professor. From a spokesman with The Department of Transportation...if you read the article:
Quote: “While Monday’s incident has caused a major public-relations disaster, it could be considered perfectly legal under United and US Department of Transportation guidelines.
Airline staffers can boot anyone they want when they need to make room for crew members or a flight is overbooked, a spokesperson said.”
There was a glaring misstatement in that quote. That’s not at all unusual for government agencies; getting the facts wrong is Fedzilla’s stock in trade.
You’ll have to do better.
The owner of the aircraft can demand anyone get off the plane anytime they want for any reason.(while it is on the ground). Yo bought a ticket you don’t OWN the seat.
“Bad attitude means you aren’t kissing up to lifers here.”
Typical children today thinking that acting civil is “kissing up”.
>>>There was a glaring misstatement in that quote. That’s not at all unusual for government agencies; getting the facts wrong is Fedzilla’s stock in trade.
You’ll have to do better.>>>
If you didn’t like the Department of Transportation quote, your going to hate what a consumer protection organization says.
Don’t read it......just don’t read it. For your own good:
>>>Typical children today thinking that acting civil is “kissing up”.>>>>
Yes, because threatening people, mocking them as newbies, mocking their short stay here, warning them that they are keeping an eye on them, condescendingly advising them to stick around, they might learn something........yes, that’s just so civil.
And howdy to you too.
United’s spokesperson flat out denied that the plane was overbooked.
Try again.
bookmark
>>>United’s spokesperson flat out denied that the plane was overbooked.
Try again.>>>
Spin it anyway you want. They needed the seats and were within the law to do what they did. Uh, that’s what all the fuss is about. Try again.
I have no doubt United’s scheisters would argue the definition. There may be some precedent that include a more favorable definition. But this fine proves a plane is considered “boarded” while the cabin door is open. Thus Dao had indeed boarded the plane which should effectivly neuter the denial of boarding component.
That’s not to say Dao couldn’t still be removed for cause and that’s where United will probably focus efforts on, arguing that by simply refusing United’s compensation offer he was “disruptive” and as such has signed up for United’s re-accommodation pummeling plan.
However, if this ever gets to trial it will be obvious the United has gone all in on a FUAD approach to customer service.
United Airlines just made another policy change aimed at preventing a
fiasco like the one it endured this week.
The company said late Friday that it will now require commuting staff
and crew members to check into flights 60 minutes prior to departure.
http://money.cnn.com/2017/04/15/news/companies/united-airlines-crew-member-boarding/
******************
Well.. Well..
The beat goes on and changes are made to hopefully help alleviate future chaos.
The question becomes how do they check in .. By phone, in person or some other
process. This maybe a start but isn’t the end all soulution, IMO.
Oh yes, I get all of my legal information from Popular Mechanics instead of a law journal. Seriously? This is what you reference for legal issues? When you want mechanical advice about your car do you call your lawyer?
There's an Op-Ed in the Sun Times on this calling for fully trained regular cops rather than the crash course Aviation Police squad.
I also found some other footage from O'hare, you are correct they are the go-to for problem passengers.
Again, whether what happened was performance art or true pain, I don’t care. I’ve taken a lot of time reviewing the United (and other airlines I fly) Conditions of Carriage contract to understand what the obligations of the airlines are and the limitations on the passengers rights. Personally I think anyone who has been deplaned after boarding (as were others on this flight) were defrauded by the airline, there are only specific reasons for taking someone off but at least United has seen fit to have its gate agents fraudulently assert people must leave for whatever price they have picked.
Whatever analogy you think may apply - this was a common carrier situation where “time is of the essence.” They had a duty to protect - instead they allowed injury. I am looking at the broader context though - even if they had not injured him, they have apparently been defrauding passengers for some time with their take it (no, just take it - get off the plane now) approach, in violation of their contract. They wrote the contract. It apparently has taken a Rosa Parks incident to educate us on our rights as passengers.
This was one guy - some will point out his flaws. He will get a large reward, whether anyone thinks he is justified in receiving it or not. My hope is that the airlines will take appropriate action. Thus far it appears some concrete steps are being taken:
1. United will no longer call on the “police” (Chicago Aviation Authority) to go onto a plane. Good move, they really aren’t trained to deal with these situations and really proved the point.
2. Delta has upped the gate authority amounts for voluntary bump, and significantly raised the amount with higher approval.
Nope. Read UAL’s CoC.
“Sue me” is exactly what assholes say when they screw you over and know you don’t have the resources to do it.
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.