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.
All they really have to do is prohibit overbooking which is selling a service which may not be available and in IMHO is an unfair business practice especially since many airlines have a monopoly on many routes. Airlines will scream “we must overbook or we’ll go out of business because we’ll have to raise fares.”
The thing is, they’ll all be operating of a level planing field. Yes, fares will have to go up some, but I’ll bet not as much as the airlines would represent. The airline that works harder and can figure out how to best operate on this level playing field wins. And there it is - fair competition.
It’s simply that the airlines don’t want to have to work harder.
United’s ToS says that once you have paid, boarded and assumed your seat, there are only a very limited number of reasons you can get kicked out. Dao met none of the criteria.
If United changed their Terms of Service, and spelled out in black and white that the passenger has no right to the seat they’ve paid for, even after boarding, the airline would quickly go bankrupt. People will not book flights with an airline that tells them to their face that they can be kicked off at will—and at any time—for no other reason than that United wants to put someone else in their seat.
While Delta has plenty of shortcomings, its process for obtaining volunteers is clearly superior to United. After all that has happened with United, Delta has upped the ante a lot, giving their gate agents much more discretion in the amounts they can offer before going to the next level for higher authorizations (now up to $10k with authorization, I believe $2k without going higher).
As I understand it, the volunteer system you have described includes some other advantages. Say you volunteer to be bumped for $200, and they need more volunteers. Ultimately they have to pay the final person $800. Everyone who volunteered will get the same, $800 (vouchers, of course). Priority is then based on who volunteers first..., so advantage to volunteering and setting your minimum as early as possible. Capitalism at its finest.
” I hope a jury gets to decide this.”
UAL doesn’t want the publicity of a trial, complete with a plane load of witnesses...and perhaps too much insight into why those employees had to fly so desperately. I’m guessing a confidential settlement will be the outcome.
But I agree I would love to be wrong and let all the details come out.
Yep, but the destination check is them offering you the chance to deny to you and the airline a flight that you both really don't want. :)
Seriously, if you're on the wrong flight, there is also something very wrong with their operations because when you hand over that boarding pass, it's supposed to be verified against the flight you're about to board. Also, for obvious reasons, an incredible security lapse.
There was an old Veteran beaten to death by a VA employee and that incident didn’t draw the number of posts this incident has.
Source or Link?
“I guess we will see.”
Doubt it. I’m guessing UAL shovels alot of money to DAO, and that’s the end of it.
That's all well-and-good, except it doesn't even reach THAT plateau. The flight was not "overbooked" and United has admitted that. The flight was fully-booked by paying customers and THEN United decided, at what appears the very last minute, that one of their subsidiary airlines needed to transport four personnel to another airfield. So that doesn't meet the plain-word definition of "overbooked".
Why those chose to try to put those personnel on that particular plane, other than it was going in that direction at the time, is beyond me. And if they felt that it was THAT important for them to be aboard that particular plane, they should have made compensatory offers until they got four actual "volunteers" to deplane.
Finally, I don't believe that Chicago Airport "Police" have authority to make arrests. I know that they don't carry firearms and receive less training than a real police officer, and I don't believe that they are authorized to make "arrests". And, without being placed under arrest, I don't think that the passenger could be charged with resisting and so their use of force to remove him would not have been legally valid.
>>>>Yep, but the destination check is them offering you the chance to deny to you and the airline a flight that you both really don’t want. :)>>>>
LOL....
By the way, according to this article, they take it even further. As long as the plane hasn’t left the “gate” .......they can deny boarding. It’s legal. Yes, not popular, but legal. So they take it farther than I do. Even after the door is closed......if that plane is still at the gate, you can still get the boot. Just the facts maam......just the facts. :)
http://www.popularmechanics.com/flight/airlines/news/a26010/united-airlines-bump-passenger-rights/
That’s your definition of boarding. If United wanted it to be theurs, they’d need to spell it out in their ToS. Otherwise, each passenger is boarded upon assuming their assigned and paid-for seat.
There is another option that used to be available - stand by tickets.
See above. Thanks.
Dao isn't the first to protest the effects of airline overbooking or involuntary denial of passage or whatever label you want to put on the incident. Overbooking isn't going away, and neither is the possibility of being removed from an aircraft "for no good reason" after having taken your seat.
I'm not going to defend the way force was applied to remove him, nor am I going to defend his decision to escalate the situation to the point where a credible application of force was brought into the incident.
-- I believe it is the right and indeed duty of a citizen to resist the power of the state. --
So do I. But this isn't a "power of the state" incident. It's a shitty service incident, one that would have delayed Dao by a day or so, for whatever that is worth.
-- UA will never stipulate anything and they'd be insane to let this get in front of a jury. --
Tough call, and part of litigation strategy. UAL will piss of the jury if it argues it had every right to remove him (even if that is true as a matter of law), and conceding the point just shifts them to breach of contract. Damages are going to be about the same either way, whether he is a Rule 25 passenger who refused the offer of settlement, or a passenger who simply asserts breach of contract, you had no contractual right to remove me, but you removed me.
-- I hope when Dao wins his damages, and after paying for his extensive injuries, Dao uses the remainder to continue suing airlines on behalf of other mistreated passengers until the airlines are forced to do better than this. --
"Damages" is where the action is in this case, and I believe there are two defendants - UAL for breach of contract, and whoever controls the goons. I don't think the courts would allow much in the way of damages against UAL, with that sense being informed by a few overbooking cases that have been litigated.
I can even imagine UAL suing the goons, too, because the taint associated with the video has attached mostly to UAL.
>>>Technically, that is still considered a “denied boarding” as long as the plane is still at the gate and is permissible under the law. Just try telling that to the court of public opinion, though, once the world has seen a video like this.>>>>
From the article linked above. Not popular with the public, but apparently, United acted within the law. The Passenger was not within the law. He violated his contract. I also think he was a drama queen but that’s a different issue.
‘Finally, I don’t believe that Chicago Airport “Police” have authority to make arrests.’
You’re right. If an arrest has to be made, the Chicago Airport security guys have to call for an actual police officer.
While you are absolutely correct that UA’s goose is cooked and there is a question of how much $$$ UA will pay, there is a probably a bit more at stake for Munoz.
His initial email to UA’s employees was libel. He stated that the passenger had “become more and more disruptive and belligerent.” Untrue, as evidenced by the videos. He was calm but firm in his position that he stay on the plane. Screaming... was after the assault had begun. I wouldn’t be surprised to see a libel claim, directly against Munoz in addition to against United - thus Munoz is probably going to hang on and not resign until this is settled and he ensures that any claims personally against him will be included in the settlement.
I read an article that covered the term ‘boarding,’ yesterday, written for a law journal. I’ll take the info from that over the piece you’re promoting.
Hell, in your world, I can see you advocating tossing a passenger out of a doorway,after liftoff, should the airline deem it so.
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.