Posted on 04/27/2017 11:37:37 PM PDT by catnipman
"We look forward to implementing the improvements we have announced, which will put our customers at the center of everything we do."
"We breached public trust, and it's a serious breach," Munoz said in an exclusive interview earlier Thursday with NBC News' Lester Holt, adding that he had introduced changes at the company because "a circumstance like we've all witnessed should have never happened, never happened."
The airline also unveiled new policies early Thursday morning, including a promise to not use law enforcement to remove overbooked customers from planes, additional training for front-line employees and setting up an automated system that will ask passengers at check-in if they would be willing to give up their seat.
Munoz also pledged to reduce the amount of overbooking and offer up to $10,000 for customers willing to volunteer to take a later flight.
(Excerpt) Read more at nbcnews.com ...
I posted this yeaterday, but if it we me, I would want:
1. A truck load of cash
2. Lifetime Global Services status, which gets me secret access to cash in the
3. 1,000,000 United frequent Flyer Miles a year for life, that I can use to fly to Europe with my fam, first class on board Lufthansa.
4. Lifetime membership to their airport lounge
“...the settlement was fast, very fast, and that is an indicator that United paid out very close to what Dao was demanding.”
************************************************************
maybe. But the airline also has retained legal help which they pay for whether they are engaged or not. Perhaps the passenger was made a counter offer (of this I am certain” and if not accepted was told it will go too court and drag it out for as long as possible. That could amount to years and years before the passenger gets his payday.
If passenger asked for 7.5-10 million and the company offered him 1.5 million immediately then the calculation must be made by the passenger to either take the fast 1.5 million (less atty fees) or else wait maybe 5 yrs or more and collect probably more but with much higher atty fees.
A bird in the hand...as they say.
United employees didn’t touch him. Law enforcement did and if any suit was in order, it was against the LEOs. Read the code of regulations. Dao is a convicted queer drug dealer and a conartist. So are his lawyers who pushed some paper and made millions.
The attorneys most likely took the case on a 50% contingency fee. They got the same as the Dao conartist and the law officers were the liable party, not United.
Raise your hand if you were one of the freepers who tried to school us all about following airline orders because the fine print on a ticket allows them to assault and humiliate you at will. :-)
Yesterday I predicted this was in the wings when I read Munoz statement yesterday. There was so much admission and “reform” in the message, it spelled “settlement with Dr Dao” coming.
Love your truthful sarcasm towards our Freeper friends who thought, wrongly, that Dr Dao did not have law on his side and would not prevail.
“Why would United take these actions if tDao was at fault and United blameless?”
Because United was not blameless.
No. Stand up for what you think is right. Had United acted on his refusal to volunteer and raised their offer for volunteers Dr Dao would have still won, keeping his seat. United’s actions were like a bully on the playground and expected to get away with it. They didn’t.
“If I were on that plane I’d sue him.”
On what grounds??
“The jackass should have been thrown in jail.”
On what charge?
Do you realize that before Munoz made his statement yesterday about not calling the police in such situations, Chicago’s police and other airport authorities gave instructed to their airport police to not intervene in ticketing disputes or passenger actions unrelated to security or safety.
You apparently don’t read.
The very beginning of the law says:
“An individual on an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States who, by assaulting or intimidating a flight crew member or flight attendant of the aircraft,”
It means ONLY if a passenger “assaults” or “intimidates” a flight crew member. He was the one who assaulted or intimidated anyone, it was the other way around.
In fact, United own terms of service do not allow for involuntary removal of a boarded passenger, except if a behavior of a passenger causes that removal for reasons of security or safety. Wanting his seat to give it to someone else is not provided as a condition that can warrant involuntary removal of a boarded passenger.
The WRONGFUL “assault” and “intimidation” came from the United employees, who at the time were unfortunately following a rule book that actually contravened their own terms of service that apply to the ticket. Munoz rule changes are actually correcting them to conform to United’s own written terms of service.
Not worth it, because United was in the wrong and did not want the endless bad publicity leading up to the inevitable large cash payout.
These big corporations are anything but conservative (see their policies on Sodomite whatever which go back about 20+ years), not responsive to the free market, unaccountable, and perfectly willing to pilfer taxpayers’ pockets in bailouts. And yet, folks here are questioning Dao’s motives?? Unbelievable.
“United was 100% in the wrong up until the point that Dao refused to obey the orders of the flight crew to disembark (they were wrong to order him to disembark, but once they did and he refused, he was in violation of 49 U.S. Code § 46504, which comes with a 20 year prison sentence).”
1. You are wrong. You repeatedly refuse to acknowledge that it would have had to have been Dr Dao INITIATING an assault or intimidation against a flight crew member. 2. The code you cite imputes that the initial actions of “the flight crew member” are legally supported in the first place. And they were not. They were not legally supported because a contract is contract, and legally binds the parties thereto, and United’s contract, it’s terms of service DO NOT provide for involuntary removal of a boarded passenger for any cause other than for safety or security. Dr Dao was not in violation of those terms, but United WAS. Dr. Dao was not in violation of the code you cite. If you were right, then someone who refused to jump out of a plane in flight, merely on orders of the flight crew, just to vacate their seat, would still be in violation of the code you cite. You’re wrong. The code assumes any initiating action by the flight crew can itself be lawfully supported. They couldn’t, by United’s own contract.
His personal life outside of whatever took place with the airline are irrelevant to the case. So why harp on it.
Yea, that’s right United is changing their rules because they were right.
No. In fact United’s rule book for the employees actually contravened United’s own terms of service. Their own terms allowed involuntary removal of a BOARDED passenger ONLY for reasons of security and safety, not because they want to give the seat to someone else.
“Thrown in jail?
What crime did he commit?”
49 U.S. Code § 46504 - Interference with flight crew members and attendants
No they are not. The guy is a proven con artist. He resisted arrest by law enforcement and received the same treatment anyone else would get.
“49 U.S. Code § 46504 - Interference with flight crew members and attendants”
When was he arrested?
“But the airline also has retained legal help which they pay for whether they are engaged or not. Perhaps the passenger was made a counter offer (of this I am certain” and if not accepted was told it will go too court and drag it out for as long as possible. That could amount to years and years before the passenger gets his payday.”
So, if you were a legal counsel to United, you would advise that they take it to trial, a public trial?
A public trial that would be on TV and the jury as well as millions of people watching at home could watch all the video of Dao being beaten?
And then the jury could hear about from Dr. Dao and how it felt to be almost killed by police thugs that the airline called to the plane?
And all the other passengers on the plane who will say they now have nightmares and are afraid to fly and their children scream in horror at night?
Is that the trial you would have advised United to pursue?
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.