Posted on 04/13/2017 8:27:52 AM PDT by ColdOne
An attorney for Dr. David Dao, the passenger at the center of the United Airlines incident, said that there will likely be a lawsuit as a result of the incident.
"I think corporate America needs to understand that we all want to be treated in the same manner with the same respect and the same dignity that they would treat their own family members. If they do that, wouldn't it be great? So, will there be a lawsuit? Yeah, probably," attorney Thomas Demetrio said during a press conference on Thursday.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnbc.com ...
I’m close to being a Million Mile flyer on United - I’ll hit it in another 6 weeks or so. I doubt that my flights will see any difference in available seats (typically there are none). And yes, I go through ORD a lot.
.
>> “ Dao violated the terms of the contract on his ticket.” <<
Better get new reading glasses!
They can prevent boarding, but once boarded, one can be requested to delay, but cannot be forced to.
.
Not really, airlines must comply with their contract of carriage. In this case, the UAL employees were passengers not aircrew. They have the same rights as any other passenger -- but no special rights.
In this case, under no analysis did UAL comply with their contract of carriage. Accordingly, they breached the contract and violated Federal law.
Airlines are common carriers, as such they have special privileges, rights and duties that go beyond normal private enterprises.
You're probably right. You can bet their computers are already configured so that he can never fly with them again, though.
“I’ll bet the money will come right out of Munoz’s pay.”
The CEO had very little to do with this event, until he opened his mouth.
For that, cane him, bare ass, not too many strokes.(Remember his HA)
The caning officer to be of Chinese ancestry.
Prime time broadcast on all channels.
The fake cops, gate agent, whoever wrote this policy...
A few more whacks; late night pay for view.
Proceeds going to the Society for Brain Damaged Welders.
That attorney reminded me of the guy who played the Wizard of Oz. What a surreal press conference. He was going on and on about needing to change the culture of bullying, rudeness etc.
.
You imagined that post right out of an orifice that sees no light!
.
On its face this makes no sense. Why would UAL bump four paying passengers in favor of four non-paying passengers?
As I've speculated on this thread, United was almost certainly obligated to fly those four crew members even if they were better off keeping the paying customers happy.
I don't want to see mere speculation on this from "armchair experts," but I'd be curious to hear from people with a legal background and/or airline industry background who might be able to answer this question: What happens if an airline is faced with a situation where they have two competing "contracts" at work -- their obligations to their passengers and their obligations to their crews?
ordinarily plaintiff would sue UAL and the airport police, joint and several.
then, both UAL and airport police would file preliminary motions to dismiss.
the question is if airport police used excessive violence. did plaintiff violently resist? if plaintiff did not violently resist, then airport police “escalated” the violence.
It is a fourth amendment, eighth amendment, and civil rights issue.
http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/excessive-force-and-police-brutality.html
i wonder if UAL would be bold enough to file a counterclaim against plaintiff under these circumstances.
I'm sure UAL would file a counterclaim just to get Dao's insurance carrier involved as a potential source of money to pay a settlement.
United did not beat the guy up.
It'll boil down to the definition of "boarding".
They can deny boarding to deal with overbooking, but can only eject someone for other cause after then (drunk, sick, etc.)
Was he boarded or not when this happened?
.
United had no cause under contract to do anything but request volunteers to delay passage, once they had boarded the plane.
United’s options became greatly diminished once they allowed passengers to board.
Either the captain, or the chief steward made a very bad call when they made a false security call to the apt police. That was a crime (false report).
That is where it all shakes down.
United should fire either the captain, or the steward, or both, because they screwed up big on this one.
Yep, anytime a “man” is squealing the way he was, its for attention.
If you listened to Rush yesterday, he commented on multiple videos showing another angle to this story.
My brother took in a nice pile of cash, tickets to anywhere in the US they flew, bonus miles and the next flight to Chicago.
On his return ticket he was quick to volunteer!
They gave him a voucher for US dollars.
Cost him an hour or two each way.
If you want to get technical about “boarding,” you can read the rules to say that the airline only has to ask for volunteers and offer compensation to people who have not yet boarded.
For people who have already boarded, United does not have to meet that responsibility, they can simply start canceling tickets if they are oversold.
But I think United was following the spirit of the rule when they extended the benefit of it to not only people who had not yet boarded, but also those who had boarded.
Once they ask for volunteers and offer compensation, they have met their burden. If after meeting their burden, there are too few seats they can cancel tickets.
And even if United didn’t properly follow the rules, this passenger had no right to physically possess the airframe.
When ordered to remove himself from their airplane, he needed to do that, and then later seek money damages from them for their not following the rules of the contract.
.
You’re not understanding what went down.
United lost all options at the gate.
When they gave permission to board, all of the rights and powers transferred to the passengers.
When the crew called security and claimed that a passenger had misbehaved, they broke the law, and incurred deep liability. It was a false crime report.
That is it in a nutshell.
.
.
You are grossly mistaken.
.
I’d like you to cite me the exact provisions under Federal law, under USDOT common carrier regulations, and United Airlines ticket policy to support that.
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.