Posted on 04/14/2017 10:48:36 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
With or without a sign, any business should have an almost unlimited right to refuse service. We then have an almost unlimited right to boycott that business if we disapprove.
“But if the passenger told the flight crew he wanted them to bake a cake for a gay wedding? Just asking....”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3544172/posts?page=75#75
I already addressed that, because I think it is a related question: “That option to withdraw or to refuse to enter into a contract includes baking a cake celebrating a parody of the sacrament of marriage.” The unwanted passenger doesn’t even have the First Amendment protection that keeps government from intervening, the way that bakers following their religious values should have that added protection.
Contracts are voluntary and can be broken by either party prior to completion, subject to the written, verbal, and common law conditions of the contract. I have cancelled contracts in progress over things as small as rudeness to my employees (granted, I had other demand for their work, the rudeness was extreme, and the sponsor of the work was a lefty I wanted to see lose the election, but extreme rudeness was the final straw).
I think the cops had gone into "resisting arrest" mode at that point.
PEDANTIC! I’m pretty sure it’s the airlines right to remove any passenger. For example, how else would American Airlines be able to guarantee its top elite (Executive Platinum) a seat on any flight?
No law told United they had to beat a customer up. If United can’t disposition their crews that is just one more strike against them.
“Do you chase ambulances in your spare time?”
No, nor am I in the practice of any type of personal injury or other law at issue here. I have been a frequent flyer for many years on multiple airlines, and thanks to this event have actually read the Contract of Carriage for United and other airlines I fly. I think a lot of people are now more aware of their rights, which is not a bad thing (except for the airlines that abuse passenger rights and bully them into thinking they have none because of the “fine print”).
Why didn’t United just use another airline via codeshare for either the crew or the involuntary passengers? Were there no other flights to Louisville in time for the flight the next day?
I figured out what they can do in the future to avoid the situation.
They start out with a $100 offer for Compensation.
If nobody takes the $100 they raise the offer by ONE DOLLAR a Minute, telling the Passengers that the Plane will not depart until someone blinks, I mean “volunteers” to disembark.
Yes, that is why I am not an Airline CEO. Well, one of many reasons. #;^)
No Airline Personnel touched the Guy, just sayin’.
Think of Diane Feinstein running the Country and deciding that the Second Amendment was a mistake. She won’t kick down your Door to confiscate your Guns, she will send some Jack Booted Thugs to do it.
Again, just sayin’... LOL
Part of the purpose of law and government is to enforce contracts. The purchase of an airline ticket is a contract. That contract can only, legally, be broken under specific circumstances. This article is saying those circumstances were not legally met. Ergo, homie gettin’ paaiiiid.
Kick out the last people to check in.
That will provide incentives for people to check-in early.
This will never see the inside of a court room.
When someone in authority asks you to leave you leave. All of what you are pointing out is still unknown and you certainly don’t leave it up to each passenger to do a legal analysis in their seat while they are being asked to leave the plane. Cooperate and sort it out after, that’s the rule. If you don’t, the authorities may use reasonable man to remove you and that can incudee physical force.
Just look at the number of people on any thread and count those for and against the Doctor. As you rightly noticed in your capitalized rants, more are for him. Many more.
Now transfer that statistic to a seating jury.
The optics are so bad on this one it doesn’t matter what the law is or isn’t. The damage has already been done and the poor PR and press stories will continue unless United settles this one fast.
These particular thugs, who are all suspended, went into, ‘Let’s bash his head, give him a concussion, break his teeth and nose, and—since he’s 69 yo and non-aggressive—let’s tase him point blank,’ mode.
Agree.
Exactly! And if Mr K is right, then United has nothing at all to worry about. After all, they were within their ‘legal rights.’ But it is quite clear that United will end up laying this man a fair amount of money, which will be an interesting result considering Mr K’s adanamnt statements that what United did was ‘legal.’
United Airlines - Contract of Carriage Document
(revised February 17, 2017)
_____________________________________________________________
https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriage.aspx#sec21
Safety – Whenever refusal or removal of a Passenger may be necessary for the safety of such Passenger or other Passengers or members of the crew including, but not limited to:
Passengers whose conduct is disorderly, offensive, abusive, or violent;
Passengers who fail to comply with or interfere with the duties of the members of the flight crew, federal regulations, or security directives;
. . .
Any Passenger who, by reason of engaging in the above activities in this Rule 21, causes UA any loss, damage or expense of any kind, consents and acknowledges that he or she shall reimburse UA for any such loss, damage or expense.
https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriage.aspx#sec25
If UA’s offer of compensation pursuant to the above provisions is not accepted, UA’s liability is limited to actual damages proved not to exceed 1350 USD per Ticketed Passenger as a result of UA’s failure to provide the Passenger with confirmed reserved space. Passenger will be responsible for providing documentation of all actual damages claimed. UA shall not be liable for any punitive, consequential or special damages arising out of or in connection with UA’s failure to provide the Passenger with confirmed reserved space.
_____________________________________________________________
One could reasonably read the contract to say that United could legally remove a passenger for failing to leave the plane when asked to do so by the flight crew. One could also reasonably read the contract to say that United only owes the passenger actual, provable damages up to $1350, with no punitive damages permitted - and that the passenger owes United for the very substantial losses the airline suffered due to the passenger’s conduct.
I am willing to take that bet. I’ll counter your bet, and the loser has to make a contribution to FR. I’ll leave it to you to decide the amount to contribute ...I am flexible on amounts, and since you seem so sure that he’ll lose I’m sure it will not matter to you.
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.
The fact that the flight was not overbooked may seem trivial, or pedantic, but there is very important legal distinction to be made. There may not be a difference in how an airline (typically) responds when it needs additional seats, such as asking for volunteers who wish to give up their seat for a voucher or cash. But there is a legal difference between bumping a passenger in the instance of overselling a flight versus bumping a passenger to give priority to another passenger. Any thoughtful person can see the problem that arises if an airline were allowed to legally remove one fare-paying passenger to allow for another passenger it prefers.
Since the flight was not actually overbooked, but instead only fully booked, with the exact number of passengers as seats available, United Airlines had no legal right to force any passengers to give up their seats to prioritize others. What United did was give preference to their employees over people who had reserved confirmed seats, in violation of 14 CFR 250.2a. Since Dr. Dao was already seated, it was clear that his seat had already been “reserved” and “confirmed” to accommodate him specifically.
A United Airlines spokesperson said that since Dr. Dao refused to give up his seat and leave the plane voluntarily, airline employees “had to” call upon airport security to force him to comply. However, since the flight was not overbooked, United Airlines had no legal right to give his seat to another passenger. In United Airline’s Contract of Service, they list the reasons that a passenger may be refused service, many of which are reasonable, such as “failure to pay” or lacking “proof of identity.” Nowhere in the terms of service does United Airlines claim to have unilateral authority to refuse service to anyone, for any reason (which would be illegal anyway).