Posted on 04/18/2017 11:54:41 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
That would be where United screwed up. At no point have I said United was without fault. Their actions were legal, but stupid. Both parties handled this as poorly as humanly possible.
They’ll probably wind up paying him out of court because in the end winning in court is bad PR. It’ll bring this whole thing back up again years after it’s been forgotten, and nobody sympathizes with big companies so when they do win in court that very act generates ill will. It’s kind of sad this guy is gonna get a fat check for acting like a baby, but that’s how it goes.
Which is exactly why UAL has changed their crew scheduling rules that a dead-heading crew member needs to be at the gate at least 60 minutes prior to departure.
Dao wasn’t even belligerent, much less acting like a child:
United Airlines: New video suggests Dr. David Dao was not “belligerent” before removal
If Dao asks for enough in the way of damages, and tries to attach liability to UAL for his injuries, I would not be surprised at all to read that United argued in its legal briefs that Dao was a Rule 21 passenger. But as long as he is "reasonable," I figure United will go along with him being entitled to damages, be they Rule 25 or plain old "breach of contract" damages.
He refused to leave. That very act is belligerent and childish.
Dao had to see patients at the hospital at 8am the next morning. He faced professional repercussions if he failed to make his rounds.
I quit flying in 2002 because of the way you are treated. I didn’t throw a tantrum and refuse to leave.
I think they’ll wind up paying him a lot just to make him STFU. They’re not going to worry about rules, other than the gag order in their settlement agreement. There’s no margin in going to court, takes too long, generates too much bad PR. Heck given how corporate life is it’ll probably be a different CEO by the time it hit court and the new CEO sure won’t want that trouble, pay him, make sure there’s timed payments so he’s insensitive to keep it zipped, and move on.
The CEO of United, Dao’s fellow passengrrs, and video all say/show he was non-belligerent.
If they tell you you must get off (and this is against your wishes), they MUST compenstate you in addition to getting you on the next flight with available seats. For an overnight, the compenstation is 400% of the fare value (in the form of a check) or $1350, whichever is less. That is in addition to getting you there, and if you want, you can demand ane will get an "involuntary refund" for the price of your fare.
Once you are in that "involuntary" stage, you are in the driver's seat in negotiating with the airline.
-- Still, they'll now wind up paying him a lot of cash. --
I bet they pay their lawyers more to defend this case, than they end up paying Dao.
On what charges? From my (and other's) reading of the contract of carriage, he was absolutely within his rights to refuse to give up his seat. The police would have had no legal basis for arresting him.
Have we come to the point that we are willing to let the government and corporations have arbitrary power over us, without any basis in law? Even though the airlines have bought off their captured regulators to the point that the passenger almost no power whatsoever in the terms of the contract of the ticket, with a regular part of their standard operating procedures such that in almost any other business, would be prosecuted as outright fraud, yet they were still on the wrong side of that slanted 'contract', which is barely worthy of the name.
FWIW:
United 'clarifies' that Flight 3411 was not oversold
United says Flight 3411 wasn't overbooked. It just had no open seats left
I've noticed a great number of posters here conflate "breach of contract" with "illegal." Just saying, I bet your remark is met with objection.
I know what you mean, I think, that UAL can remove Dao from its plane with no penalty other than that associated with breach of contract.
Again:
the simple act of refusing to leave IS belligerent.
When your kid lays on the floor refusing to move is that belligerent? Of course it is. When college students stage a sit in are they being belligerent? Again, of course. It is quarrelsome, antagonistic, and contentious, behavior. Period. You don’t have to be making noise or being physical, the direct act of refusing to comply IS belligerent.
Thank you!!! Bookmarking this
‘From my (and other’s) reading of the contract of carriage, he was absolutely within his rights to refuse to give up his seat.’
The CEO of United agrees with you.
Well we obviously disagree.
You CAN'T be serious....
Again, Oscar Munoz would not have gone on the public record saying Dao was totally innocent of wrongdoing if Dao had been belligerent. Munoz specifically noted that Dao was seated in his assigned place, and had every right to be there.
” ... it’s well known at this point that the flight he’d booked a ticket for wasn’t oversold as much as United wanted to transport four crew members to Kentucky in order to staff a flight the next day”
The four crew members were from a partner airline, not United employees.
There are many other false statements in this screed, including the claim that Robert Samuelson is an economist. He is not, but he pretends to be one at the Washington Post.
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.