Posted on 04/18/2017 11:54:41 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
You hit the nail on the head and I could not agree more. All the Freepers here arguing UAL was right miss the point that it could happen to any of us tomorrow during the truly miserable and degrading experience we call commercial air travel....a greyhound bus with wings.
But the CEO of United says Dao was in no way at fault. On what charge would you arrest an innocent citizen? (Even if you think there is something to charge Dao with, Munoz doesn’t. In a case like this, his opinion takes precedence.)
Being in the industry I’ve read that and it goes back to when people were booking seats on different flights but not actually paying for them until they arrive at the check-in desk so airlines were flying with empty non-revenue seats.
Was thinking about him when I wrote that - and guess what happened to him?
You might be interested in a couple of legal opinions on the matter:
United Airlines Cites Wrong Rule For Illegally De-Boarding Passenger
This article deals with the concept of Dao 'tresspassing' on the airplane.
See: United Airlines' Own Contract Denied it any Right to Remove Passenger
.
Just another misdirecting nonsense post!
(Fake news)
.
.
This post is all smoke and mirrors.
None of it relates to the known facts of the case, nor to UAL’s own policies and contracts.
Wasted bandwidth.
.
Once he was identified by United that he was no longer going to fly on the aircraft, he was trespassing. Once he was trespassing and refusing to leave, he was interfering with the operation of the aircraft. The lawful order was to vacate the aircraft.
1) yes the flight was oversold. It became oversold when more passengers need seats than are available.
2) his being allowed to board is irrelevant
Zerohedge had an article saying banks are far worse than airlines. If United/Republic hadn't been so stingy, none of this would have happened. It is a big deal to get bumped at O'hare if you have to stay overnight. Nobody volunteered to take the $800 voucher.
Is the CEO of United a judge, or a LEO. Then he has no legal authority ... he has an opinion.
HAHAHA if you think that, you are naive... This man will get lots of cash out of this airline... Yes the Captain is the law on a plane and can do whatever they want, but if you think that just because you CAN do something means you should... you are a fool.
United is paying through the nose for this... and will be for quite some time.. and yes this guy will get paid a lot more than the $800 voucher he didn’t take voluntarily. United will suffer 10s if not 100s of Millions in lost revenues and brand damage from this incident... and this guy will get a payout directly as well.
United, fly the gestapo skies.
I have no basis to question your assertion. But that consent decree reads (corrrectly - matching business practice) as though the airline actually sells, takes the money, for more seats than the aircraft has, on speculation that some people will be no shows for that flight. The speculation is well founded, as the rate of overbooking is much greater than the rate of combined voluntary and involuntary denial of boarding.
I often fly on a flight other than the one I initially scheduled and paid for. Sometimes later, sometimes earlier. I like the convenience of flexibility, but the airlines are moving toward a system that binds the customer to the booked flight.
1) yes the flight was oversold. It became oversold when more passengers need seats than are available.
2) his being allowed to board is irrelevant
Dan has already shown you the proof that all these claims are wrong.
Sorry to learn of your United stock losses.
Its a stupid question. “Bumping” has gone on for over 30 years and has been declared legal. Anyone who flies knows this. You don’t have to “like” it but to deny reality is just plain stupid.
By the way, I quit flying in 2002 due to the BS at the airport. I didn’t cry and refuse to follow legal orders.
Finally someone on FR posting sensiblely about this.
Munoz has very good lawyers. By the time he declared Dao innocent, Munoz had been thoroughly briefed.
If it goes to court he’ll lose because the airline has the right to kick anybody off their plane. Now United might not want it to go to court, so they might bribe him to make it all go away.
United handled it poorly, there’s no question about that. But as they say: more than one thing can be true. It’s not either or, both parties can be pathetic douches. And the fact of the matter is Dao acted like a 3 year old who just had his baba taken away, he’s just as big an idiot as anybody at United.
Airlines can and do offer more if necessary.
The $1350 is not a maximum limit. It is a minumun threshold. If this threshold value is met or exceeded and still not enough passengers accept, airlines can start involuntary bumping without legal repercussion.
Stop reading and believing fakenews. There are plenty of knowledgeable sources (aviation law attorneys, for example) that have provided useful analysis of this issue.
.
>> “The fact of the matter is airlines have a nearly absolute right to kick people off their planes, this was a battle he could not win.” <<
Complete nonsense!
They must obey the laws, and remain in compliance with their “carrier contract,” which prohibits them from removing a passenger after admitted to the aircraft except is certain rare circumstances related to the specific passenger.
They were outside their own submitted carrier contract, and all commercial and admiralty law. (admiralty law takes over when the plane is demonstrably under way)
.
United’s rule 21 - Refusal of Transport
“Passengers who fail to comply with or interfere with the duties of the members of the flight crew, federal regulations, or security directives;” [Rule 21, section H Safety, subsection 2]
The duty of the crew was to accommodate the four airline workers to their next destination. That duty is established by United with regards to accommodating union rules and federal regulations for crews being on flights and their rest times and compliance with FAA directives.
Further, federal regulations prohibit two people from occupying the same seat for safety reasons. Thus the doctor was one of four who were identified for involuntary bumping.
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.