Posted on 04/13/2017 3:37:45 AM PDT by Zakeet
The person who filmed the video of a man being forcibly removed from a United Airlines flight over the weekend says security is not to blame for the situation.
"It's clearly the man's fault that security had to drag him off. He was resisting. I don't blame the security guards at all," Tyler Bridges, who captured the moment on his cellphone, told Fox Business on Tuesday.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
Right. I'm an American - not some Euro-weeny that willingly gives up their firearms and submits to dictats from some panty-waist in Brussels.
“Customers pay in advance for a service. The airline has renegged on that agreement. Federal Trade Commission can be brought into this as it is an interstate wired sale”
I take it you think this is the first time this has happened?
This isn’t a land contract, signed by multiple parties, and certified by a public notary. As long as they refund your ticket price, there isn’t a theft that has taken place.
Like how is this any worse than the times when a whole flight in canceled because of mechanical problems or weather delays? Those people paid in advanced too.
For all of them they are inconvenienced at worse.
That was a good summary. The lawyers Dao has retained are being described as “high-powered.” Those are the kind of lawyers who don’t accept dicey or frivolous cases. They took Dao’s case because they see a huge payday. Anyone who thinks otherwise haven’t seen what this type of lawyer can do with a bloody, hospitalized 69 yo dr-turned-patient.
1) I thought he was a doctor needed for some sort of surgery? Now he’s a feeble senior citizen?
2) well I’m sorry they didn’t sweeten the pot enough, but that is neither here nor there.
3) which isnt a new policy, and I wish people would stop pretending they never heard of this happening. This even happens on Greyhound busses.
4) They could have/ should have. Guess what? This is what they picked to make sure they all got there at the same time to avoid any unforeseen delay that would make keep them all from arriving when they are needed.
It's one thing to stand your ground when you're at home or even in a public place. But when you are in a place that is owned and operated by someone else (your place of employment, a restaurant or movie theater, a passenger aircraft, etc.) you have to adopt a completely different mindset. If a person representing the owner asks you to leave, it's best to get up and leave even if you think you're right in that particular situation.
How can you tamper with a witness who hasn't been identified as a witness ... in a lawsuit that hasn't (yet) been filed?
If they refunded what I paid, and gave me the gift certificate. I will be pissed, but I will leave, write a bad review and never come back.
It is a private restaurant. They can be a retarded as they want.
You want to sit there and refuse to leave, then you are trespassing.
Like it or not, private businesses have the right to ask you to leave.
Maybe, maybe not. If the UA employees are pilots, then getting to Louisville may have been time sensitive in order for the pilots to meet FAA regulations that require 10 hours of rest and 8 hours of uninterrupted sleep between shifts.
Like how is this any worse than the times when a whole flight in canceled because of mechanical problems or weather delays? Those people paid in advanced too.
I understand what you are saying. But, there have been times when you have paid in advance for a rock concert. The show may be canceled due to a huge blizzard, or the main act was sick in the hospital. People understand those situations. But, when you are sitting in your seat, and they come and tell you you have to leave and give up your seat to someone else? We know airlines do this, but it is up to the airlines to make it right. IMHO the airline needs to be the one to feel the pain by offering enough incentive to get volunteers, whatever that takes.
Read the fine print of your ticket to see what rights you voluntarily agree to give up to the airlines, in addition to the right to be treated fairly by them.
Given my experience, the airlines employees are allowed to lie to customers, even when it’s obvious they are doing so.
“resisting”
That was the man’s “crime”?
The whole affair was United’s fault. United should have BOUGHT their 4 standby crew members tickets on another airline leaving near the same time, going the same way, so they’d be where they wanted them later on.
Alternatively, they should have kept offering more money until enough passengers voluntarily gave their seat up.
Maybe the crew should have confiscated all phones first, and then dragged that uncooperative, belligerent, crybaby s.o.b. off the plane like waterlogged bag of rice.
/s
Call it pro-active witness tampering, then... it’s pretty obvious to all that a lawsuit is coming.
I saw a video yesterday of the run-up to this man’s dragging and assault. The only resisting he was doing was saying “no”.
This is my point also. Perhaps if United offered cash instead of crappy, restricted vouchers, volunteers would have surfaced. I’d have jumped up for $800 cash, hotel, and flight the next day.
Would that the FAA/Airlines/Airline UNIONS recognize that the passengers are all likewise DUE the amount of rest they have afforded themselves in their original travel plans.
Why did the airline wait until the last minute to shuffle these employees there? Their own screw up in this matter is neither MY emergency nor my concern.
United has inconvenienced me by making me wait 12 hours for my plane which through their own poor planning was set to do a full day of travel before making my flight (because the plane’s schedule was that far behind).
Show me instances of the BLM agitators being kicked out of restaurants. They harassed customers for hours and I don’t recall reports that they even made purchases to warrant their presence there.
Unforseen delay. There’s a laff!
“They offered what they did. They seriously only really have to offer the price of the ticket.”
Uh, no.
The airline sold a ticket and made a contract with the passenger. United’s Contract of Carriage (COC- required by 14 CFR 253 -often referred to as the “fine print”) includes many terms resulting from Federal Government regulations created after a Ralph Nader lawsuit where he had lost his seat. There are two distinct sections: Rule 21 entitled “Refusal of Transport,” and Rule 25 entitled “Denied Boarding Compensation” that will come into play in the upcoming lawsuit.
United cited Rule 25 incorrectly - while there are several issues with this rule such as the order for determining the losers (”may be determined based on a passenger’s fare class, itinerary, status of frequent flyer program membership, and the time in which the passenger presents him/herself for check-in without advanced seat assignment” while in this case they did a “lottery”) the passengers had in fact already boarded (and been seated) and could not be forced from their seats (they could have volunteered - free market solution - but United wasn’t willing to let the free market decide).
Rule 21 does address removal of a person from an aircraft for many reasons. None were cited by United. The fact he refused an illegal order and resisted will not be sufficient.
You state “This policy is common on lots of airlines, and is an open secret....” All airlines have a COC, what their policies are in implementing the COC is a big question. Taking someone off after boarding is quite different than denying them boarding and whatever their policies provide to be in compliance with federal laws and regulations. Their rights to take a passenger off after boarding are limited, in United’s case by their COC rule 21.
In his initial comments, the CEO said “established procedures were followed.” Wow - all I can say is the CEO just admitted that their own procedures are not consistent with their contract. Personally, I think he is probably correct in that over the last several decades since the Nader lawsuit United’s procedures evolved to the point a major correction is needed. And will likely be mandated by Congress at some point during the litigation that will severely impact, if not bankrupt, United.
Is that Ric Flair?
Hard to see under all that customer service covering him.
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.