Posted on 04/13/2017 11:44:28 PM PDT by SteveH
Like all airlines, United has a very specific (and lengthy!) contract for carriage outlining the contractual relationship between the airline and the passenger. It includes a familiar set of provisions for when a passenger may be denied boarding (Rule 25: “Denied Boarding Compensation”).
When a flight is oversold, UA can deny boarding to some passengers, who then receive compensation under specific guidelines. However, Dao was not denied boarding. He was granted boarding and then involuntarily removed from the airplane. What does the contract say about that?
It turns out that the contract has a specific rule regarding “Refusal of Transport” (Rule 21), which lays out the conditions under which a passenger can be removed and refused transport on the aircraft. This includes situations where passengers act in a “disorderly, offensive, abusive, or violent” manner, refuse to comply with the smoking policy, are barefoot or “not properly clothed,” as well as many other situations.
There is absolutely no provision for deplaning a seated passenger because the flight is oversold.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsweek.com ...
Give me a break. This was a common commercial air fight. We are making way to much of it. That is the problem, everyone assumes every confrontational situation is equivalent the Holocaust. He was simply asked to leave the plane not get into a boxcar and go to the gulag.
OK. In southeast asia, ethnic chinese were often prominent members of the merchant class in a host country such as vietnam.
In this case, apparently the police were not called or did not arrive in time. at least the real police were not called or did not arrive in time. so what happened was that some people showed up who were in police like uniforms. they were referred to as police and they did not deny it, but they were not actually police. the policy was to wait until police showed up but the police did not come, so the people who did show up beat up Dao and dragged him out when they should have waited for the police.
He got beat up and tossed off, yes. I would not say that he “lost” yet.
the sheriff might tase and arrest you.
I see. Well, this puts another perspective on the issue. Frankly, I think it will be settled before the case goes to court.
PR wise, the airline has EVERY interest in getting this off the interwebs.
That’s interesting. Thanks for the info.
You know Dao has been referred to as United’s new experiment with Chinese take-off.
That's going to add a few more bucks to what Chicago will pay out.
the question we have been discussing is not damages but whether or not the passenger was within the law and did nothing wrong - he didn’t
again another one of your dumb analogies that has NOTHING to do with the context of the situation
IMO, the discussion is pretty loosey goosey, in that even the phrase "within the law" hasn't been well defined.
My point was that if one views "within the law" in light of the contract of carriage, the passenger is entitled to compensation if the contract is followed, and he is entitled to damages if the contract is breached. Comparing the outcomes of opposing sides in the argument (is he "within the law" or not) might be helpful.
What is a person entitled to if they are "illegally" removed from a flight?
The sheriff deputies don't normally tase people that are acting a sane rational way.
You are a liberal moron for being so arrogant that you think I said. Reading comprehension is not your strong suit. Public school?
Don’t Kno what what makes you so stupid but it really works.
“My point was that if one views “within the law” in light of the contract of carriage, the passenger is entitled to”
At a minimum, in law, is contract law, and a ticket is a purchase of a contract, for a flight, and United has a clear description of the fine print of that contract. It has two conditions that merit understanding. One informs the passenger they can be refused boarding, with United’s over booking as one the valid reasons. The other informs the passenger why they could be involuntarily removed. To resolve United’s over booked situation is not one of them.
When two parties have a contract and one violates that contract, they have acted against the law, as they had no legal grounds for their action. The basic of our laws begin with the upholding of our contracts.
The passenger did not have to, under law, wait to “settle” for the violation of his contract. He did not act outside of the law. United did.
If you falsely have you arrested for stealing from you, when in fact I did not steal from you, you have compounded a dispute with me into suborning the legal authorities to uphold your false claim. Again United violated the law by having the Chicago police enforce a command to a passenger that was not legally supported in the first place.
So maybe you haven’t actually the article, or the Contact of Carriage.
Here’s what he and several other lawyers, including a couple who specialize in FAA law say.
It turns out that the contract has a specific rule regarding “Refusal of Transport” (Rule 21), which lays out the conditions under which a passenger can be removed and refused transport on the aircraft. This includes situations where passengers act in a “disorderly, offensive, abusive, or violent” manner, refuse to comply with the smoking policy, are barefoot or “not properly clothed,” as well as many other situations.
There is absolutely no provision for deplaning a seated passenger because the flight is oversold.
According to this, once he was allowed onboard and seated, the rules changed, and they can’t just pick out a passenger at random and throw him off the plane except under very specific circumstances. And needing a seat for another employee isn’t one of them.
Using your description of "lawful" as being focused on abiding by the contract, and giving at least for argument's sake that you are correct, United breached the contract.
As a matter of reality, the breach means he does have to wait to settle, because United did not carry him to his destination, on the flight he had a guaranteed reservation on. That is water over the dam. The bell can't be unrung.
United will argue that the contract specifies the compensation due to a passenger who is involuntarily removed, see Rule 25.
For argument's sake, take the opposing point. United's action was OUTSIDE the contract, and United breached the contract.
Contract law is loaded with cases that get into the damages due on breach of contract. I think the contract of carriage has a bit that might apply (Rule 28), but even if that doesn't apply, the passenger has a claim for damages for not being carried on that flight.
If there had been no altercation (just to get that out of the calculus for discussion, it makes things more complicated), and we take as a given that UAL "broke the contract," what do you figure his damages might amount to?
It does not matter what United’s contract says about compensation for being involuntarily removed. It did not meet its own conditions for a valid reason for involuntarily removing anyone.
I don’t care how much the guy gets for damages.
This is one case, out of the ordinary for me, I hope the civil judgement case is a jury trial.
You can take the chance that the sheriff takes you into custody if you take the first swing at your renter because you feel he or she is "trespassing."
I'll stand back and hold your beer.
“”So, UA makes you mad, and you won’t fly them anymore?
You just eliminated 25% of your choices. And the others know this.””
For many years, when possible, I have avoided flying the 4 major airlines and have opted for the airlines like Jet Blue, Allegiant, Frontier, or Southwest. It has been my observation that the non-major airlines provide better prices, better planes, and better service.
UAL and the other majors have been in trouble for years and the incident at Chicago is not good.
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.