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 ...
No one cannot seek recourse after the fact because by getting off they have volunteered and will get whatever United has offered. That is the whole point. Dr Dao wanted to get home to his patients. He didn’t want money. Someone else would have, apparently someone else did & offered but the crew had a hard on.
That behavior was after the “cops” had already caused head trauma. Are you sure your an M.D.? His symptoms are classic for TBI.
Then why do the United CEO state that United was completely in the wrong and Dr Dao actions were noncontributory?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dk2Y_VL5e7s
No but being beat down and having a TBI does. United caused the TBI and admits the same. The behavior after the injury is not a refection on Dr Dao but on United and the “cops” they called.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dk2Y_VL5e7s
Ha Ha, not a lawyer either then. $10 million has already been offered and refused. The plaintiff’s lawyer will take great pleasure in pointing out the conditions of carriage that you have not read to allow the jury to understand the clear right of Dr Dao to refuse to volunteer.
Instead of relying on posters who agree with your views why not read the conditions or carriage I have posted a link to several times? There is no substitute for looking things up before getting set on an opinion.
It all depends how much you really needed to get tho your destination that night.
“In violation of the lease agreement”
Dr Dao was not in violation. They had not right to remove him without cause under their terms.
They were not in uniform unless saggy jeans is in uniform.
Post 189 is a tissue of lies, sorry.
I have the following rules of thumb when it comes to travel:
1. For business travel, I'll drive to any destination I can reach in one day's drive (typically 15+ hours for me).
2. For personal travel, I'll drive to any destination I can reach on a paved road.
3. If I have to fly on an urgent matter 1,500+ miles away, I'll try to fly in to my destination at least one day before my scheduled appointment.
Even a perfectly managed airline has to deal with a lot of disruptions that are totally out of its control.
The conditions of carriage aren’t very relevant to me in this case. I think we’d all agree that the issue of whether United breached the contract is really secondary to how the passenger was dealt with. One reason for this is that the passenger has a responsibility for conducting himself in an appropriate manner even if he is ultimately correct under the terms of the contract.
Perhaps. I think he did and the escalation to battery puts the airline & the cops in the line of legal fire. He no more expected a beat down than the man in the moon. Others had offered to volunteer for a little more $ and he thought the airline would be reasonable since they had that obligation legally.
I agree completely with your assessment. I think if there had been a legitimate problem with the aircraft or the problems with capacity had been handled preboarding or by offering $ for real volunteers there would be no story here. just unavoidable inconvenience, a by product of traveling by air.
Why not? In the video clip from the guy seated right behind him, he clearly tells the security staff that they'll have to drag him off the plane. LOL.
What I find rather interesting is the reaction to this vs the reaction to the cop beating down a guy in Sacramento.
The cop was suspended because the video shows excessive force, and has a good chance of being charged.
No one is talking about the cops/airport cops in the United incident.
That is the group who should be under the microscope.
I’ll have to watch my sarcasm meter very carefully... you never know who will think I want to be gagged with a silver spoon.
Claiming a guy who just wanted the transportation he had paid for is equivalent to a drug-infused criminal?
Really?
Neither point is true. He can remove himself peaceable, and claim doing so was not voluntary. It happened thousands of times last year. And in many jurisdictions, damages are not capped at the 400%/$1,350 numbers recited in the federal regulations. One fellow got $3,100 or something on that order by suing the airline. He did have to reject their offer in order to sustain the suit.
The police smashed his face into the armrest. Then they dragged him off the plane.
What are you talking about he did it himself?
United is infamous for doing things like this to their paying customers, and it’s time they paid out.
I hope he OWNS united and those cops when he is done.
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.