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 ...
” I was shocked that purchasing a seat isn’t a real contract anymore.”
It hasn’t been in decades, since at least the 1960’s. This isn’t new. I also hate that they can sell a seat but they can also sell it to someone else. That’s seems like fraud to me.
The pilot never got involved. The pilot was not the one who ordered Dao off the plane.
Sounds like paying lobbyist millions of dollars to get laws written more to your liking really works.
The plane wasn’t oversold. United’s own guidelines provide no mechanism for ejecting an orderly, non-drunk passenger who has already been boarded.
This may be one of the exceptions to that rule - when they tried to buy him off the plane with $800 or so, they kind of admitted that he had a right to be on it. Asshole or not, he may make a lot from their screw ups.
“The pilot never got involved. The pilot was not the one who ordered Dao off the plane.”
Yes, the pilot was involved. You didn’t see it, but don’t believe for a second the pilot knew nothing of what was going on.
“own guidelines “
Guidelines are not law. Get over it.
Well, if we want to get all technical about it, it wasn’t United, but an affiliate of United, Republic airlines, that deplaned Dao. Also, if the airline was using Rule 25, why did they bother to offer compensation?
Your assumption that the pilot was involved is non-factual. You can’t make it true simply by stating it.
There is no law requiring the airline to eject a lawfully boarded passenger. Their own guidelines detail the circumstances under which such people can be deplaned. Dao met none of the requirements.
Not at all. As has been pointed out from the very first thread on this, they could have offered cash money for volunteers to take the next flight and increased the increments until they had volunteers. Back in the eighties when I flew a lot that was a standard practice.
good one
I doubt this one will see a court.
Hope they disclose the $$ amount and then the appeal date and appeal ruling.
If so it will be around the end of Trumps 2nd term if not later
someone else on another thread wrote that the pilot is not in control until the doors are closed.
“someone else on another thread wrote that the pilot is not in control until the doors are closed.”
Beyond that, I think the poster said the plane also had to be moving as well in order for the pilot to be in command.
I read the bidding stopped at a $800 voucher. Instead of offering more to the passengers, they sent in the goon squad to remove a computer pick. It was a Sunday flight on a small regional jet. I am guessing most people on that flight had to get to work the next day, so there were a lack of takers when the bidding stopped at $800. I read the next flight wasn’t until the next afternoon.
You are the idiot—where, at any time, did you read that the pilot had Dao removed?
I have 30+ years in the travel business. This article is bovine excrement.
United was well within their legal rights to remove this pax as spelled out by the Contract of Carriage, and the Passenger Bill of Rights Act of 2011. If it was a good move Pr-wise has nothing to do with it. And, Let us not forget that three other pax got off without problem.
He also failed to follow the lawful order of flight crew members, which is a crime.
We can debate this all day, but it doesn’t change the facts.
I don’t think you read the article. Please refute it if you believe the Contract of Carriage covered United’s actions.
And as for the client,his juvenile antics are clearly indicative of a deep and profound psychiatric disorder...as does his past history.
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.