Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why United Was Legally Wrong to Deplane David Dao
newsweek ^ | 4/13/2017 | jens david ohlin

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 ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Government; News/Current Events; US: Illinois
KEYWORDS: dao; daviddao; ual; united; unitedairlines
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 361-370 next last
To: grania

” 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.


41 posted on 04/14/2017 4:05:15 AM PDT by CodeToad (If it weren't for physics and law enforcement, I'd be unstoppable!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad

The pilot never got involved. The pilot was not the one who ordered Dao off the plane.


42 posted on 04/14/2017 4:11:07 AM PDT by Fantasywriter (Any attempt to do forensic work using Internet artifacts is fraught owith pitfalls. JoeProbono)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad
"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."

Sounds like paying lobbyist millions of dollars to get laws written more to your liking really works.

43 posted on 04/14/2017 4:11:08 AM PDT by Flag_This (Liberals are locusts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad

The plane wasn’t oversold. United’s own guidelines provide no mechanism for ejecting an orderly, non-drunk passenger who has already been boarded.


44 posted on 04/14/2017 4:13:25 AM PDT by Fantasywriter (Any attempt to do forensic work using Internet artifacts is fraught owith pitfalls. JoeProbono)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: ifinnegan

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.


45 posted on 04/14/2017 4:13:44 AM PDT by trebb (Where in the the hell has my country gone?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Fantasywriter

“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.


46 posted on 04/14/2017 4:13:49 AM PDT by CodeToad (If it weren't for physics and law enforcement, I'd be unstoppable!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Fantasywriter

“own guidelines “

Guidelines are not law. Get over it.


47 posted on 04/14/2017 4:14:36 AM PDT by CodeToad (If it weren't for physics and law enforcement, I'd be unstoppable!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: SteveH

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?


48 posted on 04/14/2017 4:16:18 AM PDT by Moonman62 (Make America Great Again!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad

Your assumption that the pilot was involved is non-factual. You can’t make it true simply by stating it.


49 posted on 04/14/2017 4:16:21 AM PDT by Fantasywriter (Any attempt to do forensic work using Internet artifacts is fraught owith pitfalls. JoeProbono)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad

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.


50 posted on 04/14/2017 4:18:23 AM PDT by Fantasywriter (Any attempt to do forensic work using Internet artifacts is fraught owith pitfalls. JoeProbono)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: pepsionice
Once they accepted his ticket and he crossed through the door to enter the plane...they were screwed. If they’d done all this overbooking negotiation before the passengers entered the plane....it would have worked correctly.

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.

51 posted on 04/14/2017 4:31:50 AM PDT by MrEdd (MrEdd)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: GraceG

good one


52 posted on 04/14/2017 4:34:31 AM PDT by CGASMIA68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: pierrem15

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


53 posted on 04/14/2017 4:36:38 AM PDT by CGASMIA68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad

someone else on another thread wrote that the pilot is not in control until the doors are closed.


54 posted on 04/14/2017 4:38:32 AM PDT by SteveH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: SteveH

“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.


55 posted on 04/14/2017 4:40:48 AM PDT by MayflowerMadam ("If we cannot control our tempers, what has grace done for us?" Charles Spurgeon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: MrEdd

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.


56 posted on 04/14/2017 4:41:37 AM PDT by EVO X
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad

You are the idiot—where, at any time, did you read that the pilot had Dao removed?


57 posted on 04/14/2017 4:44:06 AM PDT by dinodino
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: chaosagent

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.


58 posted on 04/14/2017 4:44:07 AM PDT by tcrlaf (They told me it could never happen in America. And then it did....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: tcrlaf

I don’t think you read the article. Please refute it if you believe the Contract of Carriage covered United’s actions.


59 posted on 04/14/2017 4:46:23 AM PDT by dinodino
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: SteveH
Nope...if I was a juror in this case neither he nor his slimy lawyers would get a nickel.Being removed from the plane was more terrifying than leaving Vietnam,said the lawyer.Well,I hope that lawyer understands that only an OJ jury would buy that.Any other kind of jury would recognize that with that comment the lawyer "jumped the shark".

And as for the client,his juvenile antics are clearly indicative of a deep and profound psychiatric disorder...as does his past history.

60 posted on 04/14/2017 4:54:57 AM PDT by Gay State Conservative (Deplorables' Lives Matter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 361-370 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson