Posted on 04/14/2017 10:48:36 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
HEY STUPID PEOPLE
THE AIRLINES SOMETIMES *NEED* TO MOVE A PILOT AND CREW
STOP PLAYING LAWYER
THEY HAVE EVERY “LEGAL RIGHT” TO REMOVE ANYONE FROM AN AIRPLANE FOR ANY REASON_ EVEN IF THE PILOT JUST DOES NOT LIKE THEM
Several of us noted this in the original thread(s) the other day. The boilerplate language that you agree to when you buy a ticket uses specific language for just this reason.
they needed to offer him 4x value of the ticket in cash and/or limit to $1300 in addition to the voucher. They didn’t follow their own written procedures and that’s why they’re in a world of sh#t
I’ve been minimizing comment on this fiasco and just enjoying the show, but I agree with you. That airplane is private property. If at any time on the ground they decide not to serve a customer, they have the legal right to ask that person to leave (just like a restaurant, or like a girl who invites you over for “dinner” and changes her mind before dessert). When they asked him to leave, he was supposed to leave. It may end their business relationship permanently, but that is their right since the airplane is their property.
And you are so certain you know what applies in this heavily regulated industry?
Section H.
Show us, Mr. Smarty K.
In any case, the people who want to play lawyer or judge should be citing precedent. In other words, similar cases that have made it to the appellate level.
In general, people should cooperate peacefully and then try the courts if they think they’ve been wronged. Even if Dao gets money, the whole world knows what a pervert he is and that he lost his medical license for illegally prescribing drugs.
I love the way the author limits the grasp of the issue to “thoughtful” people only. We have a lot of the other kind responding to this incident.
United is going to have write the former passenger known as Dr. Dao a check and that settlement will be in the millions of dollars.
Too bad for UA this wasn’t a middle aged white guy with a MAGA hat, it would be a big help.
Please point out your legal rationale here. The author of this piece made a specific legal citation. Please attempt the same.
Stating a belief in what you think the law should be is no substitute for citing what the law actually says.
and what if someone asked for a gay cake?
IMO airlines should be allowed to overbook. However, if there are more passengers than seats I don’t think they should be allowed to boot anyone involuntarily. They should be forced instead to offer higher and higher amounts of cash (not vouchers) until they find sufficient volunteers. I don’t care if the bidding gets to $50k.
That would allow the airlines to book fully and maximize profits, but also incentivize them to not take the practice too far. Which they do now.
And your, "stop playing lawyer" is funny considering the company is trying frantically to cover it's nakedness with the pages of fine print that was written by lawyers.
Where did you get your law degree?
He paid for a service. The airline failed to provide such service for tae consideration that was paid to them.
Has nothing to do with private property. It is contractual law.
Uh, no. He paid them money and at that point entered into a contract with United.
Evidently if you turn into a screaming mee-mee you automatically win.
We don't know for certain if this was the case here or not... the CEO implied it was, but we don't yet know.
I do know that the union is powerful, and the CEO last Fall agreed to a new contract with them that gave a lot away to the union... including making it easier for employees to get free rides for vacations, family and friends, etc.
The attitude within United might be tipping more and more in favor of the sacred union employees' rights over the rights of their paying customers.
I heard United is adopting a new slogan:
“You are now NOT free to move about the cabin”
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.
The fact that the flight was not overbooked may seem trivial, or pedantic, but there is very important legal distinction to be made. There may not be a difference in how an airline (typically) responds when it needs additional seats, such as asking for volunteers who wish to give up their seat for a voucher or cash. But there is a legal difference between bumping a passenger in the instance of overselling a flight versus bumping a passenger to give priority to another passenger. Any thoughtful person can see the problem that arises if an airline were allowed to legally remove one fare-paying passenger to allow for another passenger it prefers.
Since the flight was not actually overbooked, but instead only fully booked, with the exact number of passengers as seats available, United Airlines had no legal right to force any passengers to give up their seats to prioritize others. What United did was give preference to their employees over people who had reserved confirmed seats, in violation of 14 CFR 250.2a. Since Dr. Dao was already seated, it was clear that his seat had already been “reserved” and “confirmed” to accommodate him specifically.
A United Airlines spokesperson said that since Dr. Dao refused to give up his seat and leave the plane voluntarily, airline employees “had to” call upon airport security to force him to comply. However, since the flight was not overbooked, United Airlines had no legal right to give his seat to another passenger. In United Airline’s Contract of Service, they list the reasons that a passenger may be refused service, many of which are reasonable, such as “failure to pay” or lacking “proof of identity.” Nowhere in the terms of service does United Airlines claim to have unilateral authority to refuse service to anyone, for any reason (which would be illegal anyway).