United Airlines Overbooks Flights - and Beats up a Paying Passenger

[Bindare_Dundat]

Thanks.

I know airlines have a tremendous amount of authority and legal power in terms of rights, but as a publicly traded company this is a bad look.

I agree with your point about not mixing morality with the law but this will play out poorly in public. The fact that they've refunded every ticket from that flight shows the general publics perception matters. But that won't matter once the courts decide.


https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-04-11/can-airlines-really-do-that-bumping-and-the-law-quicktake-q-a

The good doctor must have left his paperwork (required by federal law) in his seat.

public perception doesn't matter in the courts according hat that article.

[Simple Simon]

Can you please post the US Federal Law that applies/supports what UA did to this passenger?   

https://www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/fly-rights

read involuntary bumping 

[Simple Simon]

This is how it's always been for any world "leader/power" and it's how it will always be.

America is currently the modern Roman Empire.  Eventually some other country will take the United States place and all other country's will hate them.

Someone is always bigger,  stronger, more powerful........

We all live from our own nations propaganda.

I know, its just pellius thinks the USA is envied as opposed to feared.

[SF1900]

Not hardly so cease with being a cuntlette.  Sheesh.  You know only that which your are told. 

I seriously doubt you're this much of a mangina in the real world but if you are, you've got few, if any friends.  Get your head out of your ass or do you just enjoy eating and chewing your ill chosen words twice?

Go curl up into your fecal position in your safe space.

Why would I need a safe space? I am no longer an undergraduate college student. When I was in undergraduate college, my generation had zero to do with safe spaces. That is the current generation of college students who are pushing for "safe spaces." Try again, dingus.

We all know that you would do anything an authority figures says. Look at how you act--constantly bowing down to authority figures regarding any issue. Its very sad.

[The Scott]

The scary thing is that most people act this way, not just the older generation. The difference however is their authority. For most older folks it's the bible and the law and for today's generation it's the marketing industry & social media.

So you're afraid of this?  Really?  That is not scary, just pathetic.  I know the difference between rule and spirit of law and doubt you do not.  As for SF1900, near as I can tell he's tends toward the libtard side of the bubble.

It's called a play on words. 

If you're on a plane and are done wrong by someone that works outside the law (e.g., garden variety assholes versus not duly a appointed LEO), you're going to go limp?  You're going to go to your safe space and assume the fecal position turning inward to protect your ego and id and or will you engage your fight or flight to defend yourself and if accompanied by them, your loved ones.  Liberals go limp and count on society defending them later if there is a "later".  Men fight or if that is not possible, seek to get their loved ones out and if possible themselves.   Does this make me a tough guy?  Hell no. It makes me a  man and a realist.  I am not Chuck Norris by an stretch of imagination.

We only know as much about one another as we choose to reveal.  I despise social media and will abide by US Law and will work against the imposition of liberalism and/or sharia/liberalism as law in my country.  I will not visit nations that would enslave their citizenry to such crap.  I'm not here to be real world buddies with anyone, least of all a libtard as presented by SF1900 in his effort to appear sensitive or whatever it is he seeks here.  I don't hate such as him but neither do I think I'll ever be truly invited over for a pop and a discussion and wouldn't want to be.


I don't travel to countries that will not protect my rights.  If you get down to it, rights are privileges accorded us by governing bodies.
We will never agree on everything but so long as we are on the same page when it comes to  what I find important that is what matters to me.  Nothing magnanimous implied. 

[SF1900]

The scary thing is that most people act this way, not just the older generation. The difference however is their authority. For most older folks it's the bible and the law and for today's generation it's the marketing industry & social media.

Exactly. Its quite sad.

[Twaddle]

https://www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/fly-rights

read involuntary bumping 

"Involuntary Bumping" is a subsection under "Overbooking".  This plane was not overbooked.  This portion of the law does not pertain to Mr. Dao's situation at all, and does not support what they did.  So, again, can you post the portion of the US Federal Law that you keep referencing, that supports what UA did?   

[The Scott]

Why would I need a safe space? I am no longer an undergraduate college student. When I was in undergraduate college, my generation had zero to do with safe spaces. That is the current generation of college students who are pushing for "safe spaces." Try again, dingus.

We all know that you would do anything an authority figures says. Look at how you act--constantly bowing down to authority figures regarding any issue. Its very sad.

You know nothing but act a fool libtard for the sake of mock discussion.  Fuck off until you choose to behave as a man. And while you're at it, get a sense of humor and reality to go with a touch of what it means to be a man.   Elsewise, you're going to continue to look like a libtard asshole.

"It's very sad".  

Really. It makes you "sad"?  How pathetic.  Do you still nurse at your mother's teat or just your govenment's?    What's next, "meltdown"?  We all have a way with words, yours is lacking wit and style.  I don't find every aspect of you disagreeable but you seem hell bent on trying to make it so.  That doesn't make me "sad". It makes you pathetic.  You might want to see if Jenner's balls are available for transplant.  Anything has to be better than the pair your sporting now.

  

[The Scott]

Exactly. Its quite sad.

Being laughed at for dressing "different" in public probably makes you "sad" too.  Grow a pair and use them for something other than being kicked in 'em by your dom.

[Dave D]

public perception doesn't matter in the courts according hat that article.

I agree, use the Treyvon Martin case as an example. The public wanted Zimmerman to face the death penalty the courts thought he acted in his legal rights.


Public opinion matters to the corporate brand. They can win the case in a public legal battle but lose it in public image.


At this point I'm sure theyre asking what s most important to their brand.

If the name recognition for United Airlines is forever associated with beating customers they won't recover even if they were in their legal rightss.

 Sea World is phasing out orca's largely because of negative backlash from the Blackfish documentary. Despite the fact an orca had killed a handler during a performance and they decided to keep the park open for business. Public opinion will influence corporation.

The right action to settle sith the dr, apologize publicly, institute a new customer satisfaction program and vow to learn from this mistake. the sooner the better,  don't drag it out and on.  People forget.

Morality matters. Just because you are able to do something doesn't mean you should.

[Conker]

https://www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/fly-rights

read involuntary bumping  

just had a quick read through "involuntary bumping" . no mention of passengers being asked to leave a plane once seated. in fact most of the wording makes it pretty obvious that the "bumping" being referred to happens before the flight has been boarded.

for example
"DOT requires each airline to give all passengers who are bumped involuntarily a written statement describing their rights and explaining how the carrier decides who gets on an oversold flight and who doesn't. "

"Airlines set their own "boarding priorities" -- the order in which they will bump different categories of passengers"

Airlines may offer free tickets or dollar-amount vouchers for future flights in place of a check for denied boarding compensation"


any half competent lawyer will have a field day if the airline tries to use those regulations as any sort of defence.

[Dave D]

just had a quick read through "involuntary bumping" . no mention of passengers being asked to leave a plane once seated. in fact most of the wording makes it pretty obvious than the "bumping" being referred to happens before the flight has been boarded.

for example
"DOT requires each airline to give all passengers who are bumped involuntarily a written statement describing their rights and explaining how the carrier decides who gets on an oversold flight and who doesn't. "

"Airlines set their own "boarding priorities" -- the order in which they will bump different categories of passengers"

Airlines may offer free tickets or dollar-amount vouchers for future flights in place of a check for denied boarding compensation"


any half competent lawyer will have a field day if the airline tries to use those regulations as any sort of defence.

I think BT's point is that the airline has the right to refuse service for a variety of reasons, even after seated.

That doesn't make their actions correct.

[Conker]

I think BT's point is that the airline has the right to refuse service for a variety of reasons, even after seated.

That doesn't make their actions correct.

it doesn't work like that. that's why the there is such a long and exhaustive list of rights and regulations under each heading including "voluntary bumping".

if it were that simple there would only need to be one line "the airline has the right to refuse service at any time for any reason" .

the fact that the regulations only state circumstances that are clearly pre boarding and there is nothing mentioned about being "bumped" post boarding will make it very difficult (impossible) for the airline to use those regs to back a defence. of course it will never make court. the good dr can pretty much name his price.

[SF1900]

You know nothing but act a fool libtard for the sake of mock discussion.  Fuck off until you choose to behave as a man. And while you're at it, get a sense of humor and reality to go with a touch of what it means to be a man.   Elsewise, you're going to continue to look like a libtard asshole.

"It's very sad".  

Really. It makes you "sad"?  How pathetic.  Do you still nurse at your mother's teat or just your govenment's?    What's next, "meltdown"?  We all have a way with words, yours is lacking wit and style.  I don't find every aspect of you disagreeable but you seem hell bent on trying to make it so.  That doesn't make me "sad". It makes you pathetic.  You might want to see if Jenner's balls are available for transplant.  Anything has to be better than the pair your sporting now.

  

What does it mean to be a man?

[Simple Simon]

it doesn't work like that. that's why the there is such a long and exhaustive list of rights and regulations under each heading including "voluntary bumping".

if it were that simple there would only need to be one line "the airline has the right to refuse service at any time for any reason" .

the fact that the regulations only state circumstances that are clearly pre boarding and there is nothing mentioned about being "bumped" post boarding will make it very difficult (impossible) for the airline to use those regs to back a defence. of course it will never make court. the good dr can pretty much name his price.

the good doctor will get fuck all.

[Pray_4_War]

the good doctor will get fuck all.

I think he has already won.  90% of the country is on his side and thinks United are a bunch of dicks.

[SF1900]

I think he has already won.  90% of the country is on his side and thinks United are a bunch of dicks.

x2. They will give him a few hundred thousand and call it a day. They will do this just to appease the masses.

[Simple Simon]

I think he has already won.  90% of the country is on his side and thinks United are a bunch of dicks.

he has a bust nose missing teeth and the world knows what a squealing bitch he is.

[Conker]

the good doctor will get fuck all.

hahaha

you've heard of the phrase "you couldn't legislate for that"

that's the reason why in those regs about involuntary bumping all the wording is about who is allowed to "get on" the filght "pre boarding" etc and absolute no wording referring to being bumped post boarding. because no sane minded thought an airline would actually try to eject a passenger off a plane after being seated(for over booking)! no legislation was needed!

i tell you what i will bet you a friendly £50 that the chinese fellow will get paid. can paypal the money whoever wins??

[Twaddle]

Can you please post the US Federal Law that applies/supports what UA did to this passenger?   

https://www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/fly-rights

read involuntary bumping 

"Involuntary Bumping" is a subsection under "Overbooking".  This plane was not overbooked.  This portion of the law does not pertain to Mr. Dao's situation at all, and does not support what they did.  So, again, can you post the portion of the US Federal Law that you keep referencing, that supports what UA did?   

 

[Simple Simon]

I have no idea why you are still confused, they can and did remove him under the aviation act.

They asked him to leave, his actions after that as in him being load and unruly could be seen to upset other people on the flight, most seemed upset he was removed, but they were upset.

I have already said they shouldn't have done it and it was morally wrong to do it, but was it illegal, in my opinion, no.

[Twaddle]

I have no idea why you are still confused, they can and did remove him under the aviation act.

They asked him to leave, his actions after that as in him being load and unruly could be seen to upset other people on the flight, most seemed upset he was removed, but they were upset.

I have already said they shouldn't have done it and it was morally wrong to do it, but was it illegal, in my opinion, no.

I think you're confused.  There is nothing in the aviation act that allows UA's actions. 

The law allows airlines to deny passengers from boarding, if the flight is over booked.  The flight was not overbooked.  The law also allows airlines to remove passengers who pose a security threat, or are acting in an aggressive manner.  Mr. Dao was neither.  He was sitting calmly in his seat when they told him to leave.

So, are you going to post the portion of the aviation act that supports UA's actions?  Or, are you going to keep spouting bullshit?

[Dave D]

it doesn't work like that. that's why the there is such a long and exhaustive list of rights and regulations under each heading including "voluntary bumping".

if it were that simple there would only need to be one line "the airline has the right to refuse service at any time for any reason" .

the fact that the regulations only state circumstances that are clearly pre boarding and there is nothing mentioned about being "bumped" post boarding will make it very difficult (impossible) for the airline to use those regs to back a defence. of course it will never make court. the good dr can pretty much name his price.

So you think they have no legal ground to stand on? Their lawyers are just conceding defeat?

I'm on your side bro. United was wrong.  However if they decide not to settle, and for the life of me I can't imagine why they wouldn't, I'd have to reason that their lawyers will maintain UA acted within their legal rights.

But since you insist this was an illegal act, who has been arrested for the assault that took place?


One question I have is why did the United employees have tasers?

[Conker]

I think you're confused.  There is nothing in the aviation act that allows UA's actions. 

The law allows airlines to deny passengers from boarding, if the flight is over booked.  The flight was not overbooked.  The law also allows airlines to remove passengers who pose a security threat, or are acting in an aggressive manner.  Mr. Dao was neither.  He was sitting calmly in his seat when they told him to leave.

So, are you going to post the portion of the aviation act that supports UA's actions?  Or, are you going to keep spouting bullshit?

be there doesn't have a clue how the law works. probably due to the fact as he alluded earlier he would never dare challenge authority in the first place.

he posted a link to the gov bill of rights for airline consumers that really defeats his own argument.

UA may possibly be able to argue around the point of whether or not wanting the seats for their own employees is technically still a case of over booking
but there is nothing in the "involuntary bumping" legislation that mentions an airline being permitted to eject a seated passenger due to "over booking" ....everything under that sub heading clearly refers to pre boarding.

now if you pull up the legislation re reasons why an airline can eject a seated passenger unless overbooking is on that list,the airline doesn't have a leg to stand on.

[Conker]

So you think they have no legal ground to stand on? Their lawyers are just conceding defeat?

I'm on your side bro. United was wrong.  However if they decide not to settle, and for the life of me I can't imagine why they wouldn't, I'd have to reason that their lawyers will maintain UA acted within their legal rights.

But since you insist this was an illegal act, who has been arrested for the assault that took place?


One question I have is why did the United employees have tasers?

well if they decide not to settle then i suppose we will see it tested who is legally in the right. as i said  i'm prepared to bet with anyone who thinks UA will not settle and win a legal case.

not sure why no arrests....did the dr report it as an assault to the police ? or is he just going after the airline in a civil case? tbh it doesn't even need to qualify as an assault for him to legally challenge the legality of his removal.

i'm sure i heard the security guards responsible for his removal have been suspended(?) if that's the case that should tell you something.

re tazers. probably in case of emergency, controlling drunk passenger/terrorist attack etc.