Sometimes even the small people can win...

[Yetti]

Oh and for those wondering.  United told the FAA Passengers are guaranteed a seat.

 

For those still defending this stuff: United Promised Regulators Ticketed Passengers Are Guaranteed Seats

"In September 2014 comments to federal officials, the Chicago-based airline outlined its opposition to proposed rules that sought more disclosure of the fees airlines charge to customers. One of the rules at issue was designed to compel airlines to more explicitly disclose fees charged for reserving specific seats.

“Including advance-seat-assignment charges among the ‘basic ancillary service’ fees that must be disclosed as part of initial fare displays makes no sense,” the airline wrote to the Department of Transportation. “Every ticket, of course, guarantees a passenger a seat on the plane, with no additional mandatory seat-assignment charges."

Later in the filing, United Airlines expanded on its promise to regulators that it guarantees every ticketed passenger a seat."

[PTK]

6 minutes ago, jkhirsch said:

I'm about halfway through this article and it seems to be worth reading:

http://www.newsweek.com/why-united-were-legally-wrong-deplane-dr-dao-583535

Cite a valid source for this accusation?

From http://www.newsweek.com/why-united-were-legally-wrong-deplane-dr-dao-583535:

Although this depends on the facts, news reports suggest that Dao was not upset, and was minding his own business until he was told that he was being involuntarily removed and he was dragged kicking and screaming from the aircraft.

His being upset was caused by the breach by United Airlines of its contractual duties towards him as a passenger, rather than the reverse.

It's not an accusation...it's fact...

“Our employees followed established procedures for dealing with situations like this. While I deeply regret this situation arose, I also emphatically stand behind all of you, and I want to commend you for continuing to go above and beyond to ensure we fly right.”

Munoz added that when crew members first approached the passenger to tell him to leave, he “raised his voice and refused to comply”, and each time they asked “he refused and became more and more disruptive and belligerent”.

He said crew members “were left with no choice but to call Chicago aviation security officers to assist in removing the customer from the flight”, and that at one point the passenger “continued to resist – running back on to the aircraft in defiance of both our crew and security officials”.

[Yetti]

What concerns me also is the employees did not have positive control of secured areas.  How did he get back on the plane once removed.  Tells me they were not following procedures to maintain positive control.

[jkhirsch]

Just now, PTK said:

Munoz added that when crew members first approached the passenger to tell him to leave, he “raised his voice and refused to comply”, and each time they asked “he refused and became more and more disruptive and belligerent”.

Jens David Ohlin is associate dean for academic affairs and professor of law at Cornell Law School.

Author of this newsweek article: http://www.newsweek.com/why-united-were-legally-wrong-deplane-dr-dao-583535:

I'll quote my own post for you:

From http://www.newsweek.com/why-united-were-legally-wrong-deplane-dr-dao-583535:

"Although this depends on the facts, news reports suggest that Dao was not upset, and was minding his own business until he was told that he was being involuntarily removed and he was dragged kicking and screaming from the aircraft.

His being upset was caused by the breach by United Airlines of its contractual duties towards him as a passenger, rather than the reverse."

• The information contained within your post only further supports the notion that he acted undesirably towards the United employees only after United notified him of their intent to improperly breach their contract.

[PTK]

10 minutes ago, jkhirsch said:

Jens David Ohlin is associate dean for academic affairs and professor of law at Cornell Law School.

Author of this newsweek article: http://www.newsweek.com/why-united-were-legally-wrong-deplane-dr-dao-583535:

I'll quote my own post for you:

From http://www.newsweek.com/why-united-were-legally-wrong-deplane-dr-dao-583535:

"Although this depends on the facts, news reports suggest that Dao was not upset, and was minding his own business until he was told that he was being involuntarily removed and he was dragged kicking and screaming from the aircraft.

His being upset was caused by the breach by United Airlines of its contractual duties towards him as a passenger, rather than the reverse."

• The information contained within your post only further supports the notion that he acted undesirably towards the United employees only after United notified him of their intent to improperly breach their contract.

The associate dean can express his opinion. Unfortunately he wasn't there and his opinion is not objective. Therefore it does not count. Same for Newsweek.

 

"Although this depends on the facts, ..." yes it depends on the facts. Facts are he  “raised his voice and refused to comply”, and each time they asked “he refused and became more and more disruptive and belligerent”.

He has every right to be upset. He has no right to kick and scream. He doesn't pick and choose which instructions he complies with and which he doesn't.

 

[jkhirsch]

Just now, PTK said:

"Although this depends on the facts, ..." yes it depends on the facts. Facts are he  “raised his voice and refused to comply”, and each time they asked “he refused and became more and more disruptive and belligerent”.

This is very much different than your original post:

"This pax was disruptive and belligerent. They didn't want him on their airplane."

That statement implies that they were invoking some right to remove him because he was disruptive and belligerent, which is simply wrong and the real reason has been substantiated by many different source, including the CEO of United himself.

Fact: He was removed from the plane because United wanted 4 of their employees to ride on that plane to Louisville.

Lie: United wanted to remove him from the plane because he was "disruptive and belligerent."

[75_M20F]

It's useless to quote news articles!

There is little to no fact checking and they will make up what facts they can't seem to find a "source" for.

 

[jkhirsch]

4 minutes ago, Mooney_Mike said:

It's useless to quote news articles!

There is little to no fact checking and they will make up what facts they can't seem to find a "source" for.

It's not a news article, it's a legal essay discussing the issues of the case originally posted here http://www.dorfonlaw.org/2017/04/united-airlines-own-contract-denied-it.html written by Jens David Ohlin is associate dean for academic affairs and professor of law at Cornell Law School.

Reposted by newsweek.

[PTK]

He  “raised his voice and refused to comply”, and each time they asked “he refused and became more and more disruptive and belligerent”.

I interpret this as he was asked nicely and repeatedly. He failed to comply to instructions and became aggressive. He was removed.

I don't see an issue. If anyone should have a problem is UAL. They should fine him for all the grief he caused them.

 

[jkhirsch]

9 minutes ago, PTK said:

I interpret this as he was asked nicely and repeatedly. He failed to comply to instructions. He was removed. I don't see an issue.

There are multiple legal issues in play here, but the possibly 'first in the timeline' issue of United's breach of contract seems to be pretty straightforward to me.

I would argue that United had no right under their contract to ask him to leave the plane in the first place, whether it was nicely or not is purely related to the optics. That opens the big door of: We have an impasse. What is the resolution and who is tasked with resolving it and how will they handle it?

I'm not on any type of factual high horse about the way he was removed, but I think the people engaged in his removal had to be pretty dense to not understand the optics of what it looks like to see a passenger literally dragged off of an airplane.

The end of the legal essay by Jens David Ohlin speaks well to your point:

"Say you hire a painter to paint the inside of your house. You refuse to pay and so the painter says, “I’m not leaving until you pay me.” When the painter refuses to leave, you call the police and ask them to remove him because he is trespassing. The proper resolution is that the painter must leave but can sue you for breach of contract."

It may be possible that the passenger in question was attempting to create additional legal issues (torts) by forcing someone to remove him from the airplane with force. That is where the grey area and discussion really begins!

Edited April 13, 2017 by jkhirsch

[AndyFromCB]

1 hour ago, PTK said:

This pax was disruptive and belligerent. They didn't want him on their airplane. 

Maybe UAL should've cancelled the flight and fly the jet empty to Louisville. Would that have been better? Because they could do that!

 

Apparently you missed the second video and many witness statements that prove otherwise, the passenger was on the phone, getting a second opinion about the situation when the cops just grabbed him, which they had no right to do whatsoever under the law. The "good" Dr will probably be flying NetJets after United and City of Chicago are done paying for this. More power to him, if you ask me. There is this pervasive myth among the white upper crust that good cops exist. Well, they don't and now they are starting to do to the middle crust what they have been doing for years for the lower crust of the society and now we have cameras. Can't wait till one day you get your ass thrown to the ground for a minor traffic infraction, only then will you realize what has been happening for years with the militarization of our police force and the "us vs them" training. I think there is a name for a system of government when police work directly for corporations. It escapes my mind, but I'm sure it starts with an F.

Edited April 13, 2017 by AndyFromCB

[tigers2007]

A police officer comes up to you on private property and tells you the property owner wishes you to leave and he will remove you if you do not leave. Who exactly is responsible for your loss of dignity if you refuse?  You are. 

I think a better analogy would be "a police officer comes up to you on private property that you have a vested interest in and asks you to leave". Generally, in that case a police officer would tell the property owner to contact the local court as it is a civil matter and not a criminal matter. Mr Dao was not an "invited guest". He transferred his wealth to the airline in exchange for transportation service. Similar to a person renting a house? It is easy to remove a tenant if they are destroying the property. The police will not remove a tenant if they are unhappy. Outside of Mr Dao acting disruptive to the point it jeopardizes aviation safety, he is allowed to be an unhappy passenger. (Glad I got this sent before this thread is locked)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[75_M20F]

14 minutes ago, AndyFromCB said:

Apparently you missed the second video and many witness statements that prove otherwise, the passenger was on the phone, getting a second opinion about the situation when the cops just grabbed him, which they had no right to do whatsoever under the law. The "good" Dr will probably be flying NetJets after United and City of Chicago are done paying for this. More power to him, if you ask me. There is this pervasive myth among the white upper crust that good cops exist. Well, they don't and now they are starting to do to the middle crust what they have been doing for years for the lower crust of the society and now we have cameras. Can't wait till one day you get your ass thrown to the ground for a minor traffic infraction, only then will you realize what has been happening for years with the militarization of our police force and the "us vs them" training.

I believe it's time to lock this thread up folks. This is degenerating quickly!

 

Edited April 13, 2017 by Mooney_Mike

[Yetti]

And once he is boarded.  He is a passenger.  Then United's 121 certificate comes into play.

(b) Considerations.—When issuing a certificate under this chapter, the Administrator shall—

(1) consider—

(A) the duty of an air carrier to provide service with the highest possible degree of safety in the public interest; and

(B) differences between air transportation and other air commerce; and

(2) classify a certificate according to the differences between air transportation and other air commerce.

 

It's not really private property at this point.  The Common Carrier is operating on a FAA permit in the common good of the public.

[AndyFromCB]

Just now, Yetti said:

And once he is boarded.  He is a passenger.  Then United's 121 certificate comes into play.

(b) Considerations.—When issuing a certificate under this chapter, the Administrator shall—

(1) consider—

(A) the duty of an air carrier to provide service with the highest possible degree of safety in the public interest; and

(B) differences between air transportation and other air commerce; and

(2) classify a certificate according to the differences between air transportation and other air commerce.

 

It's not really private property at this point.  The Common Carrier is operating on a FAA permit in the common good of the public.

rules are for little people

[mooniac58]

Been here before, and locking it again.