USA Today: UA forcibly remove random pax from flight
Matt
It's not about being a model citizen, it's about being compliant.
Guages
I've offered you the CFR that regulates compensation, know that refuting it you are you're relying on Internet lawyers who as of yesterday had never known of its existence.
It's not about being a model citizen, it's about being compliant.
Guages
I've offered you the CFR that regulates compensation, know that refuting it you are you're relying on Internet lawyers who as of yesterday had never known of its existence.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The police were called because the passenger refused to leave. The pax doesn't have some absolute right to remain on private property. Thisis UA's property, if you're booted out of someone's business and refuse, do you honestly think management is just going to say, ok, you can stay.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The reg in question says nothing about the airline's ability to offer whatever it wants to passengers, as an enticement to get them to change to another flight, to change to another seat, to wear the airline's promotional hat, or anything else. Nothing. Your assertion that it does, is just as bizarre as it would be to assert that the regulation in question pertains to the thickness of paper on which ticket stock must be printed.
For what it's worth, I would have taken the offer and got off, in fact many years ago, was travelling with a group and some of us couldn't be accommodated for the trip from SF to OZ, took up the offer which was a 3 course dinner at a local hotel in SF,in return for flying out 4 hours later, the deal was offered long before we left for the airport.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Because of this incident, you can bet that United is going to put some effort into fixing whatever broken set of policy, supervisory, and training cock-ups led to this problem in the first place. Had the passenger meekly complied, then the problem would continue to fester.
It seems the pendulum has well and truly swung at UA, not long ago, some relatives of UA employees were refused travel because they were wearing leggings, now they literally drag a customer kicking and screaming off the flight to make way for staff 'relocations'.
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Escaped the sandpit 53° 32′ 9.19″ N, 9° 50′ 13.29″ E
Posts: 591
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Escaped the sandpit 53° 32′ 9.19″ N, 9° 50′ 13.29″ E
Posts: 591
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not relying on any 'Internet lawyers', and I was well aware of the relevant CFR long before yesterday. I'm relying on my own knowledge of the industry, of the regulations under which it operates, and, ultimately, my own ability to read.
The reg in question says nothing about the airline's ability to offer whatever it wants to passengers, as an enticement to get them to change to another flight, to change to another seat, to wear the airline's promotional hat, or anything else. Nothing. Your assertion that it does, is just as bizarre as it would be to assert that the regulation in question pertains to the thickness of paper on which ticket stock must be printed.
The reg in question says nothing about the airline's ability to offer whatever it wants to passengers, as an enticement to get them to change to another flight, to change to another seat, to wear the airline's promotional hat, or anything else. Nothing. Your assertion that it does, is just as bizarre as it would be to assert that the regulation in question pertains to the thickness of paper on which ticket stock must be printed.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some (most) of you people are blinded by your emotions. The captain of that flight is the ultimate authority and he asked the cabin crew to carry out a company command (remove 4 passengers) for WHATEVER reason (in this case, to take on 4 non-revs). He can do that without having to justify ANYTHING to ANYONE.
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: ask me tomorrow
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm no lawyer, but I am in aviation claims, and this will be a major claim since UA's insurance company will pay for their defense (aka hire the attorneys) and settlement. It doesn't really matter what the background of this guy is. What matters is what happened in that incident, and what was broadcasted to the world to see. This doctor(however crooked he may be) already has a lawyer who is writing up the complaint against UA stuffed full of everything he/she can think of. Bodily injury, mental anguish, pain and suffering, you name it. The suit will be for multiple millions of dollars, and yes there will be plenty of fluff in there. But UA will not want to try this case. They will settle out of court.
Imagine the defense attorney in front of the jury, explaining why UA was within their rights to treat this guy like a sack of , pulling out rules and fine print. Then trying to assassinate the plaintiff's character. Any American jury would begin to quiver with rage that the big bad airline, with the arrogant CEO would even think of trying to justify the way the plaintiff was treated. All the plaintiff attorney will have to do is play the videos over and over, then say "so because UA employees needed to get somewhere, it was UA's right to give Dr. So and So a blooded face, concussion, and international humiliation??" They will award the plaintiff as much as they possibly can. I've been in the courtrooms for many smaller, yet similar cases, and the airline ALWAYS loses.
And don't forget the cop goons that did the actual dirty work. Their department will be sued as well. That's the way it works here in America, suits are filed against the airlines every day, but this one has major legs. UA really cocked this one all up.
Imagine the defense attorney in front of the jury, explaining why UA was within their rights to treat this guy like a sack of , pulling out rules and fine print. Then trying to assassinate the plaintiff's character. Any American jury would begin to quiver with rage that the big bad airline, with the arrogant CEO would even think of trying to justify the way the plaintiff was treated. All the plaintiff attorney will have to do is play the videos over and over, then say "so because UA employees needed to get somewhere, it was UA's right to give Dr. So and So a blooded face, concussion, and international humiliation??" They will award the plaintiff as much as they possibly can. I've been in the courtrooms for many smaller, yet similar cases, and the airline ALWAYS loses.
And don't forget the cop goons that did the actual dirty work. Their department will be sued as well. That's the way it works here in America, suits are filed against the airlines every day, but this one has major legs. UA really cocked this one all up.
Matt
The legging incident was discussed earlier, they were traveling on pass privledges (free/deeply discounted tickets from an employee,l) thus required to comply with a dress code.
The legging incident was discussed earlier, they were traveling on pass privledges (free/deeply discounted tickets from an employee,l) thus required to comply with a dress code.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: the City by the Bay
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've flown on all of those carriers over they years and have operated into most of their bases.
I would suggest that if a convicted drug trafficker with documented anger management and psych issues became belligerent when told to deplane, well, he might not be treated with kid gloves.
I would suggest that if a convicted drug trafficker with documented anger management and psych issues became belligerent when told to deplane, well, he might not be treated with kid gloves.
NOT applicable to this person.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: In my head
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know if it is still sufficiently up to date as it is a paper 17½ years old, but some of this may assist consideration of the legals of forced disembarkation:
http://www.raes-hfg.com/reports/12oc...21099-kane.pdf
http://www.raes-hfg.com/reports/12oc...21099-kane.pdf
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you're missing a key element here. If a guy goes into a coffee-shop (which is a place of public accommodation), and the owner says, "We don't serve <insert ethnic group or other protected class> here," and the guy insists on his legal right to be served, and the situation escalates, and the owner calls the police, and the police break the guy's face, then he's absolutely going to sue the coffee shop. As he should. And he will win. It is the coffee shop that initiated, provoked, and escalated the situation.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some (most) of you people are blinded by your emotions. The captain of that flight is the ultimate authority and he asked the cabin crew to carry out a company command (remove 4 passengers) for WHATEVER reason (in this case, to take on 4 non-revs). He can do that without having to justify ANYTHING to ANYONE.
Also, there are not very many countries in which a captain can arbitrarily offload a paying passenger for no reason, without needing to justify his actions to the aviation or business regulatory authorities, at the risk of a fine or other sanction.
I'd call the statement categorically false.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: PNW
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personal injury attorneys go after whatever deep pockets are available, when there is the slightest chance a jury would find the actions of the "venue" liable. And there is more than enough evidence (in social media/jury sympathy terms) to include United here. There will be a strong motive to settle and avoid further PR damage.