USA Today: UA forcibly remove random pax from flight
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Get off for w/b issues," "get off because your seat is broken," "get off because we haven't got enough cabin crew," are all clearly lawful. "Get off so I can give my buddies a ride," somewhat murkier, eh?
I am strongly reminded of that great movie 'planes trains and automobiles' and the scene where Steve Martin is bumped from his first class seat. This is a classic customer service fail and I suspect there are a few people not looking forward to the promised review. Munoz may have been a little slow off the mark. But I suspect the CEO of Republic, who actually operated the flight on behalf of United, will be having some interesting discussions with him. Given that Republic are in a lot worse shape financially I would be more worried about his and his employees jobs, than about anyone at United. If there is an upside to this whole sorry tale, it is probable that some long overdue attention will be directed by the bean counters to the customer service experience and hopefully not just at United.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There will be evidence of instruction on which to base an argument of agency. Even without it, I'd be happy to ask the jury to make that inference. The alternative is that these pseudo-police turned up deus ex machina. I'd love to see the defence argue that, I'd have the jury laughing.
There is no provision of contract law that allows you to enforce your rights against the other party by assaulting them.
The airline staff did not assault anyone as far as I can see.
I believe the question hangs to some degree on whether the order to deplane was legal or not.
"Get off for w/b issues," "get off because your seat is broken," "get off because we haven't got enough cabin crew," are all clearly lawful. "Get off so I can give my buddies a ride," somewhat murkier, eh?
"Get off for w/b issues," "get off because your seat is broken," "get off because we haven't got enough cabin crew," are all clearly lawful. "Get off so I can give my buddies a ride," somewhat murkier, eh?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: US/EU
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As former PR wonk, I wondered the same thing. My guess is it was dug up by someone like those on here blaming the victim. The Internet makes this pretty easy for anyone to do, no longer just in the realm of "professionals."
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
By reaching further and further, you're hurting your own side here.
There are legitimate arguments to be made on the UAL side, and I'm sure they will be made as well as can be, by UAL's PR people and by UAL's lawyers.
As to the specific question you raise, start here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_agency
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Relevant case law
Here's what appears to be some relevant case law, if you want to shed a little light on the question
RADVANSKY v. CITY OF OLMSTED FALLS | FindLaw
RADVANSKY v. CITY OF OLMSTED FALLS | FindLaw
Blah blah, Captain can throw off anyone they want blah Passenger was belligerent blah...
But isn't the problem (legally) that he was seated and not at check-in before they decided to bump him off the flight?
All the legal stuff about bumping passengers I've looked at refers to check-in and not whilst they are boarded. Considering he wasn't 'belligerent' or a 'threat to safety' before they decided to smash his face up and drag him unconscious down the isle, how can UA have a leg to stand on when this inevitably goes to court?
But isn't the problem (legally) that he was seated and not at check-in before they decided to bump him off the flight?
All the legal stuff about bumping passengers I've looked at refers to check-in and not whilst they are boarded. Considering he wasn't 'belligerent' or a 'threat to safety' before they decided to smash his face up and drag him unconscious down the isle, how can UA have a leg to stand on when this inevitably goes to court?
Example. Full flight is delayed. Now destination weather goes down, ILS NOTAM out of service. More fuel must be uploaded. Any number of MEL considerations requiring weight restriction requiring PAX to be offloaded in reverse order of boarding priority. Happens all the time in actual operations.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Give my buddies a ride" was my (admittedly flippant) way of pointing out that the airline wanted those four seats for its own financial convenience and not due to any exigent operational necessity. There was absolutely zero operational necessity to reposition those crew on that specific flight. Chicago is a major hub for United, the claim that there was no other way to get those folks to Louisville is ludicrous on its face.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is a rhetorical argument that would not stand up at court. Denied boarding/offloaded after getting on the plane means the same thing in the real world.
Example. Full flight is delayed. Now destination weather goes down, ILS NOTAM out of service. More fuel must be uploaded. Any number of MEL considerations requiring weight restriction requiring PAX to be offloaded in reverse order of boarding priority. Happens all the time in actual operations.
Example. Full flight is delayed. Now destination weather goes down, ILS NOTAM out of service. More fuel must be uploaded. Any number of MEL considerations requiring weight restriction requiring PAX to be offloaded in reverse order of boarding priority. Happens all the time in actual operations.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree, when your boarding card is checked and you are let go through to the plane, you are technically making your way to your seat, the time to deal with excess pax numbers is at the gate. or before.
Blondie
As you're working on opinion as you've nothing other than media reports and a few seconds of tape that's not complete to establish your perspective, my position as someone who's initiated the removal is as valid if not more so than yours. Having done the Vegas to LA shuttle hundreds of times, I've talked with with the LEOs on a number of occasions. The discussion doesn't start or end with "drag his ass off my plane". It's an explanation that he/she can't remain on the aircraft for whatever reason. We've asked that they leave the aircraft and they have refused. How the LEO deals with it from there is nothing I have any say in. Can't say as I've had anyone dragged out as of yet, but others have and to my knowledge have never had any legal actions taken against the company.
As you're working on opinion as you've nothing other than media reports and a few seconds of tape that's not complete to establish your perspective, my position as someone who's initiated the removal is as valid if not more so than yours. Having done the Vegas to LA shuttle hundreds of times, I've talked with with the LEOs on a number of occasions. The discussion doesn't start or end with "drag his ass off my plane". It's an explanation that he/she can't remain on the aircraft for whatever reason. We've asked that they leave the aircraft and they have refused. How the LEO deals with it from there is nothing I have any say in. Can't say as I've had anyone dragged out as of yet, but others have and to my knowledge have never had any legal actions taken against the company.
Two points here. If he was removed in favour of crew, were said crew on duty travel? If so surely they would have been booked in the first place. If they were on staff travel (ID 90) why were they given priority of a fare paying passenger? Secondly sources are now saying it was racist choosing an Asian passenger to offload as it was an easy target.
The MD of United's comments were not helpful firing accusations about his private life.
The MD of United's comments were not helpful firing accusations about his private life.
"Give my buddies a ride" was my (admittedly flippant) way of pointing out that the airline wanted those four seats for its own financial convenience and not due to any exigent operational necessity. There was absolutely zero operational necessity to reposition those crew on that specific flight. Chicago is a major hub for United, the claim that there was no other way to get those folks to Louisville is ludicrous on its face.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I haven't heard anybody in a position to know anything, make the claim that there was no other way to get them there. The claim that an entity with the financial and operational resources of UAL, at ORD, couldn't find some other way to get them there, properly rested and on time, is ludicrous.
if you want to know, you'll have to wade through the thread.
United Express passenger filmed being kicked off a plane whilst swearing at police | Daily Mail Online
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Confusio Helvetica
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's refreshing to hear from someone who's worked for the regionals and has now gotten enough sleep to be able to join a thread full of Phoenix Wright lawyers.
I will agree that is how the UA and Republic treated it, and that's probably the mentality that many of the people who have been derided on this thread have. But that is a non-obvious assumption, since the documents posted here make a clear distinction between "denied boarding" and "removed from aircraft", and they have different criteria.
Clearly, it's in the interest of the operators to have "boarded" count for revenue purposes as early as possible (e.g., when the ticket is scanned at the gate, and the machine registers "boarded"), and for denied purposes, as late as possible (e.g., anytime before V1).
Company policy, even "Industry Practice" doesn't automatically make case law, and it's probably in the interest of the whole industry that this distinction be left vague, so that operators can interpret it in their favor.
In the US, to answer a question raised above, the right to a trial by jury is enshrined in the Constitution (thank you Mr. Blackstone) and can be invoked in both criminal and civil cases. In civil cases that are complex and involve two corporate parties, the right is usually waived. In a Joe-Public-vs.-Big-Corporation Tort case, Joe Public often wants his jury. When you hear of massive awards in civil cases (like "1 day's revenue from all the McDonalds in the world), it's often a jury decision (then, on appeal, the whole thing gets knocked down).
The victim here is allegedly a poker player, and a fairly wild one at that. So while the smart move would be to settle quickly for a large sum of money, he and his legal team might be willing to risk the expense of a jury case to get a massive award, which they can then use to negotiate a better settlement in exchange for dropping the appeals.
Denied boarding/offloaded after getting on the plane means the same thing in the real world.
Clearly, it's in the interest of the operators to have "boarded" count for revenue purposes as early as possible (e.g., when the ticket is scanned at the gate, and the machine registers "boarded"), and for denied purposes, as late as possible (e.g., anytime before V1).
Company policy, even "Industry Practice" doesn't automatically make case law, and it's probably in the interest of the whole industry that this distinction be left vague, so that operators can interpret it in their favor.
In the US, to answer a question raised above, the right to a trial by jury is enshrined in the Constitution (thank you Mr. Blackstone) and can be invoked in both criminal and civil cases. In civil cases that are complex and involve two corporate parties, the right is usually waived. In a Joe-Public-vs.-Big-Corporation Tort case, Joe Public often wants his jury. When you hear of massive awards in civil cases (like "1 day's revenue from all the McDonalds in the world), it's often a jury decision (then, on appeal, the whole thing gets knocked down).
The victim here is allegedly a poker player, and a fairly wild one at that. So while the smart move would be to settle quickly for a large sum of money, he and his legal team might be willing to risk the expense of a jury case to get a massive award, which they can then use to negotiate a better settlement in exchange for dropping the appeals.