USA Today: UA forcibly remove random pax from flight
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Between a Rock and a Hard Spot
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just because airlines have been pulling this bovine scatology for decades doesn't make it legal or right.
I think that overbooking due to no-shows is easy. If you bought the ticket and never made it to the airport you eat the ticket. The issue comes when the no-shows are due to missed connections because of airline or weather delays that are not the PAX fault. There will always be a certain number of these, and the airlines can't just void the tickets in those cases. A no-show will result along with the need to accommodate the customer on a later flight. I believe this was the original justification for over-booking.
Insurance coverage will pay whatever damages are due to the Doctor plus more.
And a court (if unable to settle) may decide to award punitive damages (often not insurable - it varies) in addition to compensatory damages (insurable).
Other than citing the basis of claims for injuries suffered, the lead lawyer on today's news conference (see above) was well spoken, speculative in his facts and self serving.
That kind of puts a squash on an impartial jury of citizens
That kind of puts a squash on an impartial jury of citizens
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Between a Rock and a Hard Spot
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: London
Age: 70
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to today's press conference, Dr Dao lost two front teeth, has a broken nose and a significant concussion and damage to his sinuses that will require reconstructive surgery.
United passenger dragged off flight will file lawsuit, lawyer says - CNN.com
United passenger dragged off flight will file lawsuit, lawyer says - CNN.com
But... they can deplane anyone they want and if the passenger being deplaned has any objections, they can sue and take legal action but when security tells you to get off a plane, you do just that and seek justice in court.
You also file a complaint of blackmail against the airline employees just to annoy...Because they were demanding that you allow breach of contract under threat.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sure there is. The business model (and therefore the low ticket prices that attract customers) is dependent upon selling at a load factor of, (say for example) 110%. If regulation forces this back to 100%, then that's (approximately, given different prices for different classes of service) a 10% gut punch to top-line revenue.
This could easily turn into a class action suit. The attorneys only have to put out the word that they are looking for passengers who were illegally bumped in violation of the CoCs. If bumping has been regularly used to handle last minute re-positioning of crews (in violation of CoCs) a class is formed. This could get very expensive for United.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But... they can deplane anyone they want and if the passenger being deplaned has any objections, they can sue and take legal action but when security tells you to get off a plane, you do just that and seek justice in court. You just don't put up this kind of temper tantrum on an airplane, even when you're right and I'm pretty sure this passenger was in the right.
Rosa Parks could have just complied and moved to the back of the bus, too.
Fixing pernicious institutional abuse often requires a considerable level of disobedience, often at considerable personal sacrifice to the individuals who are willing to stand up for everyone's rights.
This could easily turn into a class action suit. The attorneys only have to put out the word that they are looking for passengers who were illegally bumped in violation of the CoCs. If bumping has been regularly used to handle last minute re-positioning of crews (in violation of CoCs) a class is formed. This could get very expensive for United.
This has the potential to rewrite the rules for passenger management by the US airline industry.
The deadline imho for United to settle this is April 20th, when their responses to the Senate committee are due. If the case is still dragging on at that point, politicians will make the rules different. It will take industry some time to adjust to whatever changes are required, so a period on uncertainty.
Wall Street does not reward uncertainty.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
100 seat airplane. $100 per ticket. 5% oversell. $10,500 in revenue for the flight. 99.5% of the time, nobody gets bumped. 0.5% of the time, airline offers $200 and gets a volunteer. $10,400 on average net revenue for the flight.
Forbid overbooking. Now there's only $10,000 revenue for the flight. That $400 is coming out of the pockets of either the shareholders or the passengers. The airline has the pricing power, so the 4% is coming out of the passenger's pocket.
Given my own personal history (I've never been involuntarily bumped, and I've been delighted to volunteer in return for a $500 voucher when my schedule permitted), I'm unwilling to pay an extra 4% for my ticket to eliminate the practice of overbooking.
This could easily turn into a class action suit. The attorneys only have to put out the word that they are looking for passengers who were illegally bumped in violation of the CoCs. If bumping has been regularly used to handle last minute re-positioning of crews (in violation of CoCs) a class is formed. This could get very expensive for United.
That doesn't preclude a separate action by other United passengers, of course.
For some grossly oversimplified numbers:
100 seat airplane. $100 per ticket. 5% oversell. $10,500 in revenue for the flight. 99.5% of the time, nobody gets bumped. 0.5% of the time, airline offers $200 and gets a volunteer. $10,400 on average net revenue for the flight.
Forbid overbooking. Now there's only $10,000 revenue for the flight. That $400 is coming out of the pockets of either the shareholders or the passengers. The airline has the pricing power, so the 4% is coming out of the passenger's pocket.
Given my own personal history (I've never been involuntarily bumped, and I've been delighted to volunteer in return for a $500 voucher when my schedule permitted), I'm unwilling to pay an extra 4% for my ticket to eliminate the practice of overbooking.
100 seat airplane. $100 per ticket. 5% oversell. $10,500 in revenue for the flight. 99.5% of the time, nobody gets bumped. 0.5% of the time, airline offers $200 and gets a volunteer. $10,400 on average net revenue for the flight.
Forbid overbooking. Now there's only $10,000 revenue for the flight. That $400 is coming out of the pockets of either the shareholders or the passengers. The airline has the pricing power, so the 4% is coming out of the passenger's pocket.
Given my own personal history (I've never been involuntarily bumped, and I've been delighted to volunteer in return for a $500 voucher when my schedule permitted), I'm unwilling to pay an extra 4% for my ticket to eliminate the practice of overbooking.
Last edited by Piper_Driver; 13th Apr 2017 at 18:54.
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Queensland
Posts: 408
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airlines must learn lessons from safety and commercial problems in their own and other airlines.
In this case clearly the problem of the airline. At the point of forced offloading that the airline allowed to become
violent, there was either a policy that allowed such serious actions, there was insufficient policy or none. Hard to
visualise a fault other than the airline.
The solutions include
Immediately compensate pax and not proceed with criminal prosecution
Publish overbooking and full offloading procedure including D/H crew
Of course all safety and commercial policies need review.
In this case clearly the problem of the airline. At the point of forced offloading that the airline allowed to become
violent, there was either a policy that allowed such serious actions, there was insufficient policy or none. Hard to
visualise a fault other than the airline.
The solutions include
Immediately compensate pax and not proceed with criminal prosecution
Publish overbooking and full offloading procedure including D/H crew
Of course all safety and commercial policies need review.
The class action will come after the courts decide that the practice of bumping paying passengers in favor of DH crew is in violation of the CoCs.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
slats11,
“Puny-Wrap” Insurance
Since the early 90s, Bermuda-based insurance carriers have also offered policyholders a separate stand-alone policy to protect against awards for punitive damages where the domestic "wrapped" liability policy is otherwise prohibited from providing punitive damages coverage due to public policy, statutory, or regulatory considerations. The policy is offered on an indemnification basis and is triggered by a judgment in a court of law.
This coverage would come into play big time for an airline, lets say, where there is a major tragedy due to negligence by employees or management.
However, in this instance it isn't a loss resulting from a domestic crash resulting in the deaths of hundreds of victims.
It is this consideration as to why I believe United will do their very best to settle ASAP with all parties concerned and avoid going to court. They are a large corporation and should be able to reach an agreed upon settlement with the Doctor and or other passengers should there be a class action suit. United needs to get out of the limelight as quickly as possible, objective #1...
And a court (if unable to settle) may decide to award punitive damages (often not insurable - it varies) in addition to compensatory damages (insurable).
Since the early 90s, Bermuda-based insurance carriers have also offered policyholders a separate stand-alone policy to protect against awards for punitive damages where the domestic "wrapped" liability policy is otherwise prohibited from providing punitive damages coverage due to public policy, statutory, or regulatory considerations. The policy is offered on an indemnification basis and is triggered by a judgment in a court of law.
This coverage would come into play big time for an airline, lets say, where there is a major tragedy due to negligence by employees or management.
However, in this instance it isn't a loss resulting from a domestic crash resulting in the deaths of hundreds of victims.
It is this consideration as to why I believe United will do their very best to settle ASAP with all parties concerned and avoid going to court. They are a large corporation and should be able to reach an agreed upon settlement with the Doctor and or other passengers should there be a class action suit. United needs to get out of the limelight as quickly as possible, objective #1...
