UA forcibly remove random pax from flight - Round 2
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: uk
Posts: 857
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Wikipedia account of this incident makes for some interesting reading and from reading it if I were the cop I'd sue United also.
Of course this didn't stopped the real cops stating that the passenger fell and hit his head, before issuing a correction saying that actually they had nothing to do with the incident... says it all really
A quick skim through the actual lawsuit shows it is mostly against CDA and its commissioner, the sole allegation against United appears to be that they were negligent in requesting the plaintiff to do something which they should have known would require use-of-force, which he wasn't trained for. That seems rather like a urologist suing and saying a patient was negligent for asking him to do brain surgery which then went wrong.
There was a simple response to United's request - "we cannot persuade him to leave, and we are not trained to force him to leave". That that didn't happen is down to the plaintiff, not United.
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Siargao Island
Posts: 1,043
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That article also makes clear that the "cop" was not actually a cop but Department of Aviation security, and that they say his actions were "not within standard operating procedures". The word "police" (which confused many people) was supposed to have been removed from their uniforms etc. some months before the incident, but the order to do so was apparently ignored.
Of course this didn't stopped the real cops stating that the passenger fell and hit his head, before issuing a correction saying that actually they had nothing to do with the incident... says it all really
A quick skim through the actual lawsuit shows it is mostly against CDA and its commissioner, the sole allegation against United appears to be that they were negligent in requesting the plaintiff to do something which they should have known would require use-of-force, which he wasn't trained for. That seems rather like a urologist suing and saying a patient was negligent for asking him to do brain surgery which then went wrong.
There was a simple response to United's request - "we cannot persuade him to leave, and we are not trained to force him to leave". That that didn't happen is down to the plaintiff, not United.
Of course this didn't stopped the real cops stating that the passenger fell and hit his head, before issuing a correction saying that actually they had nothing to do with the incident... says it all really
A quick skim through the actual lawsuit shows it is mostly against CDA and its commissioner, the sole allegation against United appears to be that they were negligent in requesting the plaintiff to do something which they should have known would require use-of-force, which he wasn't trained for. That seems rather like a urologist suing and saying a patient was negligent for asking him to do brain surgery which then went wrong.
There was a simple response to United's request - "we cannot persuade him to leave, and we are not trained to force him to leave". That that didn't happen is down to the plaintiff, not United.
What I believe to be quite significant is that it was the United ground staff that infuriated the passengers with their seriously bad attitude, that they created a passenger revolt that they realised, too late, that they couldn't control and found it necessary to call in 'airport security' to solve the problem that they created during which the 'assault' took place.
Something else I notes is that UA do not offer a cash incentive for volunteer offloads, if I were one of their passengers being offered travel vouchers, that probably have terms & conditions of use attached, I'd refuse to get off also but were they to offer me a sufficient amount of $$$ then I might be happy to go for a night on the lash at their expense!
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Northern Territory Australia
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a matter of interest
Presumably the carrier knew that the flight was oversold so why would they let a passenger through the boarding gate when no seat was available?
So far as I'm aware, boarding gate readers should reject any/all boarding cards when the capacity of the aircraft is reached.
Are BGRs not used at ORD?
So far as I'm aware, boarding gate readers should reject any/all boarding cards when the capacity of the aircraft is reached.
Are BGRs not used at ORD?
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Presumably the carrier knew that the flight was oversold so why would they let a passenger through the boarding gate when no seat was available?
So far as I'm aware, boarding gate readers should reject any/all boarding cards when the capacity of the aircraft is reached.
Are BGRs not used at ORD?
So far as I'm aware, boarding gate readers should reject any/all boarding cards when the capacity of the aircraft is reached.
Are BGRs not used at ORD?
I've posted the link to the original thread already, but here it is again in the forlorn hope that this might save a load of time and unnecessary posts:
PPRuNe: UA forcibly remove random pax from flight
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your plea doesn't seem to be having much effect.
I've posted the link to the original thread already, but here it is again in the forlorn hope that this might save a load of time and unnecessary posts:
PPRuNe: UA forcibly remove random pax from flight
I've posted the link to the original thread already, but here it is again in the forlorn hope that this might save a load of time and unnecessary posts:
PPRuNe: UA forcibly remove random pax from flight
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The United flight in question was operated by Republic Airlines, a subcontractor, and that all airline employees involved, including the dead-heading crewmembers, were Republic employees.
The Republic CEO is on record openly bragging to his employees that they, Republic, have a contractual agreement with each airline that they can remove any passenger for a deadheading crewmember at anytime because "the airplanes belong to us".
United bears responsibility for the conduct of their subcontractor, but Republic crewmembers have frequently repeated their CEO's assertion.
If all this is correct then the lawyers are going to have a field day. If correct, then it would have been Republic who ordered seats to be made available for their dead-heading crew. It was their ground staff who attempted to action that. It would seem UA could not stop them, but UA has a duty of care to its pax. I presume the dispatcher, and station management staff and the flight crew all report to the CEO of Republic. So UA would not get a lot of help there. I can't remember if there was a UA representative on the scene. If so, and alone, I suspect they would have been powerless.
The pax had a UA ticket, so their claim is against UA, who no doubt will counter sue Republic. I wonder how the relationship is now?
Apologies for any wrong assumptions or missed facts. They will no doubt be corrected.
The Republic CEO is on record openly bragging to his employees that they, Republic, have a contractual agreement with each airline that they can remove any passenger for a deadheading crewmember at anytime because "the airplanes belong to us".
United bears responsibility for the conduct of their subcontractor, but Republic crewmembers have frequently repeated their CEO's assertion.
If all this is correct then the lawyers are going to have a field day. If correct, then it would have been Republic who ordered seats to be made available for their dead-heading crew. It was their ground staff who attempted to action that. It would seem UA could not stop them, but UA has a duty of care to its pax. I presume the dispatcher, and station management staff and the flight crew all report to the CEO of Republic. So UA would not get a lot of help there. I can't remember if there was a UA representative on the scene. If so, and alone, I suspect they would have been powerless.
The pax had a UA ticket, so their claim is against UA, who no doubt will counter sue Republic. I wonder how the relationship is now?
Apologies for any wrong assumptions or missed facts. They will no doubt be corrected.
IMNSHO, there should be a bright line between civil actions, and criminal actions. In this case, the LEO(he WAS an LEO at the time of the incidence, but they have been striped of that power now) had a duty and obligation to enforce laws as written. That, and only that is the power that LEO have over every other citizen(or human) on Earth. If there is no criminal activity involved, then the bright line standard drops to civil remonstrant.
Which leads to passenger rights and is covered by each airline contract of carriage, or contract of adhesion in the case of UA/Republic. Does a paying passenger, with a ticket and boarding pass become a 'trespasser' when the boarding pass is subsequently revoked AFTER granting access to the plane, and the seat? IMNSHO, the airline can no longer revoke passenger access to a common area(the plane) once it has gone through the extensive steps of; 1 selling the ticket(through whomever market). 2 Issuing a ticket. 3 Issue a boarding pass. 3 Checking the boarding pass prior to loading. 4 Allowing the passenger to cross the rubicon(pressure vessel) and take a seat. Therefore, no trespass, therefore no criminal action taking place, therefore the LEO was in the WRONG for using force to enforce a clearly civil disagreement.
And in that we finally come to the lawsuit of the LEO against the carrier, and his trainer, etc. Anyone can sue anyone in the US. Access to the civil courts is almost limitless, and as an LEO he's protected very carefully by a statute known as 'qualified immunity'. The true victim in this instance, is almost completely barred from suing the LEO(except in rare and egregious cases), however the LEO has unlimited access to redress his own failings by blaming others. A competent civil court judge would have a case hearing, with all parties present, and limited discovery and then toss the thing out for being unfounded in law, and pointing out that the LEO acted outside the bounds of his authority, and should be liable for civil action himself, notwithstanding, or outside of the scope of qualified immunity.
Having that ever happen is about as likely as me dating Ariel Winter, but one can always hope.
YMMV
Which leads to passenger rights and is covered by each airline contract of carriage, or contract of adhesion in the case of UA/Republic. Does a paying passenger, with a ticket and boarding pass become a 'trespasser' when the boarding pass is subsequently revoked AFTER granting access to the plane, and the seat? IMNSHO, the airline can no longer revoke passenger access to a common area(the plane) once it has gone through the extensive steps of; 1 selling the ticket(through whomever market). 2 Issuing a ticket. 3 Issue a boarding pass. 3 Checking the boarding pass prior to loading. 4 Allowing the passenger to cross the rubicon(pressure vessel) and take a seat. Therefore, no trespass, therefore no criminal action taking place, therefore the LEO was in the WRONG for using force to enforce a clearly civil disagreement.
And in that we finally come to the lawsuit of the LEO against the carrier, and his trainer, etc. Anyone can sue anyone in the US. Access to the civil courts is almost limitless, and as an LEO he's protected very carefully by a statute known as 'qualified immunity'. The true victim in this instance, is almost completely barred from suing the LEO(except in rare and egregious cases), however the LEO has unlimited access to redress his own failings by blaming others. A competent civil court judge would have a case hearing, with all parties present, and limited discovery and then toss the thing out for being unfounded in law, and pointing out that the LEO acted outside the bounds of his authority, and should be liable for civil action himself, notwithstanding, or outside of the scope of qualified immunity.
Having that ever happen is about as likely as me dating Ariel Winter, but one can always hope.
YMMV
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Mars
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The police are allowed to use 'police powers' such as restraint and physical force to remove people from private property if the owner of the property so requests, even if no criminal offence is being committed by them being there.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Which leads to passenger rights and is covered by each airline contract of carriage, or contract of adhesion in the case of UA/Republic. Does a paying passenger, with a ticket and boarding pass become a 'trespasser' when the boarding pass is subsequently revoked AFTER granting access to the plane, and the seat? IMNSHO, the airline can no longer revoke passenger access to a common area(the plane) once it has gone through the extensive steps of; 1 selling the ticket(through whomever market). 2 Issuing a ticket. 3 Issue a boarding pass. 3 Checking the boarding pass prior to loading. 4 Allowing the passenger to cross the rubicon(pressure vessel) and take a seat. Therefore, no trespass, therefore no criminal action taking place, therefore the LEO was in the WRONG for using force to enforce a clearly civil disagreement.
This is basic legal stuff that was settled literally centuries ago in jurisdictions where trespass isn't a criminal offence, such as the UK.
The police are allowed to use 'police powers' such as restraint and physical force to remove people from private property if the owner of the property so requests, even if no criminal offence is being committed by them being there.
The police are allowed to use 'police powers' such as restraint and physical force to remove people from private property if the owner of the property so requests, even if no criminal offence is being committed by them being there.
However, you slice it - the burden of trespass is not linear, or equal for all types of locations. One could argue a very strict circumstance in a private home, where revoking consent to remain results in trespass if the person doesn't leave immediately. To a more liberal version where the public is granted normal access to a privately owned, but publicly accessible location like a Starbucks. To an ever more liberal interpretation to a location which has been granted access to the public by use of control methods such as; paying a fee for that location. Controlling access through ticket and checking. An expectation of a quid-pro-quo(I sit here quietly, you move me from point A to B). In the later case, I submit that the rules on trespass no longer exist as a criminal case. As long as the person has met all the contract rules in place, there is no criminal activity. As such, the airline has a duty to perform on that contract, or optionally take civil action to thwart the contracted party.
They were free to sue the person on their plane, or cancel the flight and let the person sit there until they rot, or offer alternatives, or many other civil remedy. What they were NOT allowed to do is order an LEO to create a criminal case out of thin air, then violate the citizens civil rights by attacking, and beating on them like a poor step child.
Again - YMMV, but this is how civil society is supposed to work. Maybe UA/Republic didn't get the memo.
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Mars
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is because the alternative is clearly ludicrous - imagine finding a person in your front garden, calling the police and them saying 'we can't arrest him or force him to move because he's not committing a crime, you'll have to sue him.'
I don't know why you would expect the police to have fewer powers in a jurisdiction where the offence _is_ criminal.
I've already covered this. The case you use as example - the trespass on private property is the underlying crime. Provided you have told them to leave your property, and they have refused. Once more just to clear up - a person sitting in an airline seat, which they paid for, which is a publicly accessible place, which the airline checked off numerous ways, can no longer revoke permission to remain and create a criminal case.
To whit: 1 Dr Dao was never charged with a crime. 2 The LEO was subsequently fired for cause. 3 The CEO of the airline admitted publicly that Dr Dao had ever legal right to sit there unencumbered. 4 Dr Dao received a significant CIVIL settlement from the airline, and I think from the city of Chicago for his treatment.
And that will be the end of this. Back to the lawsuit aspect, I think given the above points, the LEO will have an uphill battle with the courts, including the court of public opinion where his CIVIL case will be heard.
To whit: 1 Dr Dao was never charged with a crime. 2 The LEO was subsequently fired for cause. 3 The CEO of the airline admitted publicly that Dr Dao had ever legal right to sit there unencumbered. 4 Dr Dao received a significant CIVIL settlement from the airline, and I think from the city of Chicago for his treatment.
And that will be the end of this. Back to the lawsuit aspect, I think given the above points, the LEO will have an uphill battle with the courts, including the court of public opinion where his CIVIL case will be heard.
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Mars
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do you understand my point now?
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That doesn't prove anything.
That doesn't necessarily shed any light of the underlying issue of whether an airline can request you to get off their airplane.
You have a link to that statement? I've read a number of statements by Untid's CEO and none of them say anything remotely like that.
Also proves nothing. Sometimes a settlement is the cheapest, least painful way to make a situation go away, regardless of whether you're right or wrong. With a settlement, you know what your getting, if a lawsuit goes before a jury, you're rolling the dice. Better to agree to a pay out, save the trial costs, and have the plaintiff agree to things like not discussing the case, not disclosing the size of the award.
That doesn't necessarily shed any light of the underlying issue of whether an airline can request you to get off their airplane.
Also proves nothing. Sometimes a settlement is the cheapest, least painful way to make a situation go away, regardless of whether you're right or wrong. With a settlement, you know what your getting, if a lawsuit goes before a jury, you're rolling the dice. Better to agree to a pay out, save the trial costs, and have the plaintiff agree to things like not discussing the case, not disclosing the size of the award.
That doesn't prove anything.
However, the contra-positive would prove something. That he had committed a prima facia crime(which would be followed by indictment, trial, conviction, sentence, and punishment). None of that happened, but the opposite happening would be fairly conclusive.
That doesn't necessarily shed any light of the underlying issue of whether an airline can request you to get off their airplane.
Of course they can request you get off the plane. They can insist you get off the plane. What they cannot do is turn their civil failure to manage their property short of declaring it escheat, and surrendering it to the city/state/fedguv. The resolution of this civil failure on the part of UA devolved to 'we are not going to cooperate, we are going to use force'. The results were as I have indicated, and the entire event has had serious negative consequence for EVERYONE(firings, loss of revenue, settlement cost, loss of advancement, etc) involved except Dr Dao. We call this a 'win'.
You have a link to that statement? I've read a number of statements by Untid's CEO and none of them say anything remotely like that.
I do, and you should find it and read it.
Also proves nothing. Sometimes a settlement is the cheapest, least painful way to make a situation go away, regardless of whether you're right or wrong. With a settlement, you know what your getting, if a lawsuit goes before a jury, you're rolling the dice. Better to agree to a pay out, save the trial costs, and have the plaintiff agree to things like not discussing the case, not disclosing the size of the award.
Again, as with before, the proof is in the contra-positive. While I agree in principle that the compensation was the least worst case for UA to go, they had the option of telling Dao to go consume feces, become ill, and die in the corner. That they did not do this, and that the settlement amount was significant shows that the alternative more than likely would have cost them far, far more. A settlement is never an admission of guilt. However, we all are adults and we all know better. - well, some of us are.
However, the contra-positive would prove something. That he had committed a prima facia crime(which would be followed by indictment, trial, conviction, sentence, and punishment). None of that happened, but the opposite happening would be fairly conclusive.
That doesn't necessarily shed any light of the underlying issue of whether an airline can request you to get off their airplane.
Of course they can request you get off the plane. They can insist you get off the plane. What they cannot do is turn their civil failure to manage their property short of declaring it escheat, and surrendering it to the city/state/fedguv. The resolution of this civil failure on the part of UA devolved to 'we are not going to cooperate, we are going to use force'. The results were as I have indicated, and the entire event has had serious negative consequence for EVERYONE(firings, loss of revenue, settlement cost, loss of advancement, etc) involved except Dr Dao. We call this a 'win'.
You have a link to that statement? I've read a number of statements by Untid's CEO and none of them say anything remotely like that.
I do, and you should find it and read it.
Also proves nothing. Sometimes a settlement is the cheapest, least painful way to make a situation go away, regardless of whether you're right or wrong. With a settlement, you know what your getting, if a lawsuit goes before a jury, you're rolling the dice. Better to agree to a pay out, save the trial costs, and have the plaintiff agree to things like not discussing the case, not disclosing the size of the award.
Again, as with before, the proof is in the contra-positive. While I agree in principle that the compensation was the least worst case for UA to go, they had the option of telling Dao to go consume feces, become ill, and die in the corner. That they did not do this, and that the settlement amount was significant shows that the alternative more than likely would have cost them far, far more. A settlement is never an admission of guilt. However, we all are adults and we all know better. - well, some of us are.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The CEO never made a statement that could be remotely construed as admitting that legally Dao could refuse to leave the plane. We all know that. You're just making yourself look foolish and dishonest by playing your "I have a link but I'm not going to show it to you" Do you seriously believe anyone is fooled by that?