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. |
Originally Posted by West Coast
(Post 9735321)
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.
|
Originally Posted by West Coast
(Post 9736830)
Matt
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. 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. |
Originally Posted by West Coast
(Post 9736830)
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. |
A quite reasonable response.
|
Originally Posted by West Coast
(Post 9736830)
Matt
It's not about being a model citizen, it's about being compliant. 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'.
|
Originally Posted by GearDown&Locked
(Post 9736677)
Honest question: who is then? Who holds the authority to command someone to deplane, one way :cool: or the other :ouch: ?
|
Originally Posted by West Coast
(Post 9736840)
A quite reasonable response.
|
without having to justify ANYTHING to ANYONE |
Originally Posted by Gauges and Dials
(Post 9736836)
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. |
Originally Posted by West Coast
(Post 9735704)
There's no absolute rights when you're on private property.
|
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. |
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 :mad:, 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. |
Originally Posted by Airbubba
(Post 9736821)
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. ;) NOT applicable to this person. |
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 |
Originally Posted by Claybird
(Post 9736871)
If a guy goes in a coffee-shop and disturbs the place and the police show up and they beat him and they deny him basic rights, would that person sue the coffee shop or the police? The police, of course.
|
Originally Posted by Claybird
(Post 9736845)
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. |
Originally Posted by Claybird
(Post 9736871)
If a guy goes in a coffee-shop and disturbs the place and the police show up and they beat him and they deny him basic rights, would that person sue the coffee shop or the police? The police, of course.
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. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 19:42. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.