Did United Airlines have any other choice than to eject that passenger?

[Juma]

You are honestly trying to claim that the Rule 22 "well-rested crew" clause applies not just to the crew of the current flight, but also to the crew of a flight scheduled to depart the next day? Really? Please cite a legal precedent that backs up that fantastical interpretation.

If they don't get there in time to have enough sleep they won't be allowed to fly the flight they are intended to fly. The FAA is serious about crew rest rules.

So what? United fucked up. Thus it is their problem.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Barring specific protections to the contrary a business can always order you to leave their property. Failure becomes trespassing and awards you a trip to jail.

So, you disagree with the lawyers and the actual Contract of Carriage? They specifically outlined in their contract the reasons why they can refuse transport. I have yet to see an argument from United saying that what they did was in conformance with that contract.

It'd be interesting to look at any court precedent for someone selling entry to a venue, then revoking that sale and declaring the person to whom they sold entry a trespasser.

I know you can say this stuff, but that doesn't mean it conforms with reality and legal/judicial precedent.

They did originally, but was people were outraged so even if they were right, they were trying to cover themselves PR. There are times you can be right but it isn't worth the fight.

 

[bilby]

HE was not "still boarding"

HE was in his seat.

And IF there were passengers still boarding - as you claim without evidence - the United Airlines should have stopped four of those passengers at the gate.

Sorry, your claim doesn't pass the smell test.

There's been another video released--the guy clearly knew he was in the wrong in defying the police.

Looks like a clear case of DYKWIA gone nuts.

Looks like a clear case of another unsourced Loren claim

Boarding continues until the doors are closed.

And since you can't accept facts without them being spelled out in 10' letters:

http://www.foxnews.com/travel/2017/...ger-before-was-dragged-off-united-flight.html

I guess we'll just see what happens with this lawsuit. I'm betting on a settlement, but for the purposes of this thread, that's just as good as a favorable deliberation.

I think that United will settle. It's easy for us to say that United to defend their lawsuit and counter sue on principle but it won't do any good for them.

You better believe they will aggressively try to settle. This is hugely bad for them. Expect to see this go to jury and expect a punitive damages award severe enough for all airlines to restructure their procedures for survival.

You think you can find a jury that doesn't have a single person on it that has been unfairly treated in an airport anywhere, ever?

The punitive damages will be the net sales (not profit) of UA and UA holdings on all routes, globally, for one day. In 2016 that was 2.3 BILLION dollars for the year. So one day would be over 6 million.

This guy is getting over 10 million in combined awards.... without a doubt in my mind.

Before I did the math I estimated closer to 100 million in punitive, to ensure the industry is HIGHLY motivated to change. Now that I did the math, I see that would be a bit over the top.. .but still possible.

If United wins the lawsuit they don't win much in this case. The can't counter sue this guy for the billions that the company lost for this. So they will settle for an undisclosed amount. But this is very much rewarding bad behavior.

'Bad behaviour' is the purview of children who are too young to be reasoned with.

It's not an appropriate description of the refusal, by an adult, to comply with an arbitrary and unfair decision made by an authoritarian functionary who wishes to abuse his power by forcing someone to surrender something they have already paid for.

Standing up for the rights of the disempowered against an authority that prefers to use force in the name of saving the few dollars needed to recruit a volunteer is not 'bad behaviour'; it's downright heroic.

 

[laughing dog]

So, you disagree with the lawyers and the actual Contract of Carriage? They specifically outlined in their contract the reasons why they can refuse transport. I have yet to see an argument from United saying that what they did was in conformance with that contract.

It'd be interesting to look at any court precedent for someone selling entry to a venue, then revoking that sale and declaring the person to whom they sold entry a trespasser.

I know you can say this stuff, but that doesn't mean it conforms with reality and legal/judicial precedent.

They did originally, but was people were outraged so even if they were right, they were trying to cover themselves PR. There are times you can be right but it isn't worth the fight.

And there are times when you are wrong, and it is not worth the fight.

And, of course, why are all these people outraged over the UA's behavior if it was both legal and proper? And why are all these experts wrong and UA right? It really is a mystery.

 

[Ford]

Crew rest rules.

I've asked before, and I'll keep asking until you give an answer:

What time was the crew's flight out of Louisville?

In order to invoke crew rest rules, you have to demonstrate that they would be in violation of these rules. In order to establish that, you would have to show that the time between their arrival in Louisville (by any means) and their departure was too short. In order to establish that, you have to know not just when they would arrive, but when they were sheduled to leave.


Do you know what time their flight out of Louisville was scheduled?

 

[Artemus]

They did originally, but was people were outraged so even if they were right, they were trying to cover themselves PR. There are times you can be right but it isn't worth the fight.

There are also times when you first think you are right, but then the attorneys come out and demonstrate conclusively that no, you weren't right. At that point there are two choices, you can either say "Guess I wasn't right after all" and do damage control or continue to assert that you are right in the face of overwhelming evidence, causing even further damage to yourself and looking look a fool in the process. United chose the former.

 

[bilby]

Which is what they should have done.

2 Put the remaining crew member on a greyhound bus for the 5.5 hour ride

No point to this. Crew rest rules.

3 Paid for a ticket on another airline for the passenger

That's assuming there was another flight in time and it had space.

4 Put the remaining crew member on another airline

This is just a variation on #3.

5 Rented a car for the crew members

Same as #2--counterproductive.

6 put the crew member in a dog crate and put him in the cargo bay.

Illegal.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, to be fair legally it might be that way, I don't know. Legal definitions are necessarily coherent with "what reasonable people would agree on."

The Contract of Carriage has a "definitions" section and they don't define "board", therefore we are left to the use the ordinary meaning of the word. If you're sitting in your seat ready to go, you have boarded.

The airlines always refer to the "boarding process" and they do not consider it complete until the doors close. The consistency makes me suspect FAA rules are involved but I do not know.

- - - Updated - - -

He can't be punished for not following an unlawful order. That's how you get out of the catch 22.

Barring specific protections to the contrary a business can always order you to leave their property. Failure becomes trespassing and awards you a trip to jail.

Until you are able to grasp that there can be a difference between the statements "It is required by the established rules, regulations and laws" and "It is the right thing to do", you will never be able to qualify as a fully adult human being.

 

[RavenSky]

Do you have factual evidence, are you guessing, or are you using Loren as your authority?

Factual evidence that flight attendants get 9 hours mandated rest between duties? Or that these 4 were flight attendants?

were they flight attendants?

 

[Shadowy Man]

So, you disagree with the lawyers and the actual Contract of Carriage? They specifically outlined in their contract the reasons why they can refuse transport. I have yet to see an argument from United saying that what they did was in conformance with that contract.

It'd be interesting to look at any court precedent for someone selling entry to a venue, then revoking that sale and declaring the person to whom they sold entry a trespasser.

I know you can say this stuff, but that doesn't mean it conforms with reality and legal/judicial precedent.

They did originally, .

Did they specify Rule 21 and which subparagraph they were in conformance with? That is, did they claim that they did it in order to comply with the government regulation regarding rest time for a flight crew for a different flight (as some on here have suggested)? I know the CEO said something about "reaccomodation", but has a legal argument been made yet by United?

 

[RavenSky]

Pilots are not required "by law" to get their rest at the expense of someone else's job. Moreover, no one else on the plane said "I'll go because he's a pilot" either. And finally, to the best of my knowledge, no one has even supported the claim that we are discussing 4 pilots if the first place. "Crew" refers to flight attendants, ground crew, and others that don't even have the same rest requirements.

The flight crew doesn't get it's rest, they don't fly the plane. Doesn't matter if that means 300 people get stranded for a week in the wrong country.

Listen Mr. Thinks-he-is-an-expert-on-everything-in-the-world... I've indulged enough of your blather on this topic, particularly as you have not provided a shred of evidence as to what/who the four airline personnel were, why they needed to be transported, or anything else about them

I, on the other hand, grew up in the airline industry. My father was a life-long pilot. My mother was a flight attendant. My (ex)husband is a pilot. I was hired by Delta to be a flight attendant and went through the training. I actually know a thing or two about the mandated rest periods, and a thing or two about how airlines move personnel. One of the things I can tell you is that if it was so fucking critical a crew get to some particular place, they would not be cutting it so close with regard to rest periods. And if this particular crew was cutting it so fucking close that the airlines had to literally assault a passenger to make room, they should have simply arranged for a different standby crew from somewhere else.

 

[Elixir]

They did originally, .

Did they specify Rule 21 and which subparagraph they were in conformance with? That is, did they claim that they did it in order to comply with the government regulation regarding rest time for a flight crew for a different flight (as some on here have suggested)? I know the CEO said something about "reaccomodation", but has a legal argument been made yet by United?

At this point, legal arguments are irrelevant. They have SHAREHOLDERS.

 

[RavenSky]

Excellent thread.
Can't wait for driverless cars and the same smart technology which issues one too many boarding passes can 'decide' which vehicle gets priority.

no one issued "one too many boarding passes"

 

[coloradoatheist]

Did they specify Rule 21 and which subparagraph they were in conformance with? That is, did they claim that they did it in order to comply with the government regulation regarding rest time for a flight crew for a different flight (as some on here have suggested)? I know the CEO said something about "reaccomodation", but has a legal argument been made yet by United?

At this point, legal arguments are irrelevant. They have SHAREHOLDERS.

The original letter was just an email to employees, not a formal legal brief. It was after public outcry and deciding that they wanted to win the PR issue. It's why lawyers most of the time recommending any one not commenting on legal issues without their approval.

 

[fromderinside]

The flight crew doesn't get it's rest, they don't fly the plane. Doesn't matter if that means 300 people get stranded for a week in the wrong country.

Listen Mr. Thinks-he-is-an-expert-on-everything-in-the-world... I've indulged enough of your blather on this topic, particularly as you have not provided a shred of evidence as to what/who the four airline personnel were, why they needed to be transported, or anything else about them

I, on the other hand, grew up in the airline industry. My father was a life-long pilot. My mother was a flight attendant. My (ex)husband is a pilot. I was hired by Delta to be a flight attendant and went through the training. I actually know a thing or two about the mandated rest periods, and a thing or two about how airlines move personnel. One of the things I can tell you is that if it was so fucking critical a crew get to some particular place, they would not be cutting it so close with regard to rest periods. And if this particular crew was cutting it so fucking close that the airlines had to literally assault a passenger to make room, they should have simply arranged for a different standby crew from somewhere else.

Good points.

Hobart said the employees worked for Republic Airline, which United hires to operate United Express flights, and needed to get to Kentucky or their later flights would be canceled for lack of crew members. He could not explain why gate agents allowed passengers to board the plane before seeking volunteers to give up seats or bumping passengers.

However someone is gong to say Wha'he'uck, hire activate others to take their place and cost us money, maybe as much as we wewre willing to shell out to these freeloaders? No WAY.

Cummon U free 'prisers. Step up for the share holders, or not?

 

[coloradoatheist]

HE was not "still boarding"

HE was in his seat.

And IF there were passengers still boarding - as you claim without evidence - the United Airlines should have stopped four of those passengers at the gate.

Sorry, your claim doesn't pass the smell test.

There's been another video released--the guy clearly knew he was in the wrong in defying the police.

Looks like a clear case of DYKWIA gone nuts.

Looks like a clear case of another unsourced Loren claim

Boarding continues until the doors are closed.

And since you can't accept facts without them being spelled out in 10' letters:

http://www.foxnews.com/travel/2017/...ger-before-was-dragged-off-united-flight.html

I guess we'll just see what happens with this lawsuit. I'm betting on a settlement, but for the purposes of this thread, that's just as good as a favorable deliberation.

I think that United will settle. It's easy for us to say that United to defend their lawsuit and counter sue on principle but it won't do any good for them.

You better believe they will aggressively try to settle. This is hugely bad for them. Expect to see this go to jury and expect a punitive damages award severe enough for all airlines to restructure their procedures for survival.

You think you can find a jury that doesn't have a single person on it that has been unfairly treated in an airport anywhere, ever?

The punitive damages will be the net sales (not profit) of UA and UA holdings on all routes, globally, for one day. In 2016 that was 2.3 BILLION dollars for the year. So one day would be over 6 million.

This guy is getting over 10 million in combined awards.... without a doubt in my mind.

Before I did the math I estimated closer to 100 million in punitive, to ensure the industry is HIGHLY motivated to change. Now that I did the math, I see that would be a bit over the top.. .but still possible.

If United wins the lawsuit they don't win much in this case. The can't counter sue this guy for the billions that the company lost for this. So they will settle for an undisclosed amount. But this is very much rewarding bad behavior.

'Bad behaviour' is the purview of children who are too young to be reasoned with.

It's not an appropriate description of the refusal, by an adult, to comply with an arbitrary and unfair decision made by an authoritarian functionary who wishes to abuse his power by forcing someone to surrender something they have already paid for.

Standing up for the rights of the disempowered against an authority that prefers to use force in the name of saving the few dollars needed to recruit a volunteer is not 'bad behaviour'; it's downright heroic.

This wasn't some grave injustice unfair rule. 5 minutes earlier he would have been upset by his flight being canceled or him bumped.

What would the doctor have done if the weather had canceled his flight?

 

[coloradoatheist]

Listen Mr. Thinks-he-is-an-expert-on-everything-in-the-world... I've indulged enough of your blather on this topic, particularly as you have not provided a shred of evidence as to what/who the four airline personnel were, why they needed to be transported, or anything else about them

I, on the other hand, grew up in the airline industry. My father was a life-long pilot. My mother was a flight attendant. My (ex)husband is a pilot. I was hired by Delta to be a flight attendant and went through the training. I actually know a thing or two about the mandated rest periods, and a thing or two about how airlines move personnel. One of the things I can tell you is that if it was so fucking critical a crew get to some particular place, they would not be cutting it so close with regard to rest periods. And if this particular crew was cutting it so fucking close that the airlines had to literally assault a passenger to make room, they should have simply arranged for a different standby crew from somewhere else.

Good points.

Hobart said the employees worked for Republic Airline, which United hires to operate United Express flights, and needed to get to Kentucky or their later flights would be canceled for lack of crew members. He could not explain why gate agents allowed passengers to board the plane before seeking volunteers to give up seats or bumping passengers.

However someone is gong to say Wha'he'uck, hire activate others to take their place and cost us money, maybe as much as we wewre willing to shell out to these freeloaders? No WAY.

Cummon U free 'prisers. Step up for the share holders, or not?

Why? if this behavior normally works 99 times out of 100 or more you wouldn't change. Most of the time they find people that are reasonable and give up their seats, like the other 3 people on the plane who did.

- - - Updated - - -

Did they specify Rule 21 and which subparagraph they were in conformance with? That is, did they claim that they did it in order to comply with the government regulation regarding rest time for a flight crew for a different flight (as some on here have suggested)? I know the CEO said something about "reaccomodation", but has a legal argument been made yet by United?

At this point, legal arguments are irrelevant. They have SHAREHOLDERS.

Would United win anything if they do to court and win?

 

[laughing dog]

This wasn't some grave injustice unfair rule. 5 minutes earlier he would have been upset by his flight being canceled or him bumped.

You have no idea how this doctor would have reacted if he had been bumped before he boarded the plane. None whatsoever.

What would the doctor have done if the weather had canceled his flight?

Most likely get on another flight. But it should be obvious to even the most obtuse that there is a world of difference between a flight that is cancelled due to unsafe weather conditions and being ordered off an airplane.

 

[RavenSky]

Why? if this behavior normally works 99 times out of 100 or more you wouldn't change. Most of the time they find people that are reasonable and give up their seats, like the other 3 people on the plane who did.

And they could have done so here, too, by increasing the offer. From everything I've read, they offered between $800 and $1,000; yet one of the articles linked to in this thread calculated the apparently permissible upper limit amount (either from federal regulations or United's own policies) as $1,350. Why didn't they at least try up to $1,350 before assaulting their paying customers?

 

[coloradoatheist]

You have no idea how this doctor would have reacted if he had been bumped before he boarded the plane. None whatsoever.

What would the doctor have done if the weather had canceled his flight?

Most likely get on another flight. But it should be obvious to even the most obtuse that there is a world of difference between a flight that is cancelled due to unsafe weather conditions and being ordered off an airplane.

But whether it's weather, no flight crew available, mechanical troubles, or other staffing issues traveling by plane has an inherent risk of not getting somewhere in time. We trade the convenience with losing guarantees. If you had to be somewhere then you either drive or make sure even with delays or weather you get there way earlier. There's no fundamental difference difference from being bumped at the gate or when you are seated except the inconvenience of being late if they have to wait later at the gate.

 

[RavenSky]

What would the doctor have done if the weather had canceled his flight?

What would United have done if weather had canceled this flight?

Found another flight or found another standby flight crew.