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

[Will Wiley]

del

 

[Will Wiley]

1. You have yet to prove that the rules are actually relevant.

The point is that you are assuming you know more than they do about how to handle it, .

Did the boss of United Airlines praise them for knowing how to handle it?

Maybe they should get the job of handling North Korea too? What could possibly go wrong?

 

[laughing dog]

As usual, you miss the point. The airline can refuse to fly a passenger who has already boarded under certain circumstances. Stupidity or cupidity on the part of the airline is not one of those circumstances.

Yes and no. The contract that you have with them provides multiple provisions of what has to be done and who has to pay what for certain conditions

They are

1) The airlines does not have to get the person to the final destination and the airline does not have to return the money
2) The airline does not get the person to the final destination but they just need to return the paid money
3) The airline delivers the person to the destination within 2 hours
4) The airline delivers the person to the destination after that period and prior to another time frame
5) The airline delivers the person much later or does not deliver them

So there are different times that the parties can breech the contract and the penalty that that is applied. For example if you are drunk on the plane and they remove you for it, the passenger breached the contract and the airline does not have to pay the person back.

So in the case of the Dr they revoked his license to be on the plane when they asked him to leave. Since he did not comply he became a trespasser. At that point the airline did not breach their contract. They could still get him to the destination within two hours of getting to the destination. But since he was going to get there by the 2 hour or later period, the breach of contract would be the 4 times what he paid.

Your post is not responsive because it does not address the bolded and italicized part of my post.

UA screwed up. There were viable alternatives to calling airport security to have a peaceful passenger who was not causing any trouble whatsoever removed by force. To be clear, the passenger had not caused any problem. The problem was UA's causing and they had a simple solutions - offer more compensation until someone took them up on it or find other methods to get that crew to its destination. As a result of UA's screwup, they have already refunded the fares of all the passengers in the planes, damaged their reputation and seen their stock price fall. And any damage award or settlement will simply be an added expense and embarrassment to UA.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Yes and no. The contract that you have with them provides multiple provisions of what has to be done and who has to pay what for certain conditions

They are

1) The airlines does not have to get the person to the final destination and the airline does not have to return the money
2) The airline does not get the person to the final destination but they just need to return the paid money
3) The airline delivers the person to the destination within 2 hours
4) The airline delivers the person to the destination after that period and prior to another time frame
5) The airline delivers the person much later or does not deliver them

So there are different times that the parties can breech the contract and the penalty that that is applied. For example if you are drunk on the plane and they remove you for it, the passenger breached the contract and the airline does not have to pay the person back.

So in the case of the Dr they revoked his license to be on the plane when they asked him to leave. Since he did not comply he became a trespasser. At that point the airline did not breach their contract. They could still get him to the destination within two hours of getting to the destination. But since he was going to get there by the 2 hour or later period, the breach of contract would be the 4 times what he paid.

Your post is not responsive because it does not address the bolded and italicized part of my post.

UA screwed up. There were viable alternatives to calling airport security to have a peaceful passenger who was not causing any trouble whatsoever removed by force. To be clear, the passenger had not caused any problem. The problem was UA's causing and they had a simple solutions - offer more compensation until someone took them up on it or find other methods to get that crew to its destination. As a result of UA's screwup, they have already refunded the fares of all the passengers in the planes, damaged their reputation and seen their stock price fall. And any damage award or settlement will simply be an added expense and embarrassment to UA.

We're dealing with several parts of the law here, You have contractual law and property law (not occupancy property) and there are things that happen for both. And as a business you can do things legally right but lose the PR battle.

So to answer your question, United is under contract to get someone there after they paid within 2 hours of the scheduled time. They have times when they know they are going to breach that obligation and in some cases they say I'll pay when that happens and other times they don't pay when it's out of their control. However they can still breach their contract and pay penalties for breaching a contract. However even at that time they can say I breached contract, but you are no longer welcome on my property and you are trespassing if you don't leave.

From a legal perspective you can do it, but doesn't mean the PR will be on your side.

 

[Malintent]

And they asked this and the guy was checking with his lawyer to see if it was something that they could ask. Then they grabbed him and threw him out before he could determine that. If police tell me I need to leave an apartment I'm renting, I'm not going anywhere until I call my lawyer and find out if that's a valid order. I know that tenants have rights and I may find myself in weaker legal situation if I voluntarily leave the premises, so I need to find that out before I go. If the cops aren't totally sure of what the law is in the situation, picking one side and saying that that party is correct and beating on the other guy isn't part of a decent procedure.

This isn't an occupancy issue, it's a business service issue and you are on the property of someone else. It would be the rules of shopping at Target and when they can refuse you service and there are a lot of cases where the airline can refuse service and post 9/11 the airline and security have even more rights. The pilot should have left and evaluated the situation and said that we don't think you can handle your respoinsibilities on this plane and we'll work with you on getting you to your destinate at the counter. Final word of the pilot.

except you keep on missing the very important distinction between airlines and your examples... in every one of your examples, payment has not been given for any services or products. In reality, people pay for their seat IN ADVANCE. Please provide a relevant example that supports your position. Target cannot legally take your money for a an item they have for sale, and then "kick you off their property" without providing the item (or service) you paid for.

 

[laughing dog]

Your post is not responsive because it does not address the bolded and italicized part of my post.

UA screwed up. There were viable alternatives to calling airport security to have a peaceful passenger who was not causing any trouble whatsoever removed by force. To be clear, the passenger had not caused any problem. The problem was UA's causing and they had a simple solutions - offer more compensation until someone took them up on it or find other methods to get that crew to its destination. As a result of UA's screwup, they have already refunded the fares of all the passengers in the planes, damaged their reputation and seen their stock price fall. And any damage award or settlement will simply be an added expense and embarrassment to UA.

We're dealing with several parts of the law here, You have contractual law and property law (not occupancy property) and there are things that happen for both. And as a business you can do things legally right but lose the PR battle.

So to answer your question, United is under contract to get someone there after they paid within 2 hours of the scheduled time. They have times when they know they are going to breach that obligation and in some cases they say I'll pay when that happens and other times they don't pay when it's out of their control. However they can still breach their contract and pay penalties for breaching a contract. However even at that time they can say I breached contract, but you are no longer welcome on my property and you are trespassing if you don't leave.

From a legal perspective you can do it, but doesn't mean the PR will be on your side.

Are you a lawyer? A number of lawyers have posted that it is not legal to do. And there are links to lawyer's opinions that it was not legal. And regardless of the legality, it was a stupid decision that will cost UA much more over time than it "saved" them in that moment.

 

[coloradoatheist]

We're dealing with several parts of the law here, You have contractual law and property law (not occupancy property) and there are things that happen for both. And as a business you can do things legally right but lose the PR battle.

So to answer your question, United is under contract to get someone there after they paid within 2 hours of the scheduled time. They have times when they know they are going to breach that obligation and in some cases they say I'll pay when that happens and other times they don't pay when it's out of their control. However they can still breach their contract and pay penalties for breaching a contract. However even at that time they can say I breached contract, but you are no longer welcome on my property and you are trespassing if you don't leave.

From a legal perspective you can do it, but doesn't mean the PR will be on your side.

Are you a lawyer? A number of lawyers have posted that it is not legal to do. And there are links to lawyer's opinions that it was not legal. And regardless of the legality, it was a stupid decision that will cost UA much more over time than it "saved" them in that moment.

Of course it's easy for me to say that should do it on principle and establish a firm ruling on it. I did see the blogs and it was ust their opinions and they did cite any court cases on it. But what does United win if they go to court and the Dr has to pay for everyone's flight for his behavior?

 

[Keith&Co.]

But what does United win if they go to court and the Dr has to pay for everyone's flight for his behavior?

Well, from that day forward, they can overbook the shit out of their flights to make up any losses, and tell any upset passengers that they'll call security if they don't shut the fuck up, because the Judge said they were in the right.

 

[coloradoatheist]

This isn't an occupancy issue, it's a business service issue and you are on the property of someone else. It would be the rules of shopping at Target and when they can refuse you service and there are a lot of cases where the airline can refuse service and post 9/11 the airline and security have even more rights. The pilot should have left and evaluated the situation and said that we don't think you can handle your respoinsibilities on this plane and we'll work with you on getting you to your destinate at the counter. Final word of the pilot.

except you keep on missing the very important distinction between airlines and your examples... in every one of your examples, payment has not been given for any services or products. In reality, people pay for their seat IN ADVANCE. Please provide a relevant example that supports your position. Target cannot legally take your money for a an item they have for sale, and then "kick you off their property" without providing the item (or service) you paid for.

Because most projects are point of sale, but there are times where you pre-pay for services. If I ask you to paint my house and I can pay up front or some up front but I have the option at any time to say no I don't want you on my property to paint any more I can do that though I can be subject to breach of contract.

 

[coloradoatheist]

But what does United win if they go to court and the Dr has to pay for everyone's flight for his behavior?

Well, from that day forward, they can overbook the shit out of their flights to make up any losses, and tell any upset passengers that they'll call security if they don't shut the fuck up, because the Judge said they were in the right.

Yes and no, they already do that now. They can't overbook their flights by that much because they are slightly penalized for every overbooked flight that they have.

 

[coloradoatheist]

This isn't an occupancy issue, it's a business service issue and you are on the property of someone else. It would be the rules of shopping at Target and when they can refuse you service and there are a lot of cases where the airline can refuse service and post 9/11 the airline and security have even more rights. The pilot should have left and evaluated the situation and said that we don't think you can handle your respoinsibilities on this plane and we'll work with you on getting you to your destinate at the counter. Final word of the pilot.

except you keep on missing the very important distinction between airlines and your examples... in every one of your examples, payment has not been given for any services or products. In reality, people pay for their seat IN ADVANCE. Please provide a relevant example that supports your position. Target cannot legally take your money for a an item they have for sale, and then "kick you off their property" without providing the item (or service) you paid for.

And there is another problem with that logic in this case, it's already accepted by the buyer that there is a chance that they will breach their contract when you purchase the ticket. You would have a case if the purchase of the ticket was at the gate but the actually location a person sits waiting to be transported is artificial.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Well, from that day forward, they can overbook the shit out of their flights to make up any losses, and tell any upset passengers that they'll call security if they don't shut the fuck up, because the Judge said they were in the right.

Yes and no, they already do that now.

To a degree, but if the courts validate everything UA did in this, and make the DR. pay, they can then do anything they want, and they don't even need to pretend about customer service any more.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Yes and no, they already do that now.

To a degree, but if the courts validate everything UA did in this, and make the DR. pay, they can then do anything they want, and they don't even need to pretend about customer service any more.

No. The only thing that changes is where they can do it. And for the customer it has tradeoffs where sometimes its more convenient and a few times a few minutes inconvenient.

 

[atrib]

I really don't see how the standard of living for Americans goes down just because the airline has to decide who gets a seat on the plane before they start boarding.

The standard of living goes down when the airline uses force to break someone's nose and give them a concussion for refusing to give up their seat. A seat they have paid for and have already been seated in. All because the airline screwed up their logistics and are not willing to pay more to have people voluntarily take a bump to cover their (the airline's) mistake.

 

[atrib]

In an article 2016 somewhere I read that the CEO of United, instead, used private planes rather than the company's airline when travelling about. If it was so important that staff of United were needed to be at some destination they could of at least bummed a lift from the CEO so to speak.

So now United needs to have a private jet sitting around at every airport for a incredible rare event of one passenger not wanting to be an adult and give up his seat.

Mr Dao did nothing wrong, he simply refused to give up the seat that he had paid for and already been assigned and seated in. The airline could have offered more incentive for another passenger to voluntarily get bumped, but they did not do that. The airline chose to forcibly eject Mr Dao from the airplane, likely in an unlawful manner, and caused him serious bodily harm. The blame lies squarely with the bad decisions made by the airline, not Mr Dao. This is plain for most people to grasp, but not to you and a few others on these forums, apparently.

 

[LordKiran]

The point is that you are assuming you know more than they do about how to handle it, despite not knowing the rules. Saying it hasn't been shown they are relevant isn't a rebuttal.

Actually, pointing out that your counterargument isn't relevant is the textbook definition of a rebuttal.

Now the burden of proof is clearly on your side--you are asserting they could have done better without knowing if any of the options work.

No, it's not, since the criticism ultimately boils down to what they did. What they could have done differently does not factor into that criticism.

Except this isn't a globe-spanning conglomerate. This was not United, but rather a regional airline subcontractor.

Which is just another form of delegation, but even further removed from the control or oversight of United, thus proving my observation.

I strongly suspect this decision was made by computer, anyway.

And you base that suspicion on what exactly?

You're doubling down on your faith attack. You are showing that it's possible they missed something, you are not showing that they missed something.

I'm not trying to show they missed something, only that your faith in a company to always act in its best interests financially (And that this in turn is in the best interest of the customer) is misplaced.

You are clearly acting on faith rather than reason here.

Classic projection

We have no evidence any of the other proposed options would work

It needs to be proven that a chartered private plane can fly people to an airport? You know, what really makes this funny is that this comes after you made a statement regarding how some things just can't be proven, and so we should take your word for whatever erroneous point you were trying to make.

and a simple check of the numbers shows they will not work unless the relevant flight is later in the day.

This is really neither here nor there but I would like to see these numbers of yours.

It is unlikely the flight is later in the day because that would mean a plane sitting idle--and planes that sit idle don't make money. Airlines like to keep them moving.

None of which is the good doctor's problem, making it irrelevant in the first place.

 

[coloradoatheist]

So now United needs to have a private jet sitting around at every airport for a incredible rare event of one passenger not wanting to be an adult and give up his seat.

Mr Dao did nothing wrong, he simply refused to give up the seat that he had paid for and already been assigned and seated in. The airline could have offered more incentive for another passenger to voluntarily get bumped, but they did not do that. The airline chose to forcibly eject Mr Dao from the airplane, likely in an unlawful manner, and caused him serious bodily harm. The blame lies squarely with the bad decisions made by the airline, not Mr Dao. This is plain for most people to grasp, but not to you and a few others on these forums, apparently.

When the airline asked him to leave and he refused he became a trespasser on the plane. Things are better if you make sure your customers don't have to make a dumb decision, but it was his dumb decision to stay and not get off.

 

[coloradoatheist]

I really don't see how the standard of living for Americans goes down just because the airline has to decide who gets a seat on the plane before they start boarding.

The standard of living goes down when the airline uses force to break someone's nose and give them a concussion for refusing to give up their seat. A seat they have paid for and have already been seated in. All because the airline screwed up their logistics and are not willing to pay more to have people voluntarily take a bump to cover their (the airline's) mistake.

Several problems. One is that they screwed up their logistics. They may have but from where has leaked out it's been no. They had a crew that couldn't work any more so they called a backup crew to get out there so instead of in their mind making it inconvenient for hundreds of people it was inconvenient for 4.

 

[laughing dog]

Are you a lawyer? A number of lawyers have posted that it is not legal to do. And there are links to lawyer's opinions that it was not legal. And regardless of the legality, it was a stupid decision that will cost UA much more over time than it "saved" them in that moment.

Of course it's easy for me to say that should do it on principle and establish a firm ruling on it. I did see the blogs and it was ust their opinions and they did cite any court cases on it.

In other words, you are not a lawyer and have no expertise whatsoever in these matters.

But what does United win if they go to court and the Dr has to pay for everyone's flight for his behavior?

Clearly you have not been paying attention to all of the arguments that your fellow goosestepping apologists for authority have been making. Obviously, such a ruling makes it easier for UA and other airlines to lower their costs and reduce their prices which improves the standard of living for all consumers forever.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Mr Dao did nothing wrong, he simply refused to give up the seat that he had paid for and already been assigned and seated in. The airline could have offered more incentive for another passenger to voluntarily get bumped, but they did not do that. The airline chose to forcibly eject Mr Dao from the airplane, likely in an unlawful manner, and caused him serious bodily harm. The blame lies squarely with the bad decisions made by the airline, not Mr Dao. This is plain for most people to grasp, but not to you and a few others on these forums, apparently.

When the airline asked him to leave and he refused he became a trespasser on the plane.

Is that a legal opinion?