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

[Loren Pechtel]

We don't know--what flight they were to operate was never disclosed.

exactly. end of that excuse.

This is a civil case--I'm looking at what's most likely, not trying to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

He was not "trespassing"

When a business tells you to leave their property and you don't, you're trespassing.

When he has taken possession of the space he has rented, the business can NOT just tell him to leave. Their contract allows for "refusal of service" for very specific reasons, none of which Dr. Dao violated.

There are restrictions about being removed from the place you live, but that's about it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

STILL no factual evidence. Do you understand the difference between FACTUAL EVIDENCE and your opinion?

No confusion on my part. I'm sorry if you are still confused.

Your confusion ends when you say that United could legally remove them from the flight.

As I said, I'm not the one who is confused. I am crystal clear that you are wrong.

They can't "take them off the flight for other reasons".

Yes they can. He didn't have property rights on that flight to not be removed by the property owner.Yes they can. He didn't have property rights on that flight to not be removed by the property owner.

You are wrong; and I am done

The problem is that you are expecting proof beyond a shadow of a doubt. That's an unreasonable standard in a civil case.

 

[RavenSky]

STILL no factual evidence. Do you understand the difference between FACTUAL EVIDENCE and your opinion?

The problem is that you are expecting proof beyond a shadow of a doubt. That's an unreasonable standard in a civil case.

No. I am expecting you and CA to stop inserting your unsubstantiated opinions in place of facts when you are trying to justify a violent assault on an innocent passenger.

And since it is abundantly clear that neither of you have any actual facts on this point, you need to stop bringing it up

 

[coloradoatheist]

The problem is that you are expecting proof beyond a shadow of a doubt. That's an unreasonable standard in a civil case.

No. I am expecting you and CA to stop inserting your unsubstantiated opinions in place of facts when you are trying to justify a violent assault on an innocent passenger.

And since it is abundantly clear that neither of you have any actual facts on this point, you need to stop bringing it up

They only had about 2 and half hours to get a crew there to Louisville to not delay the flight in the morning. So they would have had to alert another flight crew (up to an hour) find a flight that's within that 90 minutes or hope that the original plane that was having mechanical failures would be ready to fly in time.

Realistically United had 3 options.
a) Do what they did
b) Tell the new crew they were to late and scramble to find something or delay the flight in the morning
c) Up the ante until they found 4 seats voluntarily. It was the amount of seats that hurt the bumping it up option, but it was possible.

 

[RavenSky]

Just so we are 100% clear - multiple people have already noted that the opinions of ColoradoAtheist and Loren are NOT facts... no matter how many times they repeat the same nonsense.

The lack of response to yet more of their unsupported opinions is not an indication of abdication... just bored with the nonsense.

 

[SLD]

Just so we are 100% clear - multiple people have already noted that the opinions of ColoradoAtheist and Loren are NOT facts... no matter how many times they repeat the same nonsense.

The lack of response to yet more of their unsupported opinions is not an indication of abdication... just bored with the nonsense.

I'm confused what you are arguing. Do you seriously deny that it's a fact that United owns the airplane and the seat? Are you denying that there's a contract with passengers that has terms? Here's one of the contract terms in a United Airlines contract of carriage:

Schedules are Subject To Change Without Notice - Times shown on tickets, timetables, published schedules or elsewhere, and aircraft type and similar details reflected on tickets or UA’s schedule are not guaranteed and form no part of this contract. UA may substitute alternate carriers or aircraft, delay or cancel flights, and alter or omit stopping places or connections shown on the ticket at any time. UA will promptly provide Passengers the best available information regarding known delays, cancellations, misconnections and diversions, but UA is not liable for any misstatements or other errors or omissions in connection with providing such information. No employee, agent or representative of UA can bind UA legally by reason of any statements relating to flight status or other information. Except to the extent provided in this Rule, UA shall not be liable for failing to operate any flight according to schedule, or for any change in flight schedule, with or without notice to the passenger.

If you are saying there's some legal rights that passengers have you are right. But they are limited by law and contract. Here is the DOT website on your rights:

Contrary to popular belief, for domestic itineraries airlines are not required to compensate passengers whose flights are delayed or canceled. As discussed in the chapter on overbooking, compensation is required by law on domestic trips only when you are "bumped" from a flight that is oversold. On international itineraries, passengers may be able to recover reimbursement under Article 19 of the Montreal Convention for expenses resulting from a delayed or canceled flight by filing a claim with the airline. If the claim is denied, you may pursue the matter in small claims court if you believe that the carrier did not take all measures that could reasonably be required to avoid the damages caused by the delay.

. . .

Overbooking is not illegal, and most airlines overbook their scheduled flights to a certain extent in order to compensate for "no-shows." Passengers are sometimes left behind or "bumped" as a result. When an oversale occurs, the Department of Transportation (DOT) requires airlines to ask people who aren't in a hurry to give up their seats voluntarily, in exchange for compensation. Those passengers bumped against their will are, with a few exceptions, entitled to compensation.

Bottom line. If they say get out. You gotta get out. That's a fact. Not an opinion.

SLD

 

[coloradoatheist]

Just so we are 100% clear - multiple people have already noted that the opinions of ColoradoAtheist and Loren are NOT facts... no matter how many times they repeat the same nonsense.

The lack of response to yet more of their unsupported opinions is not an indication of abdication... just bored with the nonsense.

I guess I am confused why you don't think a person working at United woulldn't follow the standard established procedure.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

First of all, contracts are bullshit. Yeah i said it.

No, not all contracts...but the vast majority are bs. The kind where two equal persons get together, draw up a contract, and then voluntarily sign it are okay. What happens in a case like this though is that an entire industry of business writes the same kind of contract, writing the same kind of unfair principles as every other business in the same industry. It's as bad or worse than price fixing by an industry.

The consumer, otherwise known as the "little guy" does not have a team of lawyers to fight for them. They mostly don't have time energy or inclination to fight either. Imagine life if you actually had time to read through that 100 pages of legalese every time you clicked the I AGREE button on your computer but there's nothing you can do anyway. Plus, who reads a contract when getting an airline ticket?? I've flown on planes, ridden trains, and taken cruises. Never even noticed a contract.

Okay, so that was the first thing. Contracts are bullshit. Bumping, a specific implementation of bullshit contracts forcing little guys into taking it in the ass from The Man are also bullshit.

Now the second issue...the specifics of the bullshit contract actually refer to bumping which is a thing that occurs prior to being boarded and certainly prior to being seated. That means The Man can only give it to the little guy in the ass prior to boarding. Once the little guy gets on the plane, he's supposed to feel safe from corporate anal rape.

 

[Arctish]

Yes, but you are the one saying that based on a one a billion chance of something going wrong that United needed to make a non corporate policy based decision when they had a normal policy to handle this situation. At most United had 5 hours to find a flight crew and get them on a plane and get them to Louisville starting with using a United flight and then a competitor flight. And that 5 hours doesn't include the hour that a crew has to report for duty at the airport.

You are wrong; and I am done

No. I had wished United taken this to court to prove one of right and the other wrong, but they wouldn't do that just to prove a point an a small bulletin board. And I believe you have confused two different types of law.

I believe that you believe that because you haven't read the links provided.

You keep telling us what you think federal regulations and United's Contract of Carriage should have said. You keep ignoring the what the regulations and contract actually said at the time this incident occurred. You also keep ignoring the opinions provided by legal experts in favor of ad hoc explanations.

So you think the airline had a right to remove a passenger who had already boarded in order to meet staffing needs. You don't think the airline should have kept sweetening the deal until a fourth passenger gave up his/her seat voluntarily. And you think it was okay for the airport security staff to forcibly remove Dao from the aircraft. We get that.

But that's not what federal regulations allow, and it was not in keeping with the contract between United and Dao.

 

[Arctish]

And note that it's called the "boarding process". The airline sees it as the whole thing--boarding starts when the first passengers comes on board, it finishes when they close the doors. Your source is based upon assuming that it applies separately to each passenger.

Please provide a link to where you got this information unless it was from a male bovine, in which case we'll just call it bullshit and move on.

And what is the airline supposed to do when there's a IT snafu and two people are issued boarding passes for the same seat?

They're supposed to realize it at the gate and solve the issue before boarding both of them.

Passengers can be bumped from a flight prior to boarding. No one disputes this! The airlines are required by federal regulations to provide compensation to those passengers. But an already boarded passenger cannot be removed from an aircraft except under specific conditions. The airline's staffing needs is/was not one of those conditions.

Dr. Dao was not acting belligerent or throwing a temper tantrum. He was within his rights as a consumer of airline services to remain in his seat following boarding, and was calmly talking to his lawyer when the security guard got violent.

What I'm talking about is his behavior when they attempted to remove him, not his behavior while sitting.

So you agree he was not being belligerent before the security guard grabbed him and dragged him out of his seat. I'm glad we finally got that straightened out.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Here is the Department of Transportations response to the United incident. They had no problem with it being called involuntary denial of boarding and they did not have a problem with them removing him from the flight after they boarded. The problem that they had with United as that they didn't provide Dr Dao a written statement about being IDBed at the time when he was going to the hospital. The DOT said that United needed to pay those 4 passengers the oversold rate.


https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/resources/individuals/aviation-consumer-protection/285521/dot-letter-united.pdf

 

[fast]

First of all, contracts are bullshit. Yeah i said it.

No, not all contracts...but the vast majority are bs. The kind where two equal persons get together, draw up a contract, and then voluntarily sign it are okay. What happens in a case like this though is that an entire industry of business writes the same kind of contract, writing the same kind of unfair principles as every other business in the same industry. It's as bad or worse than price fixing by an industry.

The consumer, otherwise known as the "little guy" does not have a team of lawyers to fight for them. They mostly don't have time energy or inclination to fight either. Imagine life if you actually had time to read through that 100 pages of legalese every time you clicked the I AGREE button on your computer but there's nothing you can do anyway. Plus, who reads a contract when getting an airline ticket?? I've flown on planes, ridden trains, and taken cruises. Never even noticed a contract.

Okay, so that was the first thing. Contracts are bullshit. Bumping, a specific implementation of bullshit contracts forcing little guys into taking it in the ass from The Man are also bullshit.

Now the second issue...the specifics of the bullshit contract actually refer to bumping which is a thing that occurs prior to being boarded and certainly prior to being seated. That means The Man can only give it to the little guy in the ass prior to boarding. Once the little guy gets on the plane, he's supposed to feel safe from corporate anal rape.

They are a bit one-sided, eh. This reminds me of a case where a consumer replicated a contract, down to the fonts, colors, and specifics. The customer to be (and credit card holder to be) made a few small adjustments to the wording, signed it, and returned it.

The kind of thing that brings a smile to both liberals and non-liberals alike.

 

[Juma]

Here is the Department of Transportations response to the United incident. They had no problem with it being called involuntary denial of boarding and they did not have a problem with them removing him from the flight after they boarded. The problem that they had with United as that they didn't provide Dr Dao a written statement about being IDBed at the time when he was going to the hospital. The DOT said that United needed to pay those 4 passengers the oversold rate.


https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/resources/individuals/aviation-consumer-protection/285521/dot-letter-united.pdf

Bulshit.

We did not review the actions of the security officers of the Chicago Department of Aviation because it is not DOT's role to investigate police conduct.

And furthermore they did not say anything about wether they could have continues to stay on the plane.

They only reviewed wether this was an act of discrimination and wether they got repaid the correct sum.

 

[DBT]

The concept of basic customer relations/good will would suggest the best course to take is offer a large enough incentive so that someone is likely to take the offer and vacate their seat feeling satisfied with the deal, resulting in a happy customer and a vacant seat for the airline to use. Both parties benefit without violence or ill will.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Bulshit.

We did not review the actions of the security officers of the Chicago Department of Aviation because it is not DOT's role to investigate police conduct.

And furthermore they did not say anything about wether they could have continues to stay on the plane.

They only reviewed wether this was an act of discrimination and wether they got repaid the correct sum.

Not bullshit. The DoT's job is to evaluate the rights being violated by the airlines on certain cases. Rightfully, they saw the incident just as a normal involuntary boarding. They could have said United violated his rights by trying to remove his ticket after boarding and that United wrongfully used Involuntary Boarding. But they didn't.

- - - Updated - - -

The concept of basic customer relations/good will would suggest the best course to take is offer a large enough incentive so that someone is likely to take the offer and vacate their seat feeling satisfied with the deal, resulting in a happy customer and a vacant seat for the airline to use. Both parties benefit without violence or ill will.

But that doesn't apply everywhere. If you get a bad meal at a restaurant they can say I'm sorry, they can comp the meal, or offer some extras but they don't have to give the customer more and more money until they say they had a good experience. At some point a business can say no more and lose a customer. How about customers learning some empty.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

If you get something you didn't order, you say, "Hey I didn't order a ham sammich. I ordered stuffed filet of sole." Then, the server says, "Oh. You didn't order that. I'm sorry. I will get you the stuffed filet of sole." Then, he/she fixes the situation by getting you what you ordered. If it's much later than every one else at the table, the manager may get your table free desserts or the server may comp some drinks. Besides the common decency, this is a profit-driven response as the average customer having a bad experience will go tell 10 other customers. So it is best to transform their bad experience into a good one from a profit perspective. Likewise, calling security on your restaurant patron because you want to seat employees at their table while they haven't yet eaten would be a very bad business decision, not just indecent.

 

[coloradoatheist]

If you get something you didn't order, you say, "Hey I didn't order a ham sammich. I ordered stuffed filet of sole." Then, the server says, "Oh. You didn't order that. I'm sorry. I will get you the stuffed filet of sole." Then, he/she fixes the situation by getting you what you ordered. If it's much later than every one else at the table, the manager may get your table free desserts or the server may comp some drinks. Besides the common decency, this is a profit-driven response as the average customer having a bad experience will go tell 10 other customers. So it is best to transform their bad experience into a good one from a profit perspective. Likewise, calling security on your restaurant patron because you want to seat employees at their table while they haven't yet eaten would be a very bad business decision, not just indecent.

Correct, but each businesses needs to make a decision on some point on what they will do to appease a customer. A company doesn't have to give someone a million dollars just so they will come back. You cut it off somewhere otherwise even though you might save a customer, you might not be able to pay your bills.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

If you get something you didn't order, you say, "Hey I didn't order a ham sammich. I ordered stuffed filet of sole." Then, the server says, "Oh. You didn't order that. I'm sorry. I will get you the stuffed filet of sole." Then, he/she fixes the situation by getting you what you ordered. If it's much later than every one else at the table, the manager may get your table free desserts or the server may comp some drinks. Besides the common decency, this is a profit-driven response as the average customer having a bad experience will go tell 10 other customers. So it is best to transform their bad experience into a good one from a profit perspective. Likewise, calling security on your restaurant patron because you want to seat employees at their table while they haven't yet eaten would be a very bad business decision, not just indecent.

Correct, but each businesses needs to make a decision on some point on what they will do to appease a customer. A company doesn't have to give someone a million dollars just so they will come back. You cut it off somewhere otherwise even though you might save a customer, you might not be able to pay your bills.

This is a bad analogy, too. In the real example, each customer is in competition with each other in order to both get a high value from their own ticket but also to under-value it in relation to the other potential customers all vying for the voluntary bump. Out of some hundred (or whatever) customers someone will take the bump well prior to a million dollars. But none of that is supposed to happen after they are boarded anyway.

 

[laughing dog]

But that doesn't apply everywhere. If you get a bad meal at a restaurant they can say I'm sorry, they can comp the meal, or offer some extras but they don't have to give the customer more and more money until they say they had a good experience. At some point a business can say no more and lose a customer. How about customers learning some empty.

For some reason, you feel this is even remotely appropriate to the actual situation on the airplane. It is not. All UA had to do was make open offers to anyone to leave the plane. It is ridiculous to think that it would have taken a plane load of money to get 4 people to voluntarily leave the plane. In addition, the payout would also serve as a reminder to UA of the cost of screwing up, and maybe prompt them to think of a better method of avoiding these situations. As it is, I guess this outcome will end up costing them a lot more than if they had just offered sufficient inducement to the passengers to get 4 people to leave the plane.

I know that works pretty well when there is over-booking and the airline makes the offers before boarding. I see no reason why would it not have successful after boarding.

 

[coloradoatheist]

But that doesn't apply everywhere. If you get a bad meal at a restaurant they can say I'm sorry, they can comp the meal, or offer some extras but they don't have to give the customer more and more money until they say they had a good experience. At some point a business can say no more and lose a customer. How about customers learning some empty.

For some reason, you feel this is even remotely appropriate to the actual situation on the airplane. It is not. All UA had to do was make open offers to anyone to leave the plane. It is ridiculous to think that it would have taken a plane load of money to get 4 people to voluntarily leave the plane. In addition, the payout would also serve as a reminder to UA of the cost of screwing up, and maybe prompt them to think of a better method of avoiding these situations. As it is, I guess this outcome will end up costing them a lot more than if they had just offered sufficient inducement to the passengers to get 4 people to leave the plane.

I know that works pretty well when there is over-booking and the airline makes the offers before boarding. I see no reason why would it not have successful after boarding.

For all the bumping out there most airlines voluntarily bump at about an 8 to 1 ratio to involuntary bumps. So even though they can bump voluntarily, they still bump involuntarily. The only difference is the artificial distinction between the door when they are loading.