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

[coloradoatheist]

Read it again. It's obvious that the DOT considers this to be an involuntary denied boarding, they were looking at whether there were any irregularities in following the IDB rules.

”Obvious”? Do you really want to join club untermensche? How about provide some actual arguments based on the actual text as a decent person would do?
I have already shown that this document does not cover the act of actual forcing out of the passengers.
And that it explicitly states that united did not do what they should to let these people stay on the plane.

I did. The DoT is the body that is used to investigate rights violations of airlines. They could have taken the stance that people on here suggest which is to say, "United violated his rights just by trying to remove him after they were seated" They could have then gone on to say, "This is a warming to United that if you do that again you will get fined massively" or they could have fined United for the infraction. Instead they just said, "You should have given him the paper on the way to the hospital" The DoT was fine with calling it denial of boarding. Nothing done or said by the groups that could make a legal decision would prevent any airlines from doing what they did again, just don't hit his face against the armrest.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

”Obvious”? Do you really want to join club untermensche? How about provide some actual arguments based on the actual text as a decent person would do?
I have already shown that this document does not cover the act of actual forcing out of the passengers.
And that it explicitly states that united did not do what they should to let these people stay on the plane.

I did. The DoT is the body that is used to investigate rights violations of airlines. They could have taken the stance that people on here suggest which is to say, "United violated his rights just by trying to remove him after they were seated" They could have then gone on to say, "This is a warming to United that if you do that again you will get fined massively" or they could have fined United for the infraction. Instead they just said, "You should have given him the paper on the way to the hospital" The DoT was fine with calling it denial of boarding. Nothing done or said by the groups that could make a legal decision would prevent any airlines from doing what they did again, just don't hit his face against the armrest.

The department said that the airline later corrected its error in providing the wrong compensation for the one passenger, and that it failed to give written notice of federal overbooking rules to Dao and his wife only because the couple quickly left the airplane for the hospital due to Dao’s injuries.

That seems laughable. The airline didn't have time to present the regulations because he was too busy being assaulted on the plane. And this is probably the most important issue. The airline is responsible for helping this guy understand that airlines can do this sort of stuff. That isn't common knowledge, or at least wasn't.

Regardless, one must wonder about the hindsight here. United quickly changed policies and gave Dao a fat check. The question might be 'Did DoT do nothing, because United was fast enough to do it already?'

 

[coloradoatheist]

I did. The DoT is the body that is used to investigate rights violations of airlines. They could have taken the stance that people on here suggest which is to say, "United violated his rights just by trying to remove him after they were seated" They could have then gone on to say, "This is a warming to United that if you do that again you will get fined massively" or they could have fined United for the infraction. Instead they just said, "You should have given him the paper on the way to the hospital" The DoT was fine with calling it denial of boarding. Nothing done or said by the groups that could make a legal decision would prevent any airlines from doing what they did again, just don't hit his face against the armrest.

The department said that the airline later corrected its error in providing the wrong compensation for the one passenger, and that it failed to give written notice of federal overbooking rules to Dao and his wife only because the couple quickly left the airplane for the hospital due to Dao’s injuries.

That seems laughable. The airline didn't have time to present the regulations because he was too busy being assaulted on the plane. And this is probably the most important issue. The airline is responsible for helping this guy understand that airlines can do this sort of stuff. That isn't common knowledge, or at least wasn't.

Regardless, one must wonder about the hindsight here. United quickly changed policies and gave Dao a fat check. The question might be 'Did DoT do nothing, because United was fast enough to do it already?'

But the DoT had an opportunity to make things more clear than they did. Or did their legal team realize they could legally but at least make sure the consumer gets compensated for it?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Read it again. It's obvious that the DOT considers this to be an involuntary denied boarding, they were looking at whether there were any irregularities in following the IDB rules.

”Obvious”? Do you really want to join club untermensche? How about provide some actual arguments based on the actual text as a decent person would do?
I have already shown that this document does not cover the act of actual forcing out of the passengers.
And that it explicitly states that united did not do what they should to let these people stay on the plane.

Yeah, the document doesn't address it--which is the whole point. The document simply considers it an involuntarily denied boarding. If the DoT had any question about whether it was actually an IDB the document would have discussed it. (Note that it specifically mentioned the issues it didn't address as being outside the scope of the issue.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That seems laughable. The airline didn't have time to present the regulations because he was too busy being assaulted on the plane. And this is probably the most important issue. The airline is responsible for helping this guy understand that airlines can do this sort of stuff. That isn't common knowledge, or at least wasn't.

Regardless, one must wonder about the hindsight here. United quickly changed policies and gave Dao a fat check. The question might be 'Did DoT do nothing, because United was fast enough to do it already?'

Laughing at reality won't make it go away.

Lets look at reality:

IDB compensation is handled at the gate, not on board the airplane. At the time he was throwing his temper tantrum there was no obligation to provide the paperwork.

That DoT document is absolutely damning of your position and it's so contrary to your worldview that you can't even understand what it's saying.

 

[Arctish]

Interesting.

According to the Department of Transportation letter, its investigation of the April 9 incident found that United Airlines failed to calculate the proper compensation for one of the five passengers who were removed from the flight. Also, the Chicago-based airline neglected to give Dao and his wife a written copy of the federal rules regarding how airlines may proceed when flights are overbooked.

But the Transportation Department also said it found no proof that United used race, national origin, gender or religion criteria to discriminate against any of the passengers removed from the plane...

... “We generally pursue enforcement action when a carrier exhibits a pattern or practice of noncompliance with the department’s consumer protection regulations and federal anti-discrimination statutes that we enforce,” the agency said. “Therefore, we conclude that enforcement action is not warranted in this matter.”...

... “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,” the letter said.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-united-airlines-bumping-20170906-story.html

The flight was not overbooked, so the airline pamphlet on overbooked flights has got fuck-all to do with anything.

The issue isn't racial discrimination (although Dao expressed his belief it was the reason he was being forced to leave); it's the unlawful actions of the airline and the airport security team.

They say they generally pursue enforcement action when there is a pattern or practice of noncompliance, meaning if they consider an incident a one-off kind of thing they might not do anything about it.

And they didn't review the actions of the security team because they don't investigate police conduct, even though it has been made abundantly clear the security guards involved were not police officers.

It's also interesting it took a Freedom of Information Act request to get the information. Why so shy about getting the word out?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

That seems laughable. The airline didn't have time to present the regulations because he was too busy being assaulted on the plane. And this is probably the most important issue. The airline is responsible for helping this guy understand that airlines can do this sort of stuff. That isn't common knowledge, or at least wasn't.

Regardless, one must wonder about the hindsight here. United quickly changed policies and gave Dao a fat check. The question might be 'Did DoT do nothing, because United was fast enough to do it already?'

Laughing at reality won't make it go away.

Lets look at reality:

IDB compensation is handled at the gate, not on board the airplane. At the time he was throwing his temper tantrum there was no obligation to provide the paperwork.

That DoT document is absolutely damning of your position and it's so contrary to your worldview that you can't even understand what it's saying.

Funny, I was thinking the same thing about your view and the United payout to Dao.

 

[RavenSky]

And when that "someone" shows the police officer the lease YOU signed, and the receipt YOU gave "someone" for the money they paid you for the right to be on your property, the police officer will rightly tell YOU that they will NOT remove "someone" and advise YOU to call your lawyer if you want to pursue it through civil court.

Did you purposely confuse terms? I would agree with you if he had a LEASE. But he did not have a LEASE, he had a license, big difference.

WRONG!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Interesting.

According to the Department of Transportation letter, its investigation of the April 9 incident found that United Airlines failed to calculate the proper compensation for one of the five passengers who were removed from the flight. Also, the Chicago-based airline neglected to give Dao and his wife a written copy of the federal rules regarding how airlines may proceed when flights are overbooked.

But the Transportation Department also said it found no proof that United used race, national origin, gender or religion criteria to discriminate against any of the passengers removed from the plane...

... “We generally pursue enforcement action when a carrier exhibits a pattern or practice of noncompliance with the department’s consumer protection regulations and federal anti-discrimination statutes that we enforce,” the agency said. “Therefore, we conclude that enforcement action is not warranted in this matter.”...

... “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,” the letter said.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-united-airlines-bumping-20170906-story.html

The flight was not overbooked, so the airline pamphlet on overbooked flights has got fuck-all to do with anything.

The issue isn't racial discrimination (although Dao expressed his belief it was the reason he was being forced to leave); it's the unlawful actions of the airline and the airport security team.

They say they generally pursue enforcement action when there is a pattern or practice of noncompliance, meaning if they consider an incident a one-off kind of thing they might not do anything about it.

And they didn't review the actions of the security team because they don't investigate police conduct, even though it has been made abundantly clear the security guards involved were not police officers.

It's also interesting it took a Freedom of Information Act request to get the information. Why so shy about getting the word out?

Why do you continue to think you know more about the rules than the organization that made the rules in the first place?!

From reading that document it's quite clear the Department of Transportation considered this to be an involuntarily denied boarding. Their objection was with not providing the required disclosure form.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Did you purposely confuse terms? I would agree with you if he had a LEASE. But he did not have a LEASE, he had a license, big difference.

WRONG!

Wrong that you are trying to confuse people?

Wrong that that there is a difference with a Lease or a Licnse?

Wrong with that he had a license?

 

[Arctish]

Interesting.



The flight was not overbooked, so the airline pamphlet on overbooked flights has got fuck-all to do with anything.

The issue isn't racial discrimination (although Dao expressed his belief it was the reason he was being forced to leave); it's the unlawful actions of the airline and the airport security team.

They say they generally pursue enforcement action when there is a pattern or practice of noncompliance, meaning if they consider an incident a one-off kind of thing they might not do anything about it.

And they didn't review the actions of the security team because they don't investigate police conduct, even though it has been made abundantly clear the security guards involved were not police officers.

It's also interesting it took a Freedom of Information Act request to get the information. Why so shy about getting the word out?

Why do you continue to think you know more about the rules than the organization that made the rules in the first place?!

From reading that document it's quite clear the Department of Transportation considered this to be an involuntarily denied boarding. Their objection was with not providing the required disclosure form.

I don't think I know more than the people who work at the DOT, but I do think I have more integrity than the guy who wrote that letter.

Dao was not denied boarding. The flight was not overbooked. United's pamphlet about overbooked flights and denial of boarding has fuck-all to do with what actually happened.

United chose to forcibly remove a properly ticketed, boarded, and seated passenger even though it had no provisions in its Contract of Carriage to do so under the circumstances. The security team it called in resorted to violence even though the circumstances did not warrant the use of force. The guy who wrote that DOT letter sounds like an idiot, although I suspect he was just following a directive to be nice to the airlines.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Why do you continue to think you know more about the rules than the organization that made the rules in the first place?!

From reading that document it's quite clear the Department of Transportation considered this to be an involuntarily denied boarding. Their objection was with not providing the required disclosure form.

I don't think I know more than the people who work at the DOT, but I do think I have more integrity than the guy who wrote that letter.

Dao was not denied boarding. The flight was not overbooked. United's pamphlet about overbooked flights and denial of boarding has fuck-all to do with what actually happened.

United chose to forcibly remove a properly ticketed, boarded, and seated passenger even though it had no provisions in its Contract of Carriage to do so under the circumstances. The security team it called in resorted to violence even though the circumstances did not warrant the use of force. The guy who wrote that DOT letter sounds like an idiot, although I suspect he was just following a directive to be nice to the airlines.

The person that wrote that letter was one of the top lawyers at the Department of Transportation and her division is the one that handles customer complaints. The conclusion from them was the same as Loren and I and that it was legal for United to remove the passenger and that the denied boarding clause was to cover this incident too.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

WRONG!

Wrong that you are trying to confuse people?

Wrong that that there is a difference with a Lease or a Licnse?

Wrong with that he had a license?

Wrong in that it goes against the leftist reality that the powerful entity must be responsible for the problem.

 

[laughing dog]

Wrong that you are trying to confuse people?

Wrong that that there is a difference with a Lease or a Licnse?

Wrong with that he had a license?

Wrong in that it goes against the leftist reality that the powerful entity must be responsible for the problem.

Thump that bible, Elmer Gantry, thump it hard.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I don't think I know more than the people who work at the DOT, but I do think I have more integrity than the guy who wrote that letter.

Dao was not denied boarding. The flight was not overbooked. United's pamphlet about overbooked flights and denial of boarding has fuck-all to do with what actually happened.

United chose to forcibly remove a properly ticketed, boarded, and seated passenger even though it had no provisions in its Contract of Carriage to do so under the circumstances. The security team it called in resorted to violence even though the circumstances did not warrant the use of force. The guy who wrote that DOT letter sounds like an idiot, although I suspect he was just following a directive to be nice to the airlines.

The DOT has no reason to lie here. There's no issue of integrity as he gets no benefit from going against the facts.

The problem is he went against your faith. You're reacting about how a creationist does to evidence of evolution.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I don't think I know more than the people who work at the DOT, but I do think I have more integrity than the guy who wrote that letter.

Dao was not denied boarding. The flight was not overbooked. United's pamphlet about overbooked flights and denial of boarding has fuck-all to do with what actually happened.

United chose to forcibly remove a properly ticketed, boarded, and seated passenger even though it had no provisions in its Contract of Carriage to do so under the circumstances. The security team it called in resorted to violence even though the circumstances did not warrant the use of force. The guy who wrote that DOT letter sounds like an idiot, although I suspect he was just following a directive to be nice to the airlines.

The DOT has no reason to lie here. There's no issue of integrity as he gets no benefit from going against the facts.

The problem is he went against your faith. You're reacting about how a creationist does to evidence of evolution.

*self-moderated response*

Isn't overbooking when an airline intentionally oversells a flight ie more tickets than seats? This is done because... they can.

However this flight wasn't oversold. The plane was contracted and a number of seats were taken away so airline employee butts could sit in them.

I believe it was demonstrated through the code that this doesn't count as overbooking. And of course the DOT has skin in the game to modify how they approach this.


... you Nazi.

 

[RavenSky]

Wrong that you are trying to confuse people?

Wrong that that there is a difference with a Lease or a Licnse?

Wrong with that he had a license?

Wrong in that it goes against the leftist reality that the powerful entity must be responsible for the problem.

Wrong in that ColoradoAtheist doesn't know what he is talking about, and I am tired of him repeating the same nonsense over and over and over. A plane ticket is NOT a "license"

 

[Arctish]

I don't think I know more than the people who work at the DOT, but I do think I have more integrity than the guy who wrote that letter.

Dao was not denied boarding. The flight was not overbooked. United's pamphlet about overbooked flights and denial of boarding has fuck-all to do with what actually happened.

United chose to forcibly remove a properly ticketed, boarded, and seated passenger even though it had no provisions in its Contract of Carriage to do so under the circumstances. The security team it called in resorted to violence even though the circumstances did not warrant the use of force. The guy who wrote that DOT letter sounds like an idiot, although I suspect he was just following a directive to be nice to the airlines.

The DOT has no reason to lie here. There's no issue of integrity as he gets no benefit from going against the facts.

Well, if it's not lying or a lack of integrity, it must be stupidity and/or ignorance.

They say they didn't review the actions of the security team because they don't review police action. The security team members aren't police officers. That fact was thoroughly established within 24 hours of the incident.

They say United should have given Dao a written copy of the federal rules regarding how airlines may proceed when flights are overbooked even though the flight was not overbooked.

They say they 'generally' pursue enforcement action when there's a pattern or policy of non-compliance. That might be true but it sounds like they're saying they don't do shit when the non-compliance is occasional. They didn't find evidence of racial discrimination which could mean somebody actually investigated the matter, or they didn't find anything because they didn't bother looking.

I wouldn't say they're going against the facts so much as simply ignoring them.

"Oh, those guys weren't cops? Well, umm.... we don't review police action so case closed!"

The problem is he went against your faith. You're reacting about how a creationist does to evidence of evolution.

Hint: people posting faith based dogma are the ones who couldn't find a fact if you led them right to it.

Everyone else here is discussing established facts (like the fact the security team members aren't cops) and providing links to sources of information and supporting evidence.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Wrong in that it goes against the leftist reality that the powerful entity must be responsible for the problem.

Wrong in that ColoradoAtheist doesn't know what he is talking about, and I am tired of him repeating the same nonsense over and over and over. A plane ticket is NOT a "license"

I am not the one who tried to use the term Lease wrongly. You actually want to make an attempt at a legal argument on why it's not a license?

 

[coloradoatheist]

The DOT has no reason to lie here. There's no issue of integrity as he gets no benefit from going against the facts.

Well, if it's not lying or a lack of integrity, it must be stupidity and/or ignorance.

They say they didn't review the actions of the security team because they don't review police action. The security team members aren't police officers. That fact was thoroughly established within 24 hours of the incident.

They say United should have given Dao a written copy of the federal rules regarding how airlines may proceed when flights are overbooked even though the flight was not overbooked.

They say they 'generally' pursue enforcement action when there's a pattern or policy of non-compliance. That might be true but it sounds like they're saying they don't do shit when the non-compliance is occasional. They didn't find evidence of racial discrimination which could mean somebody actually investigated the matter, or they didn't find anything because they didn't bother looking.

I wouldn't say they're going against the facts so much as simply ignoring them.

"Oh, those guys weren't cops? Well, umm.... we don't review police action so case closed!"

The problem is he went against your faith. You're reacting about how a creationist does to evidence of evolution.

Hint: people posting faith based dogma are the ones who couldn't find a fact if you led them right to it.

Everyone else here is discussing established facts (like the fact the security team members aren't cops) and providing links to sources of information and supporting evidence.

The Department of Transportation investigates the relationship with the airlines and other transportation companies. It doesn't investigate organizations that have been certified for law enforcement and whether or not they were acting within those bounds. The Department of Justice would investiate that issue.

The denial of boarding section was put in for all the cases where the airlines doesn't allow you to fly on the plane because of over scheduling and that's how they ruled on it here. The legal issue for United would be whether they owed $0, the refund of the ticket, 4xticket, or actual expenses for missing the flight. The clause was a step for consumers so both parties had an easier method to dealing with "bumped" flights.

The DoT could have easily said, "Hey we believe United overstepped its bounds for removing the ticket once he boarded, but they didn't because denial of boarding in their minds includes any time the airlines takes away your seat for something else"