General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsLaw professor explains how United blew it.
Neither of the two rules cited by United, Rule 21 and Rule 25, apply to the doctor's removal.
http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/united-cites-wrong-rule-for-illegally-de-boarding-passenger/
Uniteds Rule 25, as its title clearly implies, applies only to denied boarding. Thus, it uses the word denied boarding, and variants such as deny boarding, but says nothing about requiring passengers who have already boarded to give up their seats.
Indeed, it states in part, using the word boarding twice, that: other passengers may be denied boarding involuntarily in accordance with UAs boarding priority.
Clearly, a boarding priority does not include or imply an involuntary removal or refusal of transport. Moreover, under well accepted contract law, any ambiguous term in a contract must be construed against and in the way least favorable to the party which drafted it.
SNIP
Rule 21 . . . which unlike the denied boarding rule does provide for removal from the aircraft at any point, lists some two dozen justifications including: unruly behavior, intoxication, inability to fit into one seat, medical problems or concerns, etc. But nowhere in the list of some two dozen reasons is there anything about over booking, the need to free up seats, the need for seats to accommodate crew members to be used on a different flight etc.
SNIP
Finally, it appears that United is seeking to blame the passenger, claiming that when asked to give up his seat, he acted belligerently and citing a rule which requires that passengers obey the orders of the flight crew. But, such a requirement applies only to orders which are lawful.
athena
(4,187 posts)by know-it-alls declaring with great authority that United has the right to throw anyone off its airplanes for any reason whatsoever and that the individual passenger has no choice but to comply at the risk of being physically assaulted by cops. It is such a relief to find that things are not quite that bad yet.
hlthe2b
(102,101 posts)I no longer wonder how authoritarians establish a stronghold (and compliance)
yardwork
(61,533 posts)pnwmom
(108,951 posts)up to a maximum of $1325.
Not true. The minimum they are required to compensate is 4 X the price of the ticket, to a maximum of $1325.
But they are ALLOWED to compensate bumped passengers any amount above that.
WoonTars
(694 posts)...
Swagman
(1,934 posts)and examples a corporation where the passenger is not the first priority
athena
(4,187 posts)is that the employees had to get there right away because there was another plane, potentially full of physicians, which couldn't take off otherwise, and that if the employees were driven to the destination, they wouldn't be able to work because of the limitation on the number of hours they can work.
As it turns out, the employees were not needed right away and had until the next morning to get to Louisville. They could easily have been transported by bus or limousine, not to mention by chartered airplane.
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2017/04/11/united-passenger-dragged-off-plane-backlash/
Just goes to show how easily and casually some DUers make things up to argue in favor of their authoritative and fascist ideals.
Hugin
(33,031 posts)I charge the lowest interest rates allowed by law.
The airline industry should be ashamed... And to think the Republicans are currently advocating privatizing and turning over the Air Traffic Control responsibilities to the airlines.
dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)Well, that ought to bankrupt a few insurance companies in a short time.
I don't anticipate the airlines could operate ATC any more successfully than they handle flights and passengers today.
Major Nikon
(36,818 posts)are minor compared to the PR disaster the action caused to their bottom line.
dalton99a
(81,378 posts)Ilsa
(61,688 posts)And maybe some well-fed lawyers, too. The Dr. will have his pick of representation.
tblue37
(65,212 posts)hospital might be a tactical decision taken under the advice of his lawyer as much as his doctor.
Certainly he was injured, and that injury might well have been serious enough to require some hospital time, but if I were a lawyer* I would suggest that he stay in the hospital for treatment and observation, since he is after all an elderly man who was roughly treated and hit his head because of being manhandled like that.
WoonTars
(694 posts)..wow, looks like United really screwed up...
bucolic_frolic
(43,025 posts)Blame the victim, that's the world they live in.
tblue37
(65,212 posts)yardwork
(61,533 posts)To me, it really doesn't matter whether the fine print gave United the right to deplane this man. There is no justification whatsoever for beating him bloody. None.
spooky3
(34,401 posts)spooky3
(34,401 posts)the behavior of United employees, including the CEO, is terrible behavior from a management standpoint. I almost don't care if their actions were legal. It is stupid and unethical at best to resort to violent removal of a paying passenger, when United clearly could have used other options such as providing better compensation to volunteers, that would have been MUCH less costly than the negative publicity.
Stonepounder
(4,033 posts)Because I am sure that part of the shrink-wrap contract you implicitly agree to when you buy a ticket is that you give up your right to sue and all disputes between you and the airline will have to go to binding arbitration.
I suspect that the airline will argue that either a) blame the airport police or b) you have to go to binding arbitration with our arbitrators.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)to thwart arbitration.
lindysalsagal
(20,560 posts)No government would write a law about arbitration for violence and no judge would permit that. Only the financial cost of the loss would be in arbitration.
mn9driver
(4,417 posts)And yes, when it comes to operating commercial airliners, I actually am a know-it-all.
United did screw up. They had several chances during this fiasco to prevent it. They didn't do that and they deserve the PR beating they are taking.
And this guy will probably sue. I have no idea how that will turn out. But the idea that once a passenger is sitting down he is immune from being bumped is absurd. A "lawful" instruction from the gate agent or flight crew absolutely includes being told to gather your belongings and exit the aircraft for any reason. Or no reason. It doesn't matter in that moment.
To be clear, there is no reason this had to happen. United messed up. But not for the reasons this "know-it-all" law professor thinks.
uponit7771
(90,301 posts)... sideways the more the weeds are delved into.
Best UA just say sorry and they'll do better or some shit
mythology
(9,527 posts)That isn't a defense I'd hang my hat on.
spooky3
(34,401 posts)of his credentials and specific citations for the basis of his reasoning.
Goodheart
(5,307 posts)Show me ANYWHERE where "boarding" doesn't mean what a layman thinks it means according to the dictionary: to get into or onto a plane, ship, or vessel.
United can't simply redefine words at its own convenience, and United's internal jargon is not binding upon a customer.
mn9driver
(4,417 posts)Someone is slinging baloney here. I suggest you check a mirror and spend a little less time on Facebook.
DK504
(3,847 posts)"he acted belligerently "
Gee, imagine that, he was pissed.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)pnwmom
(108,951 posts)Last edited Tue Apr 11, 2017, 09:54 PM - Edit history (2)
In at least one state, NY, damages beyond the price of the airplane ticket can be assessed.
In the case below, the attorney who sued on his own behalf in small claims court got $3100 plus the $2,000 cost of the plane tickets.
And this doctor might also have claims for assault and battery, depending on who was employing the security officers. I just read that he's in the hospital today, recovering from his injuries. (I haven't heard what he's being treated for, but they could have easily caused a concussion when they knocked his head against the armrest.)
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10028918901
"It is well settled that an award for inconvenience, delay and uncertainty is cognizable under New York law," Lebedeff wrote in her 13-page ruling. Lebedeff ruled that Continental failed to offer any compensation to Stone in writing, which was required by law.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)And how did he get back to Chicago anyway?
pnwmom
(108,951 posts)I'm not even sure what this means.
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/kentucky/articles/2017-04-10/the-latest-united-procedures-followed-to-remove-passenger
Hobart says the man was removed by Chicago police but the police department says its officers were not involved. Officer Jose Estrada says the incident was handled by the city's aviation department police force.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Arbitrators won't have jurisdiction over 1983 claims.
Discovery is a big problem for United, as is this story going viral in Asia.
Cha
(296,731 posts)Goodheart
(5,307 posts)You seem to be operating under the premise that "boarding" means the entire process of opening the plane to passengers right up until the time of take off.... and, yes, it might very well be the case that that's the industry's understanding of the term.
HOWEVER, is there a LEGAL definition anywhere? It seems to me, as it will to any jury, that a "boarding pass" indicates to a customer that once the pass is handed to an agent at the gate and he has entered the plane that he has boarded, regardless of whether he's sitting or still stowing his luggage. In fact, here is how the dictionary defines "board":
verb
1.
get on or into (a ship, aircraft, or other vehicle).
Unless United can show that it redefined "boarding" in its contract to something other than the layman's understanding of the term, or that "boarding" is previously defined by statute somewhere in United's favor, well, United will pay. United will pay big. And, of course, they won't be able to demonstrate either of those things. Previous posters here have correctly asserted that if there's any ambiguity in a contract that it legally must be interpreted in favor of the party who did not draft the actual text of the contract... but I don't even think it comes to that. There is no ambiguity... the doctor boarded the plane.
mythology
(9,527 posts)For example, does anybody think Alberto Gonzales had a legally correct opinion on torture? Always be wary you don't find an opinion that matches yours and assume it's accurate.
pnwmom
(108,951 posts)who agree with this one.
Do you have any links of lawyers disputing this opinion?
clarkrd
(54 posts)I worked for American '95-'00 and I have never heard of anything like this happening. This was a massive screwup by the gate agents and scheduling office.
A few things come to mind however,
Were all the dead head seats occupied? If so, why were they not deplaned so the crew who was needed could be accommodated.
There are other airlines that fly that route around the time and after this particular flight. UA could see 'in real time' if there are openings on other flights, and could claim those seats for the crew. Of course they would be billed for those seats.
Also flight crew that was supposedly needed in louisville would have been allowed to deadhead on those other carriers flights. <it happens all the time, the airlines treat their own like family, no matter the major company>
Something here does not add up to me.