Sue their arses off. There is no way any set up happened, the Doctor was already on board, and ready for the journey. They selected, attacked, and damaged the man for doing what all (but three) the other passengers were doing. Was he wearing a provocative Oriental face, and by sitting down it was obvious he was up for it? The CEO was smearing him way before the injuries were revealed. If the Airline are going to try to mitigate or defend the case, the version put forward by the Airline lawyers is going to be entertaining. I reckon he has a genuine case even by the charlatan standards of American justice and ought to deservedly get shedloads.
Short-term noise - in a week's time is anyone going to say,"We can fly United for $89 but let's choose Delta for $249 because that poor belligerent doctor got manhandled for not obeying a reasonable request to deplane."?
No but those flights that are more like $150 v $160....
Short-term noise - in a week's time is anyone going to say,"We can fly United for $89 but let's choose Delta for $249 because that poor belligerent doctor got manhandled for not obeying a reasonable request to deplane."?
If it was a request it would not require obedience.
Short-term noise - in a week's time is anyone going to say,"We can fly United for $89 but let's choose Delta for $249 because that poor belligerent doctor got manhandled for not obeying a reasonable request to deplane."?
We have differing views on the meaning of reasonable.
Once you're checked in, in your seat, ready to fly, how the **** is it reasonable to be removed from the plane, due to the airlines cock-up?
United are idiots, no doubt and there's loads of things to say about double booking and the fact he was already on the plane etc but 2 things.
1) If you are told to get off a plane, you have to get off the plane under aviation law (is my understanding)
2) The people who manhandled these guys weren't even united staff, they were Chicago police employees. This is the one that makes me have the most sympathy for United, they are responsible for messing up all of the flight plan etc, but they weren't the ones who actually beat the guy up...
I should point out I think he should be suing them AND Chicago police, and I'm not defending United or the Police, but I do believe there are those 2 mitigating factors.
Short-term noise - in a week's time is anyone going to say,"We can fly United for $89 but let's choose Delta for $249 because that poor belligerent doctor got manhandled for not obeying a reasonable request to deplane."?
We have differing views on the meaning of reasonable.
Once you're checked in, in your seat, ready to fly, how the **** is it reasonable to be removed from the plane, due to the airlines cock-up?
I doubt if it's an everyday occurrence but the terms and conditions clearly permit it.
So long as they followed procedure in selecting him for removal, the airline didn't have much choice in having him forcibly removed as they couldn't just give up and wait until they found someone who wouldn't put up a fuss (would create a strange precedent whenever it happened in the future).
His legal case is really against the police not the airline.
Short-term noise - in a week's time is anyone going to say,"We can fly United for $89 but let's choose Delta for $249 because that poor belligerent doctor got manhandled for not obeying a reasonable request to deplane."?
We have differing views on the meaning of reasonable.
Once you're checked in, in your seat, ready to fly, how the **** is it reasonable to be removed from the plane, due to the airlines cock-up?
I doubt if it's an everyday occurrence but the terms and conditions clearly permit it.
So long as they followed procedure in selecting him for removal, the airline didn't have much choice in having him forcibly removed as they couldn't just give up and wait until they found someone who wouldn't put up a fuss (would create a strange precedent whenever it happened in the future).
His legal case is really against the police not the airline.
I heard he had two teeth knocked out and has a broken nose. I'm not sure if this is correct.
Travelled in the US a lot and overbooking is really common, I have been bumped off on several occasions but was able to get a flight an hour or two later so no real big issue and the $200 paid onto my credit card was OK. However this does highlight two issues, firstly they transferred their problem i.e. the fact that their staff were in the wrong place, to the passenger who was already boarded and in his seat and had apparently a good reason for needing to take this flight. Secondly it also highlighted the aggressive nature of US security generally having been on the end of this once myself I can say that they go from polite to very aggressive in a nanosecond with no warning.
personally I hope the gentleman sues them for damages and gets a substantial pay out because the way in which he was manhandled was disproportionate and by the way whether it was security or police they were acting under instruction from the airline so they cannot abdicate their culpability in this crime.
All airlines operate this system and generally you are bumped off at the gate or check in, SAS are particularly well known for this in Europe but I am also 100% certain that they would never have someone forcibly removed once boarded and seated. Doesn't matter what the cost saving is there is no excuse for this incident. By the way the large US carriers by and large are crap and way below European, Asian and Middle East airline standards.
United's actions are indefensible. Hence the (embarrassingly late) apology. Too little in my view.
I can't see United allowing this to go to court, so we're unlikely to know what size the settlement is. But I hope Dr Dao gets to bank a cheque with two commas on it.
So why didn't they drag off a pregnant woman, or a child, or an obviously disabled person? In my view because it would have been seen as 'unreasonable'. So reasonableness is part of the debate in my view, this bloke was a 69 year old man. Perhaps it wasn't about what was reasonable, but who would be an easy target. My understanding regarding the law is that different circumstances apply once a person has boarded, I believe the law is about being allowed to board in the first place, and once on the aeroplane sitting down circumstances change.
Short-term noise - in a week's time is anyone going to say,"We can fly United for $89 but let's choose Delta for $249 because that poor belligerent doctor got manhandled for not obeying a reasonable request to deplane."?
We have differing views on the meaning of reasonable.
Once you're checked in, in your seat, ready to fly, how the **** is it reasonable to be removed from the plane, due to the airlines cock-up?
I doubt if it's an everyday occurrence but the terms and conditions clearly permit it.
So long as they followed procedure in selecting him for removal, the airline didn't have much choice in having him forcibly removed as they couldn't just give up and wait until they found someone who wouldn't put up a fuss (would create a strange precedent whenever it happened in the future).
His legal case is really against the police not the airline.
I keep seeing this comment made by people, including in news reports, but no-one ever links to anything that states this is actually the case. I'm not saying it isn't true, I don't know anything about aviation law, but the only actual reference to the airlines "terms and conditions" I've found is in the video I posted above in which someone goes through United airlines own "contract of carriage". In which there appears to be no mention of the airlines right to remove a person after they have boarded simply because they need the seat for someone else. Especially as in this case the flight wasn't overbooked, the airline had just decided they wanted to transfer staff members. I have read comments that state that airlines don't class someone as "boarded" until the doors are closed and plane is ready for take off. So that would cover them, but again no-one links to where this is an official policy written down and may be open to legal scrutiny.
The legal action in my opinion is against the airline as well as the aviation police. The aviation police were acting on direction of the airlines representative.
Will be interesting to see how the court case goes (if it isn't settled out of court early as is likely purely because of bad publicity) and whether it has any effect on guidelines and practices.
This is an extract from UA's conditions of carriage:
Boarding Priorities - If a flight is Oversold, no one may be denied boarding against his/her will until UA or other carrier personnel first ask for volunteers who will give up their reservations willingly in exchange for compensation as determined by UA. If there are not enough volunteers, other Passengers may be denied boarding involuntarily in accordance with UA’s boarding priority:
Passengers who are Qualified Individuals with Disabilities, unaccompanied minors under the age of 18 years, or minors between the ages of 5 to 15 years who use the unaccompanied minor service, will be the last to be involuntarily denied boarding if it is determined by UA that such denial would constitute a hardship.
The priority of all other confirmed passengers may be determined based on a passenger’s fare class, itinerary, status of frequent flyer program membership, and the time in which the passenger presents him/herself for check-in without advanced seat assignment.
The airline (in common with others) doesn't define 'boarding' which seems key here - is it when you board the plane or when the plane door closes?
This is an extract from UA's conditions of carriage:
Boarding Priorities - If a flight is Oversold, no one may be denied boarding against his/her will until UA or other carrier personnel first ask for volunteers who will give up their reservations willingly in exchange for compensation as determined by UA. If there are not enough volunteers, other Passengers may be denied boarding involuntarily in accordance with UA’s boarding priority:
Passengers who are Qualified Individuals with Disabilities, unaccompanied minors under the age of 18 years, or minors between the ages of 5 to 15 years who use the unaccompanied minor service, will be the last to be involuntarily denied boarding if it is determined by UA that such denial would constitute a hardship.
The priority of all other confirmed passengers may be determined based on a passenger’s fare class, itinerary, status of frequent flyer program membership, and the time in which the passenger presents him/herself for check-in without advanced seat assignment.
The airline (in common with others) doesn't define 'boarding' which seems key here - is it when you board the plane or when the plane door closes?
Yep, that's the only guidelines that I've read/heard about as in my linked video. There is no stated definition of "boarding". It may come down to whether it is deemed legally acceptable for airlines to define "boarding" in their own way and where if anywhere that definition is stated. It may also come down to whether the contract you sign makes the definition of "boarded" clear (which it doesn't) when you agree to the conditions. If it becomes legally deemed that you are boarded once you have been allowed on the plane then the airline won't have a leg to stand on.
This is an extract from UA's conditions of carriage:
Boarding Priorities - If a flight is Oversold, no one may be denied boarding against his/her will until UA or other carrier personnel first ask for volunteers who will give up their reservations willingly in exchange for compensation as determined by UA. If there are not enough volunteers, other Passengers may be denied boarding involuntarily in accordance with UA’s boarding priority:
Passengers who are Qualified Individuals with Disabilities, unaccompanied minors under the age of 18 years, or minors between the ages of 5 to 15 years who use the unaccompanied minor service, will be the last to be involuntarily denied boarding if it is determined by UA that such denial would constitute a hardship.
The priority of all other confirmed passengers may be determined based on a passenger’s fare class, itinerary, status of frequent flyer program membership, and the time in which the passenger presents him/herself for check-in without advanced seat assignment.
The airline (in common with others) doesn't define 'boarding' which seems key here - is it when you board the plane or when the plane door closes?
Yep, that's the only guidelines that I've read/heard about as in my linked video. There is no stated definition of "boarding". It may come down to whether it is deemed legally acceptable for airlines to define "boarding" in their own way and where if anywhere that definition is stated. It may also come down to whether the contract you sign makes the definition of "boarded" clear (which it doesn't) when you agree to the conditions. If it becomes legally deemed that you are boarded once you have been allowed on the plane then the airline won't have a leg to stand on.
I hope United rely on something like this as the basis of their defence. Because it would result in a very, very expensive loss.
As mentioned unless he can prove the airline had no right to 'reacommodate' him then his gripe is with the police and indeed UA would be in a strong position to counter sue (for delaying the flight and causing them such negative PR).
As a result I suspect any settlement will be tiny and undisclosed.
No such thing as bad publicity. People spitting but united won't lose their routes so on some of the non major city to city routes people won't have another option anyway. Shares have dived but after a few publicity sweeteners will be back on course. People who trade on NYSE, lump on next week.
As mentioned unless he can prove the airline had no right to 'reacommodate' him then his gripe is with the police and indeed UA would be in a strong position to counter sue (for delaying the flight and causing them such negative PR).
As a result I suspect any settlement will be tiny and undisclosed.
United failed him. He had been boarded legally and appropriately. Not only was it wrong to remove him, the manner in which it was done was reprehensible and inexcusable.
I'm sure they'll settle out of court. I'm sure the amount will be undisclosed. I'm equally sure it will be enormous.
However, I'm not certain United will do the right thing publicly and morally, which is to pay hugely and quickly. And for that reason, I can see United being further damaged. Sentiment switches quickly - I can see United's passenger numbers declining rapidly unless they sort this out quickly. And quickly is likely to mean at great expense.
Deplane? Not even SD comes out with that stuff. Red card
Hey, hey what did I do?!?!?! Sitting over here minding my own business. And, technically, "deplane" is the verb for "getting off the plane." Clue's in the name mate!
Also, given he's a horrible Capitalist fascist pig heartless soulless Capitalist man who once lived in New York, I can only imagine the awful things NYAddick is capable of saying!
P.S. don't agree with you much on this thread NYA, but do agree stock falling is short term noise
Short-term noise - in a week's time is anyone going to say,"We can fly United for $89 but let's choose Delta for $249 because that poor belligerent doctor got manhandled for not obeying a reasonable request to deplane."?
We have differing views on the meaning of reasonable.
Once you're checked in, in your seat, ready to fly, how the **** is it reasonable to be removed from the plane, due to the airlines cock-up?
I doubt if it's an everyday occurrence but the terms and conditions clearly permit it.
So long as they followed procedure in selecting him for removal, the airline didn't have much choice in having him forcibly removed as they couldn't just give up and wait until they found someone who wouldn't put up a fuss (would create a strange precedent whenever it happened in the future).
His legal case is really against the police not the airline.
I don't think reasonble and legal are the same thinng.
I would reckon 30 million dollars, and free travel for him and fifty family members for life would be just about reasonable, and legal fees paid on top. #openinggambit
Well, in this country at least, nothing that United had in its contract with its customers would be worth a hill of beans if it was deemed that the contract terms were unfair. In this regard, our Consumer Rights Act 2015 helpfully points out that "Every contract to supply a service is to be treated as including a term that the trader must perform the service with reasonable care and skill." (My emphasis). Now, of course, I have no idea whether or not the uber-capitalists in the US of A would consider a similar consumer protection measure to be appropriate. But it is possible. I suspect that the biggest stumbling block to a (very) successful court case against United is likely to be whatever international convention covers being a passenger on an aircraft. Originally this was the Warsaw Convention, but I've no idea whether that still applies and/or whether it only covers international flights rather than domestic ones. But I'd be very surprised if United could successfully hide behind its terms of carriage.
Comments
There is no way any set up happened, the Doctor was already on board, and ready for the journey. They selected, attacked, and damaged the man for doing what all (but three) the other passengers were doing. Was he wearing a provocative Oriental face, and by sitting down it was obvious he was up for it? The CEO was smearing him way before the injuries were revealed. If the Airline are going to try to mitigate or defend the case, the version put forward by the Airline lawyers is going to be entertaining.
I reckon he has a genuine case even by the charlatan standards of American justice and ought to deservedly get shedloads.
Once you're checked in, in your seat, ready to fly, how the **** is it reasonable to be removed from the plane, due to the airlines cock-up?
1) If you are told to get off a plane, you have to get off the plane under aviation law (is my understanding)
2) The people who manhandled these guys weren't even united staff, they were Chicago police employees. This is the one that makes me have the most sympathy for United, they are responsible for messing up all of the flight plan etc, but they weren't the ones who actually beat the guy up...
I should point out I think he should be suing them AND Chicago police, and I'm not defending United or the Police, but I do believe there are those 2 mitigating factors.
So long as they followed procedure in selecting him for removal, the airline didn't have much choice in having him forcibly removed as they couldn't just give up and wait until they found someone who wouldn't put up a fuss (would create a strange precedent whenever it happened in the future).
His legal case is really against the police not the airline.
personally I hope the gentleman sues them for damages and gets a substantial pay out because the way in which he was manhandled was disproportionate and by the way whether it was security or police they were acting under instruction from the airline so they cannot abdicate their culpability in this crime.
All airlines operate this system and generally you are bumped off at the gate or check in, SAS are particularly well known for this in Europe but I am also 100% certain that they would never have someone forcibly removed once boarded and seated. Doesn't matter what the cost saving is there is no excuse for this incident. By the way the large US carriers by and large are crap and way below European, Asian and Middle East airline standards.
I can't see United allowing this to go to court, so we're unlikely to know what size the settlement is. But I hope Dr Dao gets to bank a cheque with two commas on it.
In my view because it would have been seen as 'unreasonable'. So reasonableness is part of the debate in my view, this bloke was a 69 year old man. Perhaps it wasn't about what was reasonable, but who would be an easy target.
My understanding regarding the law is that different circumstances apply once a person has boarded, I believe the law is about being allowed to board in the first place, and once on the aeroplane sitting down circumstances change.
I have read comments that state that airlines don't class someone as "boarded" until the doors are closed and plane is ready for take off. So that would cover them, but again no-one links to where this is an official policy written down and may be open to legal scrutiny.
The legal action in my opinion is against the airline as well as the aviation police. The aviation police were acting on direction of the airlines representative.
Will be interesting to see how the court case goes (if it isn't settled out of court early as is likely purely because of bad publicity) and whether it has any effect on guidelines and practices.
Boarding Priorities - If a flight is Oversold, no one may be denied boarding against his/her will until UA or other carrier personnel first ask for volunteers who will give up their reservations willingly in exchange for compensation as determined by UA. If there are not enough volunteers, other Passengers may be denied boarding involuntarily in accordance with UA’s boarding priority:
Passengers who are Qualified Individuals with Disabilities, unaccompanied minors under the age of 18 years, or minors between the ages of 5 to 15 years who use the unaccompanied minor service, will be the last to be involuntarily denied boarding if it is determined by UA that such denial would constitute a hardship.
The priority of all other confirmed passengers may be determined based on a passenger’s fare class, itinerary, status of frequent flyer program membership, and the time in which the passenger presents him/herself for check-in without advanced seat assignment.
The airline (in common with others) doesn't define 'boarding' which seems key here - is it when you board the plane or when the plane door closes?
If it becomes legally deemed that you are boarded once you have been allowed on the plane then the airline won't have a leg to stand on.
Is boarding when you board? Yes.
Is boarding when the plane door is closed? No. The plane door is only closed once everyone is already boarded.
"We couldn't have thrown him off the plane, because boarding doesn't end until take off"?
As a result I suspect any settlement will be tiny and undisclosed.
I'm sure they'll settle out of court. I'm sure the amount will be undisclosed. I'm equally sure it will be enormous.
However, I'm not certain United will do the right thing publicly and morally, which is to pay hugely and quickly. And for that reason, I can see United being further damaged. Sentiment switches quickly - I can see United's passenger numbers declining rapidly unless they sort this out quickly. And quickly is likely to mean at great expense.
Also, given he's a horrible Capitalist fascist pig heartless soulless Capitalist man who once lived in New York, I can only imagine the awful things NYAddick is capable of saying!
P.S. don't agree with you much on this thread NYA, but do agree stock falling is short term noise
#openinggambit
Now, of course, I have no idea whether or not the uber-capitalists in the US of A would consider a similar consumer protection measure to be appropriate. But it is possible. I suspect that the biggest stumbling block to a (very) successful court case against United is likely to be whatever international convention covers being a passenger on an aircraft. Originally this was the Warsaw Convention, but I've no idea whether that still applies and/or whether it only covers international flights rather than domestic ones.
But I'd be very surprised if United could successfully hide behind its terms of carriage.