Don't fly United

[Anonymous]

So why exactly did those "security" people get "suspended"? Assulting an innocent paid customer, pending an enormous lawsuit. Ouch!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, hardly belligerent. I could see myself doing the same thing, that does not warrant being bloodied up.

http://www.scarymommy.com/passenger-posts-video-before-david-dao-removed-united-flight/

He was on the phone with his lawyer seeking legal advice.

Sure he wasn't co-operative but he wasn't belligerent.

+1

As PP stated, United was caught with their pants down, thanks to the passengers' multiple videos. Dao was NOT belligerent, as United tried to say - he simply said he was not going, in a normal voice. Boy, how would you have loved to have seen the United CEO's face when he saw THAT video. They really have nothing on Dao, and Dao is going to get millions, because United has such poor judgment.

Funny, DH and I were talking about how we thought camera phones were silly and excessive, when they first came out years ago. Now, we are grateful! And so is Dao. In fact, I am grateful on his behalf.

Nothing like a lying bully getting their due.

Exactly. Always video any situation for potential evidence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It may surprise you. I am no stranger to poor service but this time UA had gone so beyond the pale I rather take a connection than get assaulted. And if they bump passengers off flights so frequently it comes out as a wash.

\

You could avoid assault by complying with crew and police instructions to deboard the plane.. then take it up with them later if you think it was unfair.

And United could have avoided the problem entirely by offering adequate compensation to get a volunteer to be bumped. Dr Dao will be a millionaire hundreds of times over once this is done, and rightly so.

Holy G, are you serious?! What did Dao do "right"? If I were a sitting judge, I'd throw his case out of court. From a legal perspective. And, from a nonlegal perspective, he made an ass of himself.

Great, another corporate shill. You guys are all over this thread.

Nope, just a thinking adult that can't see why an adult behaved like my friends' babies and toddlers. None of the others behaved like a wacko.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It may surprise you. I am no stranger to poor service but this time UA had gone so beyond the pale I rather take a connection than get assaulted. And if they bump passengers off flights so frequently it comes out as a wash.

\

You could avoid assault by complying with crew and police instructions to deboard the plane.. then take it up with them later if you think it was unfair.

And United could have avoided the problem entirely by offering adequate compensation to get a volunteer to be bumped. Dr Dao will be a millionaire hundreds of times over once this is done, and rightly so.

Holy G, are you serious?! What did Dao do "right"? If I were a sitting judge, I'd throw his case out of court. From a legal perspective. And, from a nonlegal perspective, he made an ass of himself.

Great, another corporate shill. You guys are all over this thread.

Nope, just a thinking adult that can't see why an adult behaved like my friends' babies and toddlers. None of the others behaved like a wacko.

Guess they were just dumb followers. Good for Dao for standing up for himself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It may surprise you. I am no stranger to poor service but this time UA had gone so beyond the pale I rather take a connection than get assaulted. And if they bump passengers off flights so frequently it comes out as a wash.

\

You could avoid assault by complying with crew and police instructions to deboard the plane.. then take it up with them later if you think it was unfair.

And United could have avoided the problem entirely by offering adequate compensation to get a volunteer to be bumped. Dr Dao will be a millionaire hundreds of times over once this is done, and rightly so.

Holy G, are you serious?! What did Dao do "right"? If I were a sitting judge, I'd throw his case out of court. From a legal perspective. And, from a nonlegal perspective, he made an ass of himself.

Thank goodness you aren't a sitting judge, since you have no concept of the rule of law.

It's not a case of what Dao did right, but what United did wrong. United had a breach of contract; a contract that they wrote and publicized.

When you buy a ticket, you sign the an agreement that says both parties (the carrier and the passenger) will abide by the Contract of Carriage. In this case, the carrier did not.

Here's my summary from the other thread in Off-Topic:

https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriage.aspx#sec21
United completely violated the passengers rights and illegally assaulted the passenger. The flight was not oversold, it was fully sold. All passengers had appeared, all had been boarded; there were no empty seats. As admitted by the CEO's letter to corporate employees, the flight was FULLY BOARDED, and therefore the IDB rules do not apply. In this case, the United rules for Refusal of Transport (see United Contract of Carriage, Rule #21) applied. The passenger's situation was not covered by any of these rules, and therefore the crew had no reason to accost or assault this passenger, nor refuse this passenger travel. In this case, United was in breach of its own Contract of Carriage and you can be sure that Dr. Dao's lawyers will point this out. The extra passengers were United employees who were flying on personal passes. Personal passes are "space available" and they cannot bump paying passengers. In addition, they cannot arrive after the plane is fully boarded and remove passengers already boarded. They cannot even ask for volunteers to deboard to make space. By United rules they are prioritized last.

https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/flightstatus/standby_FAQ.aspx

Pass riders – United employees or their eligible dependents standing by on a space-available basis. Pass riders are prioritized last, and are only assigned seats after all other standby customers are accommodated.

So, United had absolutely no reason or cause to even request that those four passengers deboard. By asking for Chicago Transit Authority personnel to remove the passenger from the plane, United employees caused a breach of contract against those four passengers. They requested the Chicago Transit Authority personnel to illegally assault a passenger without cause. This is akin to a person hiring a hit man to kill someone and the person making the request is the guilty party.

United it going to lose a lot of money over this mistake. First the lawsuit and settlement, then the reimbursement of all fares to all passengers, then the loss of money from decreased ticket sales which will probably last at least a few months. They could have chartered a private jet to take Dr. Dao and his wife to Louisville for less than it will cost them over the next year. They could have cancelled the Monday morning Louisville flight that those four employees were scheduled to work for less than this will cost them.

But I am a lawyer, and I would represent United in this one. They have the law on their side, although not popular support of course. So, you can be sure they will settle this case because of the bad publicity in litigating it, but in terms of the letter of the law I think they are in a good position. Whether the officers are in as strong a position, I would not want that case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It may surprise you. I am no stranger to poor service but this time UA had gone so beyond the pale I rather take a connection than get assaulted. And if they bump passengers off flights so frequently it comes out as a wash.

\

You could avoid assault by complying with crew and police instructions to deboard the plane.. then take it up with them later if you think it was unfair.

And United could have avoided the problem entirely by offering adequate compensation to get a volunteer to be bumped. Dr Dao will be a millionaire hundreds of times over once this is done, and rightly so.

Holy G, are you serious?! What did Dao do "right"? If I were a sitting judge, I'd throw his case out of court. From a legal perspective. And, from a nonlegal perspective, he made an ass of himself.

Great, another corporate shill. You guys are all over this thread.

+1

That is what you are choosing to concentrate on? That he made an ass out of himself/ Are you for real? The man was beaten up - directly because of United - and that is all you have to say? That just shows how delusional you really are. You know nothing. Get back to us when you know the law. You saying you are right does not make it so. Too bad for you.

Wake up-- He was the cause of his own beating. Why do you people think it is okay to mouth off to authority and that they should just sit there and take it? What a weird perspective, let's tickle a lion's tail.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So why exactly did those "security" people get "suspended"? Assulting an innocent paid customer, pending an enormous lawsuit. Ouch!!

Nothing innocent about United OR the law officers. They are pretty much doomed, at this point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It may surprise you. I am no stranger to poor service but this time UA had gone so beyond the pale I rather take a connection than get assaulted. And if they bump passengers off flights so frequently it comes out as a wash.

\

You could avoid assault by complying with crew and police instructions to deboard the plane.. then take it up with them later if you think it was unfair.

And United could have avoided the problem entirely by offering adequate compensation to get a volunteer to be bumped. Dr Dao will be a millionaire hundreds of times over once this is done, and rightly so.

Holy G, are you serious?! What did Dao do "right"? If I were a sitting judge, I'd throw his case out of court. From a legal perspective. And, from a nonlegal perspective, he made an ass of himself.

Thank goodness you aren't a sitting judge, since you have no concept of the rule of law.

It's not a case of what Dao did right, but what United did wrong. United had a breach of contract; a contract that they wrote and publicized.

When you buy a ticket, you sign the an agreement that says both parties (the carrier and the passenger) will abide by the Contract of Carriage. In this case, the carrier did not.

Here's my summary from the other thread in Off-Topic:

https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriage.aspx#sec21
United completely violated the passengers rights and illegally assaulted the passenger. The flight was not oversold, it was fully sold. All passengers had appeared, all had been boarded; there were no empty seats. As admitted by the CEO's letter to corporate employees, the flight was FULLY BOARDED, and therefore the IDB rules do not apply. In this case, the United rules for Refusal of Transport (see United Contract of Carriage, Rule #21) applied. The passenger's situation was not covered by any of these rules, and therefore the crew had no reason to accost or assault this passenger, nor refuse this passenger travel. In this case, United was in breach of its own Contract of Carriage and you can be sure that Dr. Dao's lawyers will point this out. The extra passengers were United employees who were flying on personal passes. Personal passes are "space available" and they cannot bump paying passengers. In addition, they cannot arrive after the plane is fully boarded and remove passengers already boarded. They cannot even ask for volunteers to deboard to make space. By United rules they are prioritized last.

https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/flightstatus/standby_FAQ.aspx

Pass riders – United employees or their eligible dependents standing by on a space-available basis. Pass riders are prioritized last, and are only assigned seats after all other standby customers are accommodated.

So, United had absolutely no reason or cause to even request that those four passengers deboard. By asking for Chicago Transit Authority personnel to remove the passenger from the plane, United employees caused a breach of contract against those four passengers. They requested the Chicago Transit Authority personnel to illegally assault a passenger without cause. This is akin to a person hiring a hit man to kill someone and the person making the request is the guilty party.

United it going to lose a lot of money over this mistake. First the lawsuit and settlement, then the reimbursement of all fares to all passengers, then the loss of money from decreased ticket sales which will probably last at least a few months. They could have chartered a private jet to take Dr. Dao and his wife to Louisville for less than it will cost them over the next year. They could have cancelled the Monday morning Louisville flight that those four employees were scheduled to work for less than this will cost them.

But I am a lawyer, and I would represent United in this one. They have the law on their side, although not popular support of course. So, you can be sure they will settle this case because of the bad publicity in litigating it, but in terms of the letter of the law I think they are in a good position. Whether the officers are in as strong a position, I would not want that case.

+1

United and the City are both in for it. It may be an enormous settlement, and it may be "confidential"/we might not know the amount (because then other people will have reason to follow) - but United and the City will be hit. HARD.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, hardly belligerent. I could see myself doing the same thing, that does not warrant being bloodied up.

http://www.scarymommy.com/passenger-posts-video-before-david-dao-removed-united-flight/

He was on the phone with his lawyer seeking legal advice.

Sure he wasn't co-operative but he wasn't belligerent.

+1

As PP stated, United was caught with their pants down, thanks to the passengers' multiple videos. Dao was NOT belligerent, as United tried to say - he simply said he was not going, in a normal voice. Boy, how would you have loved to have seen the United CEO's face when he saw THAT video. They really have nothing on Dao, and Dao is going to get millions, because United has such poor judgment.

Funny, DH and I were talking about how we thought camera phones were silly and excessive, when they first came out years ago. Now, we are grateful! And so is Dao. In fact, I am grateful on his behalf.

Nothing like a lying bully getting their due.

Exactly. Always video any situation for potential evidence.

+1

People like other PP are always there to lie, another to swear by it, as the say. Nothing up for discussion with the video - in this case many videos. Get the popcorn, because this is going to be good. You ain't seen nothing yet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It may surprise you. I am no stranger to poor service but this time UA had gone so beyond the pale I rather take a connection than get assaulted. And if they bump passengers off flights so frequently it comes out as a wash.

\

You could avoid assault by complying with crew and police instructions to deboard the plane.. then take it up with them later if you think it was unfair.

And United could have avoided the problem entirely by offering adequate compensation to get a volunteer to be bumped. Dr Dao will be a millionaire hundreds of times over once this is done, and rightly so.

Holy G, are you serious?! What did Dao do "right"? If I were a sitting judge, I'd throw his case out of court. From a legal perspective. And, from a nonlegal perspective, he made an ass of himself.

Great, another corporate shill. You guys are all over this thread.

Nope, just a thinking adult that can't see why an adult behaved like my friends' babies and toddlers. None of the others behaved like a wacko.

Guess they were just dumb followers. Good for Dao for standing up for himself.

+1

Until now, United (and people like them) "got away with their outrageous behaviors" and got their way. Now, only the truth prevails - I guess some people have a problem with that. What's the matter PP, your United stock take a hit this week? HAHAHA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Etihad airways turns back to gate to let a couple out, who got news that their grandson got admitted to intensive care.
http://www.thestar.com.my/news/world/2016/04/13/etihad-airways-turns-plane-around-for-elderly-couple-to-visit-dying-grandson/#FDH0ws44PwJYCOiD.01

Night and day compared to UAL.

So in you mind, this makes it right? Who is this idiot trying to defend United and its multiple infractions? Wow.

[Anonymous]

PP here (to beligerent PP, lol) maybe we should wait and see the outcome. Rumor has it that lawyers came knocking on Dao's door almost immediately, and he ended up with two major firms. You might want to do some research. GL!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It may surprise you. I am no stranger to poor service but this time UA had gone so beyond the pale I rather take a connection than get assaulted. And if they bump passengers off flights so frequently it comes out as a wash.

\

You could avoid assault by complying with crew and police instructions to deboard the plane.. then take it up with them later if you think it was unfair.

And United could have avoided the problem entirely by offering adequate compensation to get a volunteer to be bumped. Dr Dao will be a millionaire hundreds of times over once this is done, and rightly so.

Holy G, are you serious?! What did Dao do "right"? If I were a sitting judge, I'd throw his case out of court. From a legal perspective. And, from a nonlegal perspective, he made an ass of himself.

Thank goodness you aren't a sitting judge, since you have no concept of the rule of law.

It's not a case of what Dao did right, but what United did wrong. United had a breach of contract; a contract that they wrote and publicized.

When you buy a ticket, you sign the an agreement that says both parties (the carrier and the passenger) will abide by the Contract of Carriage. In this case, the carrier did not.

Here's my summary from the other thread in Off-Topic:

https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriage.aspx#sec21
United completely violated the passengers rights and illegally assaulted the passenger. The flight was not oversold, it was fully sold. All passengers had appeared, all had been boarded; there were no empty seats. As admitted by the CEO's letter to corporate employees, the flight was FULLY BOARDED, and therefore the IDB rules do not apply. In this case, the United rules for Refusal of Transport (see United Contract of Carriage, Rule #21) applied. The passenger's situation was not covered by any of these rules, and therefore the crew had no reason to accost or assault this passenger, nor refuse this passenger travel. In this case, United was in breach of its own Contract of Carriage and you can be sure that Dr. Dao's lawyers will point this out. The extra passengers were United employees who were flying on personal passes. Personal passes are "space available" and they cannot bump paying passengers. In addition, they cannot arrive after the plane is fully boarded and remove passengers already boarded. They cannot even ask for volunteers to deboard to make space. By United rules they are prioritized last.

https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/flightstatus/standby_FAQ.aspx

Pass riders – United employees or their eligible dependents standing by on a space-available basis. Pass riders are prioritized last, and are only assigned seats after all other standby customers are accommodated.

So, United had absolutely no reason or cause to even request that those four passengers deboard. By asking for Chicago Transit Authority personnel to remove the passenger from the plane, United employees caused a breach of contract against those four passengers. They requested the Chicago Transit Authority personnel to illegally assault a passenger without cause. This is akin to a person hiring a hit man to kill someone and the person making the request is the guilty party.

United it going to lose a lot of money over this mistake. First the lawsuit and settlement, then the reimbursement of all fares to all passengers, then the loss of money from decreased ticket sales which will probably last at least a few months. They could have chartered a private jet to take Dr. Dao and his wife to Louisville for less than it will cost them over the next year. They could have cancelled the Monday morning Louisville flight that those four employees were scheduled to work for less than this will cost them.

But I am a lawyer, and I would represent United in this one. They have the law on their side, although not popular support of course. So, you can be sure they will settle this case because of the bad publicity in litigating it, but in terms of the letter of the law I think they are in a good position. Whether the officers are in as strong a position, I would not want that case.

+1

United and the City are both in for it. It may be an enormous settlement, and it may be "confidential"/we might not know the amount (because then other people will have reason to follow) - but United and the City will be hit. HARD.

Agreed. -DP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It may surprise you. I am no stranger to poor service but this time UA had gone so beyond the pale I rather take a connection than get assaulted. And if they bump passengers off flights so frequently it comes out as a wash.

\

You could avoid assault by complying with crew and police instructions to deboard the plane.. then take it up with them later if you think it was unfair.

And United could have avoided the problem entirely by offering adequate compensation to get a volunteer to be bumped. Dr Dao will be a millionaire hundreds of times over once this is done, and rightly so.

Holy G, are you serious?! What did Dao do "right"? If I were a sitting judge, I'd throw his case out of court. From a legal perspective. And, from a nonlegal perspective, he made an ass of himself.

Thank goodness you aren't a sitting judge, since you have no concept of the rule of law.

It's not a case of what Dao did right, but what United did wrong. United had a breach of contract; a contract that they wrote and publicized.

When you buy a ticket, you sign the an agreement that says both parties (the carrier and the passenger) will abide by the Contract of Carriage. In this case, the carrier did not.

Here's my summary from the other thread in Off-Topic:

https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriage.aspx#sec21
United completely violated the passengers rights and illegally assaulted the passenger. The flight was not oversold, it was fully sold. All passengers had appeared, all had been boarded; there were no empty seats. As admitted by the CEO's letter to corporate employees, the flight was FULLY BOARDED, and therefore the IDB rules do not apply. In this case, the United rules for Refusal of Transport (see United Contract of Carriage, Rule #21) applied. The passenger's situation was not covered by any of these rules, and therefore the crew had no reason to accost or assault this passenger, nor refuse this passenger travel. In this case, United was in breach of its own Contract of Carriage and you can be sure that Dr. Dao's lawyers will point this out. The extra passengers were United employees who were flying on personal passes. Personal passes are "space available" and they cannot bump paying passengers. In addition, they cannot arrive after the plane is fully boarded and remove passengers already boarded. They cannot even ask for volunteers to deboard to make space. By United rules they are prioritized last.

https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/flightstatus/standby_FAQ.aspx

Pass riders – United employees or their eligible dependents standing by on a space-available basis. Pass riders are prioritized last, and are only assigned seats after all other standby customers are accommodated.

So, United had absolutely no reason or cause to even request that those four passengers deboard. By asking for Chicago Transit Authority personnel to remove the passenger from the plane, United employees caused a breach of contract against those four passengers. They requested the Chicago Transit Authority personnel to illegally assault a passenger without cause. This is akin to a person hiring a hit man to kill someone and the person making the request is the guilty party.

United it going to lose a lot of money over this mistake. First the lawsuit and settlement, then the reimbursement of all fares to all passengers, then the loss of money from decreased ticket sales which will probably last at least a few months. They could have chartered a private jet to take Dr. Dao and his wife to Louisville for less than it will cost them over the next year. They could have cancelled the Monday morning Louisville flight that those four employees were scheduled to work for less than this will cost them.

But I am a lawyer, and I would represent United in this one. They have the law on their side, although not popular support of course. So, you can be sure they will settle this case because of the bad publicity in litigating it, but in terms of the letter of the law I think they are in a good position. Whether the officers are in as strong a position, I would not want that case.

Interesting. These lawyers (below) differ with you. I actually wrote up my summation before I read their's, but it seems that they have the same perspective that I do, that this is a breach of contract by the carrier and a violation of their own policies all of which is documented on-line. I'm curious why you don't consider this a breach of contract?

http://www.dorfonlaw.org/2017/04/united-airlines-own-contract-denied-it.html?m=1

[Anonymous]

So United is apparently changing their policy to not allowing United staff to bump boarded passengers from their seats.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/united-policy-crew-displace-seated-passengers-46830554