Don't fly United

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

probably the best post thus far.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

probably the best post thus far.

I agree with the lawyer only if the employees were being repositioned to a flight in Louisville - i.e. "must fly"under the company's policies -- but not if they were pass=riders who were commuting. Those are not supposed to be given seats ahead of paying customers. That would have violated the company's own policies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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!

Of course they did, because it will be a huge out of court settlement, not because the law is on Dao's side. They are looking to make $, not choose the winning legal argument.

[Anonymous]

^p.s., yes, it was me your "belligerent?" Pp.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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!

Of course they did, because it will be a huge out of court settlement, not because the law is on Dao's side. They are looking to make $, not choose the winning legal argument.

What would your legal argument be? If you read other lawyer's posts, it seems United breached the contract. On what points do you disagree with them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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

Yeah, but this is too late to help them with Dr. Dao.

[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.

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

+1

It is pretty obvious that United will have to settle big, the city too. I can't believe United involved the city - all those tax payers paying into it, to cover the city's arse - dragged into the situation by United (who didn't know when to back down). Wow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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!

Of course they did, because it will be a huge out of court settlement, not because the law is on Dao's side. They are looking to make $, not choose the winning legal argument.

What would your legal argument be? If you read other lawyer's posts, it seems United breached the contract. On what points do you disagree with them?

+1

What about assault, excessive force, and the list of other infractions by United and the city? My God, they are going to pay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

probably the best post thus far.

No, the law and case law are not on United or the police side in this particular case. I've been practicing for almost 20 years, no way. The specific facts of this plane NOT being oversold, the employees commuting, all passengers boarded, the unnecessary roughness/ boarderline brutality, whether this was a "customer service issue" vs a police issue, the overwhelmingly similar eyewitness accounts and videos. This was a case of management forcing off a passenger to help a fellow employee at all costs. I would really like to see this case go to trial to get all the facts out in the open. In particular I would really like to know what was told to the aviation police by United.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

probably the best post thus far.

No, the law and case law are not on United or the police side in this particular case. I've been practicing for almost 20 years, no way. The specific facts of this plane NOT being oversold, the employees commuting, all passengers boarded, the unnecessary roughness/ boarderline brutality, whether this was a "customer service issue" vs a police issue, the overwhelmingly similar eyewitness accounts and videos. This was a case of management forcing off a passenger to help a fellow employee at all costs. I would really like to see this case go to trial to get all the facts out in the open. In particular I would really like to know what was told to the aviation police by United.

+1

Precisely. This is where United is in enormous trouble - they lied to the police, and United's actions resulted in a domino effect that did not have to happen, at all. Whomever Untied involved is in as much legal trouble (if not more) than United. How stupid can they be.

Imagine if this were a private person or entity (who dragged other people into it) - they would lose everything.

United should have known better, with modern technology (of all sorts - not just the multiple -!!!- videos). This isn't the 1950's any more.

[Anonymous]

PP here. Not to mention - it is obvious that the police were either given bad information, straight out lied to, and pertinent facts were omitted, when United employees called them. Of course, United probably put in multiple calls - to cement their "urgency" (which turned out to be a completely false ruse, as we all know now).

It is not okay for anyone to place false reports to the police - certainly not multiple false reports. That is asking for trouble. They deserve everything they get, frankly.

What if your delusional neighbor did this to someone, and ganged up on a neighbor they simply did not like? Would you think it is okay for the police to show up at their house (whenever delusional neighbor felt like it)? Would you be stupid enough to go along with it, to lie to the police? Would you think that the police are "too stupid" to know any better? How long do you think you would get away with it? Exactly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP here. Not to mention - it is obvious that the police were either given bad information, straight out lied to, and pertinent facts were omitted, when United employees called them. Of course, United probably put in multiple calls - to cement their "urgency" (which turned out to be a completely false ruse, as we all know now).

It is not okay for anyone to place false reports to the police - certainly not multiple false reports. That is asking for trouble. They deserve everything they get, frankly.

What if your delusional neighbor did this to someone, and ganged up on a neighbor they simply did not like? Would you think it is okay for the police to show up at their house (whenever delusional neighbor felt like it)? Would you be stupid enough to go along with it, to lie to the police? Would you think that the police are "too stupid" to know any better? How long do you think you would get away with it? Exactly.

United probably lied to police.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

probably the best post thus far.

No, the law and case law are not on United or the police side in this particular case. I've been practicing for almost 20 years, no way. The specific facts of this plane NOT being oversold, the employees commuting, all passengers boarded, the unnecessary roughness/ boarderline brutality, whether this was a "customer service issue" vs a police issue, the overwhelmingly similar eyewitness accounts and videos. This was a case of management forcing off a passenger to help a fellow employee at all costs. I would really like to see this case go to trial to get all the facts out in the open. In particular I would really like to know what was told to the aviation police by United.

I also hope this goes to trial. I think the settlement would be much bigger.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP here. Not to mention - it is obvious that the police were either given bad information, straight out lied to, and pertinent facts were omitted, when United employees called them. Of course, United probably put in multiple calls - to cement their "urgency" (which turned out to be a completely false ruse, as we all know now).

It is not okay for anyone to place false reports to the police - certainly not multiple false reports. That is asking for trouble. They deserve everything they get, frankly.

What if your delusional neighbor did this to someone, and ganged up on a neighbor they simply did not like? Would you think it is okay for the police to show up at their house (whenever delusional neighbor felt like it)? Would you be stupid enough to go along with it, to lie to the police? Would you think that the police are "too stupid" to know any better? How long do you think you would get away with it? Exactly.

United probably lied to police.

Of course they did - United is the reason the police over reacted. Both United and the police are in enormous trouble. Wonder if the police can sue United?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP here. Not to mention - it is obvious that the police were either given bad information, straight out lied to, and pertinent facts were omitted, when United employees called them. Of course, United probably put in multiple calls - to cement their "urgency" (which turned out to be a completely false ruse, as we all know now).

It is not okay for anyone to place false reports to the police - certainly not multiple false reports. That is asking for trouble. They deserve everything they get, frankly.

What if your delusional neighbor did this to someone, and ganged up on a neighbor they simply did not like? Would you think it is okay for the police to show up at their house (whenever delusional neighbor felt like it)? Would you be stupid enough to go along with it, to lie to the police? Would you think that the police are "too stupid" to know any better? How long do you think you would get away with it? Exactly.

United probably lied to police.

Of course they did - United is the reason the police over reacted. Both United and the police are in enormous trouble. Wonder if the police can sue United?

Also, the Aviation police are law enforcement officers, so now the city of Chicago and possibly the State of Illinois may be liable as well, which is not making many people happy.