Don't fly United

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1

The police will think twice now - and they must be extra careful about responding, and who said what. I wonder if this is the end of "anonymous" calls (which are NOT truly anonymous, anyway, since there is a way to trace any call. Hopefully, most people know that.)

[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?

Good question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1

The police will think twice now - and they must be extra careful about responding, and who said what. I wonder if this is the end of "anonymous" calls (which are NOT truly anonymous, anyway, since there is a way to trace any call. Hopefully, most people know that.)

Agree. Wondering if the United workers and the "security" were already buddies, with frequent favors for each other.

[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.

+1,000

[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.

+1,000

I think that United messed up hugely here, but the passengers weren't removed due to pass riders. Pass riders are airline employees and their dependents who are allowed to fly for free for their own purposes, such as vacation. In this case United was moving their staff members to cover for other staff members who were stuck somewhere else due to weather.

United could, legally, have denied boarding to passengers to allow them to move staff. The flight would have been "oversold" because they would have sold more tickets than there were seats available. Seats occupied by staff don't count in that calculation, and the rule about pass riders coming last doesn't apply. If they had identified the problem, and asked for volunteers or denied boarding at the gate, it might have been a bad business decision, but it wouldn't have been illegal, and it would have been safer.

But they didn't deny boarding, they had someone who had already boarded removed, probably because the staff arrived at the last minute. Maybe because a connecting flight was late, or because the news about needing to move them happened late. The rules about kicking someone off once they're in a seat are different, and they broke those rules.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1

The police will think twice now - and they must be extra careful about responding, and who said what. I wonder if this is the end of "anonymous" calls (which are NOT truly anonymous, anyway, since there is a way to trace any call. Hopefully, most people know that.)

It's really such a shame that United abused its power the way they did. The police should be suing United, as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1

The police will think twice now - and they must be extra careful about responding, and who said what. I wonder if this is the end of "anonymous" calls (which are NOT truly anonymous, anyway, since there is a way to trace any call. Hopefully, most people know that.)

It's really such a shame that United abused its power the way they did. The police should be suing United, as well.

+1

I think, given the caliber of the results, that the police probably will. Or, the police will try to settle with United (if insurance is involved, in a civil case, it is called subrogation - collecting from the responsible party - in this case, United. It might be called something else in this instance, but the principle is the same.) United caused undue harm to both the police AND the customer. But for United's actions, none of this would have happened. United can lie all they want, they are not getting out of their responsibilities to all they dragged into this; and their lying only makes them look worse and worse.

[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?

Repositioning staff, not pass riders.

[Anonymous]

Get a grip you litigious Americans. Dao has nof been injured to the turn of millions and for all of yo to be thinking big $$recovery, unfortunately I bet Dao is thinking the same. I would give him a small or very small recovery. Under $25,000. I would not reward him for his behavior beyond a nominal $25k. It's a dream, but it's my dream.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Repositioning staff, not pass riders.

Regardless of the semantics here, it still doesn't change the situation. Repositioning of staff might allow the carrier to use the IDB rules to deny passengers boarding and leave room for employees, but it is not a reason to implement the "Refusal of Transport" clause which is the only way to deboard a passenger already boarded. The passenger had been boarded. At that point, it was too late for the crew to bump paying passengers. If the crew really needed to be on that plane, they needed to call ahead before the crew had boarded the passengers so that they could reserve space for the repositioning of staff. By not calling ahead, they lost their chance to hold the seats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Get a grip you litigious Americans. Dao has nof been injured to the turn of millions and for all of yo to be thinking big $$recovery, unfortunately I bet Dao is thinking the same. I would give him a small or very small recovery. Under $25,000. I would not reward him for his behavior beyond a nominal $25k. It's a dream, but it's my dream.

The girl who recently broke every bone in her body due to the negligence of a sky dive operator who gave her a parachute that was the wrong size didn't even get a million dollars, and she will be in constant pain for the rest of her life.

Dao won't get millions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Get a grip you litigious Americans. Dao has nof been injured to the turn of millions and for all of yo to be thinking big $$recovery, unfortunately I bet Dao is thinking the same. I would give him a small or very small recovery. Under $25,000. I would not reward him for his behavior beyond a nominal $25k. It's a dream, but it's my dream.

The girl who recently broke every bone in her body due to the negligence of a sky dive operator who gave her a parachute that was the wrong size didn't even get a million dollars, and she will be in constant pain for the rest of her life.

Dao won't get millions.

Dream on. United won't want the publicity of a trial. They've got much deeper pockets than a skydive instructor. He will indeed get millions. Sky diving is an inheritantly risky activity. Sitting on an airplane shouldn't be. Corporations don't get to assault their customers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Get a grip you litigious Americans. Dao has nof been injured to the turn of millions and for all of yo to be thinking big $$recovery, unfortunately I bet Dao is thinking the same. I would give him a small or very small recovery. Under $25,000. I would not reward him for his behavior beyond a nominal $25k. It's a dream, but it's my dream.

The girl who recently broke every bone in her body due to the negligence of a sky dive operator who gave her a parachute that was the wrong size didn't even get a million dollars, and she will be in constant pain for the rest of her life.

Dao won't get millions.

The potential for Dao to get a big recovery has nothing to do w/ his injuries. It has to do w/ the possibility of punitive damages--i.e., to what extent will United be punished for its behavior here. Honestly, I don't think the potential for a huge punitive damages award is that high...but I just wanted to point out that potential damages are not tied exclusively to the plaintiff's injuries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Get a grip you litigious Americans. Dao has nof been injured to the turn of millions and for all of yo to be thinking big $$recovery, unfortunately I bet Dao is thinking the same. I would give him a small or very small recovery. Under $25,000. I would not reward him for his behavior beyond a nominal $25k. It's a dream, but it's my dream.

The girl who recently broke every bone in her body due to the negligence of a sky dive operator who gave her a parachute that was the wrong size didn't even get a million dollars, and she will be in constant pain for the rest of her life.

Dao won't get millions.

Dream on. United won't want the publicity of a trial. They've got much deeper pockets than a skydive instructor. He will indeed get millions. Sky diving is an inheritantly risky activity. Sitting on an airplane shouldn't be. Corporations don't get to assault their customers.

I imagine she signed a waiver; plus, she "assumed the risk"-- a legal doctrine you may not know about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Get a grip you litigious Americans. Dao has nof been injured to the turn of millions and for all of yo to be thinking big $$recovery, unfortunately I bet Dao is thinking the same. I would give him a small or very small recovery. Under $25,000. I would not reward him for his behavior beyond a nominal $25k. It's a dream, but it's my dream.

The girl who recently broke every bone in her body due to the negligence of a sky dive operator who gave her a parachute that was the wrong size didn't even get a million dollars, and she will be in constant pain for the rest of her life.

Dao won't get millions.

Dream on. United won't want the publicity of a trial. They've got much deeper pockets than a skydive instructor. He will indeed get millions. Sky diving is an inheritantly risky activity. Sitting on an airplane shouldn't be. Corporations don't get to assault their customers.

I imagine she signed a waiver; plus, she "assumed the risk"-- a legal doctrine you may not know about.

She assumed the risk of being outfitted in a properly fitting parachute. They were negligent by putting her in a chute that didn't fit.

And damages aren't based on how rich a corporation/defendant is. Duh.