Reply to Don't fly United

Forum Index » Travel Discussion

Reply to "Don't fly United"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]

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. [/quote]\

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.[/quote]

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.  [/quote]
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.[/quote]

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:

[quote][url]https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriage.aspx#sec21[/url]
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.

[url]https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/flightstatus/standby_FAQ.aspx[/url] 
[quote][b]Pass riders[/b] – 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.[/quote]

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. [/quote][/quote]
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.[/quote]

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?

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

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. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics