ImageImageImageImageImage

Passenger forcibly removed from United airlines

Moderators: mpharris36, GONYK, HerSports85, Jeff Van Gully, dakomish23, Capn'O, j4remi, Deeeez Knicks, NoLayupRule

User avatar
GONYK
Forum Mod - Knicks
Forum Mod - Knicks
Posts: 65,398
And1: 41,868
Joined: Jun 27, 2003
Location: Brunson Gang
   

Re: Passenger forcibly removed from United airlines 

Post#61 » by GONYK » Fri Apr 14, 2017 1:24 am

For all the people who are saying United owes this guy a blank check, I have a question:

If somebody trespasses on your property, and you call the police, are you responsible for what the police do to the trespasser? If they beat the snot out him, should he be able to sue you?

A plane ticket is really nothing more than a revocable license to sit on a plane, owned by the airline, for the duration of the flight. Once that license was revoked, which it was, the assaulted passenger was trespassing. United then called the police, and they wildly mishandled the situation.

Now it is totally a bullsh*t policy, but it is a legal and enforceable one.
CourtsideTV
RealGM
Posts: 20,755
And1: 349
Joined: Apr 12, 2004
Location: L-I-M-R
         

Re: Passenger forcibly removed from United airlines 

Post#62 » by CourtsideTV » Fri Apr 14, 2017 2:23 am

GONYK wrote:
CourtsideTV wrote:
GONYK wrote:
No, he's not. Why would he? His issue is with the police, not with United.

The only way he would get that is if they went to court, and this case isn't going to court.


His medical bill alone will be over 100k.

It won't go to court because United will offer him a blank check. And his issue is with both.


Broken nose and teeth does not equal $100k. They will pay his medical bills, and give him a little something for pain and suffering.

They also will not offer him a blank check, because everyone knows the public won't care in 2 weeks, and they certainly won't care in 3-6 months when this would actually go to trial.

The man refused to leave a plane that he signed off on United having a right to remove him from.

They will settle, and the settlement will be in the thousands, because the law is totally on their side.

United, as a company, did nothing illegal. What they did certainly wasn't right or fair, but it was legal.


We'll see in the upcoming months what the amount is if they disclose it. He signed off on being removed from an aircraft he PAID to be on so that flight attendants who work at the company could just take his seat? Just because it is written when you agree to their terms doesn't mean it holds up.
Work Hard
User avatar
GONYK
Forum Mod - Knicks
Forum Mod - Knicks
Posts: 65,398
And1: 41,868
Joined: Jun 27, 2003
Location: Brunson Gang
   

Re: Passenger forcibly removed from United airlines 

Post#63 » by GONYK » Fri Apr 14, 2017 2:32 am

CourtsideTV wrote:
GONYK wrote:
CourtsideTV wrote:
His medical bill alone will be over 100k.

It won't go to court because United will offer him a blank check. And his issue is with both.


Broken nose and teeth does not equal $100k. They will pay his medical bills, and give him a little something for pain and suffering.

They also will not offer him a blank check, because everyone knows the public won't care in 2 weeks, and they certainly won't care in 3-6 months when this would actually go to trial.

The man refused to leave a plane that he signed off on United having a right to remove him from.

They will settle, and the settlement will be in the thousands, because the law is totally on their side.

United, as a company, did nothing illegal. What they did certainly wasn't right or fair, but it was legal.


We'll see in the upcoming months what the amount is if they disclose it. He signed off on being removed from an aircraft he PAID to be on so that flight attendants who work at the company could just take his seat? Just because it is written when you agree to their terms doesn't mean it holds up.


Of course it does. It is a contract. It has been enforced before, and it will be enforced again, in some way, in the future.

That is why things like the involuntary removal incentive even exists. Every airline has contractual language allowing them to do this.

A policy like this is necessary to run an airline, which is why the government allows them to do this.
User avatar
Fat Kat
RealGM
Posts: 31,951
And1: 28,565
Joined: Apr 19, 2004
     

Re: Passenger forcibly removed from United airlines 

Post#64 » by Fat Kat » Fri Apr 14, 2017 2:33 pm

GONYK wrote:
CourtsideTV wrote:
GONYK wrote:
Broken nose and teeth does not equal $100k. They will pay his medical bills, and give him a little something for pain and suffering.

They also will not offer him a blank check, because everyone knows the public won't care in 2 weeks, and they certainly won't care in 3-6 months when this would actually go to trial.

The man refused to leave a plane that he signed off on United having a right to remove him from.

They will settle, and the settlement will be in the thousands, because the law is totally on their side.

United, as a company, did nothing illegal. What they did certainly wasn't right or fair, but it was legal.


We'll see in the upcoming months what the amount is if they disclose it. He signed off on being removed from an aircraft he PAID to be on so that flight attendants who work at the company could just take his seat? Just because it is written when you agree to their terms doesn't mean it holds up.


Of course it does. It is a contract. It has been enforced before, and it will be enforced again, in some way, in the future.

That is why things like the involuntary removal incentive even exists. Every airline has contractual language allowing them to do this.

A policy like this is necessary to run an airline, which is why the government allows them to do this.


This article contends that the removal was in fact illegal.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/why-united-legally-wrong-deplane-134223391.html?.tsrc=daily_mail&uh_test=1_10
All comments made by Fat Kat are given as opinion, which may or may not be derived from facts, and not made to personally attack anyone on Realgm. All rights reserved.®
MelosSoreWrist
Analyst
Posts: 3,534
And1: 1,565
Joined: Mar 25, 2012

Re: Passenger forcibly removed from United airlines 

Post#65 » by MelosSoreWrist » Fri Apr 14, 2017 4:46 pm

Fat Kat wrote:
GONYK wrote:
CourtsideTV wrote:
We'll see in the upcoming months what the amount is if they disclose it. He signed off on being removed from an aircraft he PAID to be on so that flight attendants who work at the company could just take his seat? Just because it is written when you agree to their terms doesn't mean it holds up.


Of course it does. It is a contract. It has been enforced before, and it will be enforced again, in some way, in the future.

That is why things like the involuntary removal incentive even exists. Every airline has contractual language allowing them to do this.

A policy like this is necessary to run an airline, which is why the government allows them to do this.


This article contends that the removal was in fact illegal.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/why-united-legally-wrong-deplane-134223391.html?.tsrc=daily_mail&uh_test=1_10

Different article, different author, same analysis.

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/united-cites-wrong-rule-for-illegally-de-boarding-passenger/

The two articles basically say that all the power in the contract to bump a passenger goes away once the passenger boards the plane. There is no language that says an airline can kick a passenger off once he has boarded unless he is unruly, belligerent etc. And according to the authors thats null and void as well since he didnt become "unruly" until he was giving unlawful orders.

FatKats article has this part thats interesting

The last aspect of this case, the most disturbing one, is the level of force used by the police officers. Based on the videos, most observers have concluded that the force was excessive and unnecessary given the circumstances.

A deeper issue is whether the police had the authority to remove Dao in the first instance once United Airlines declared him persona non grata and asked the police to treat him as a trespasser.

Presumably the police had the authority to remove him (but only with an appropriate level of force), but even so, there is a plausible argument that Dao’s injuries and damages suffered during that process were caused by the airline’s breach of contract, which specifically defines the circumstances when it can refuse transport, none of which applied in this case.

In some situations, a contractual dispute and a trespassing dispute should be kept separate. Say you hire a painter to paint the inside of your house. You refuse to pay, and so the painter says, “I’m not leaving until you pay me.” When the painter refuses to leave, you call the police and ask them to remove him because he is trespassing. The proper resolution is that the painter must leave but can sue you for breach of contract.

That may be so, but in that case, the painter’s refusal to leave is incidental to the object and purpose of the contract, which is to paint the house, not stay in your house.

In contrast, the object and purpose of the contract of carriage is, among other things, to require the airline to transport the passenger from location A to location B aboard aircraft C. Being on the aircraft is the whole point of the contract, and it specifically lists the situations when the airline may deny transport to a ticketed customer.

Since the airline did not comply with those requirements, it should be liable for the damages associated with their breach.


United could actually be liable for damages done by the police? Similar principles to a getaway driver being charged with murder if there are deaths connected to the crime even if he wasnt involved in the killing?
NYK 455 wrote:
greenhughes wrote:I hope Melo leaves and wins a championship and rubs it all in our face.

How does that make you better than the Lin, Gallo, and Wil fans who root for them over NY?
User avatar
GONYK
Forum Mod - Knicks
Forum Mod - Knicks
Posts: 65,398
And1: 41,868
Joined: Jun 27, 2003
Location: Brunson Gang
   

Re: Passenger forcibly removed from United airlines 

Post#66 » by GONYK » Fri Apr 14, 2017 5:05 pm

MelosSoreWrist wrote:
Fat Kat wrote:
GONYK wrote:
Of course it does. It is a contract. It has been enforced before, and it will be enforced again, in some way, in the future.

That is why things like the involuntary removal incentive even exists. Every airline has contractual language allowing them to do this.

A policy like this is necessary to run an airline, which is why the government allows them to do this.


This article contends that the removal was in fact illegal.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/why-united-legally-wrong-deplane-134223391.html?.tsrc=daily_mail&uh_test=1_10

Different article, different author, same analysis.

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/united-cites-wrong-rule-for-illegally-de-boarding-passenger/

The two articles basically say that all the power in the contract to bump a passenger goes away once the passenger boards the plane. There is no language that says an airline can kick a passenger off once he has boarded unless he is unruly, belligerent etc. And according to the authors thats null and void as well since he didnt become "unruly" until he was giving unlawful orders.

FatKats article has this part thats interesting

The last aspect of this case, the most disturbing one, is the level of force used by the police officers. Based on the videos, most observers have concluded that the force was excessive and unnecessary given the circumstances.

A deeper issue is whether the police had the authority to remove Dao in the first instance once United Airlines declared him persona non grata and asked the police to treat him as a trespasser.

Presumably the police had the authority to remove him (but only with an appropriate level of force), but even so, there is a plausible argument that Dao’s injuries and damages suffered during that process were caused by the airline’s breach of contract, which specifically defines the circumstances when it can refuse transport, none of which applied in this case.

In some situations, a contractual dispute and a trespassing dispute should be kept separate. Say you hire a painter to paint the inside of your house. You refuse to pay, and so the painter says, “I’m not leaving until you pay me.” When the painter refuses to leave, you call the police and ask them to remove him because he is trespassing. The proper resolution is that the painter must leave but can sue you for breach of contract.

That may be so, but in that case, the painter’s refusal to leave is incidental to the object and purpose of the contract, which is to paint the house, not stay in your house.

In contrast, the object and purpose of the contract of carriage is, among other things, to require the airline to transport the passenger from location A to location B aboard aircraft C. Being on the aircraft is the whole point of the contract, and it specifically lists the situations when the airline may deny transport to a ticketed customer.

Since the airline did not comply with those requirements, it should be liable for the damages associated with their breach.


United could actually be liable for damages done by the police? Similar principles to a getaway driver being charged with murder if there are deaths connected to the crime even if he wasnt involved in the killing?


Well, both articles present an interesting argument that is worth considering, but I do think there are a few things about the arguments that leave them open to be taken apart in a courtroom.

First, the author passes off his legal interpretations for set in stone law, so it is important to bear in mind that everything said in that article is interpretation and thus could be interpreted differently by a judge.

For example, this whole line of reasoning hinges very heavily on his interpretation of "boarded". He argues for it's plain meaning to be used as it's legal definition. United is an airline in a highly regulated industry, however, so it's probably a term of art that would be interpreted according to the market standard, which may be that boarding isn't over until the door is closed. So you can still be "denied boarding" after you've been seated.

After taking a look at the relevant federal statute (I'm spending way too much time on this) it seems pretty clear that the implication of "denied boarding" is "denied a seat on the plane and transport to the destination", so that would certainly cut against that article's interpretation of the phrase.

Secondly, it conflates the rights associated with denied boarding and the refusal to transport laws. It would seem that anyone arguing for Dao would prefer him to be treated under the rule on denied boarding rather than the rule on refusal to transport, because under denied boarding you get compensation, under refusal to transport you don't.

I don't think it is a very difficult argument for the airline to make that a force majeure event (unforeseeable circumstances that prevent someone from fulfilling a contract) made it advisable for them to refuse him transport so they could get the airline employees on the plane.

So if the above is legal, according to federal statute, then once Mr. Dao got agitated after they asked him to leave, he would certainly fall under the whole disorderly conduct provision that would prompt him to be removed.

Also, there is also this in the contract of carriage: Passengers who fail to comply with or interfere with the duties of the members of the flight crew, federal regulations, or security directives are subject to removal; This is the clause that puts a major dent in Dao's defense.

United can argue that a force majeure event created the need to get the other airline employees onto the plane to avoid cancelling other flights and inconveniencing hundreds of other passengers vs just inconveniencing one passenger. Federal law grants flight crews large leeways of power in this arena, since we are talking safety of operation in the matter as well.
MelosSoreWrist
Analyst
Posts: 3,534
And1: 1,565
Joined: Mar 25, 2012

Re: Passenger forcibly removed from United airlines 

Post#67 » by MelosSoreWrist » Fri Apr 14, 2017 5:45 pm

GONYK wrote:
MelosSoreWrist wrote:
Fat Kat wrote:
This article contends that the removal was in fact illegal.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/why-united-legally-wrong-deplane-134223391.html?.tsrc=daily_mail&uh_test=1_10

Different article, different author, same analysis.

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/united-cites-wrong-rule-for-illegally-de-boarding-passenger/

The two articles basically say that all the power in the contract to bump a passenger goes away once the passenger boards the plane. There is no language that says an airline can kick a passenger off once he has boarded unless he is unruly, belligerent etc. And according to the authors thats null and void as well since he didnt become "unruly" until he was giving unlawful orders.

FatKats article has this part thats interesting

The last aspect of this case, the most disturbing one, is the level of force used by the police officers. Based on the videos, most observers have concluded that the force was excessive and unnecessary given the circumstances.

A deeper issue is whether the police had the authority to remove Dao in the first instance once United Airlines declared him persona non grata and asked the police to treat him as a trespasser.

Presumably the police had the authority to remove him (but only with an appropriate level of force), but even so, there is a plausible argument that Dao’s injuries and damages suffered during that process were caused by the airline’s breach of contract, which specifically defines the circumstances when it can refuse transport, none of which applied in this case.

In some situations, a contractual dispute and a trespassing dispute should be kept separate. Say you hire a painter to paint the inside of your house. You refuse to pay, and so the painter says, “I’m not leaving until you pay me.” When the painter refuses to leave, you call the police and ask them to remove him because he is trespassing. The proper resolution is that the painter must leave but can sue you for breach of contract.

That may be so, but in that case, the painter’s refusal to leave is incidental to the object and purpose of the contract, which is to paint the house, not stay in your house.

In contrast, the object and purpose of the contract of carriage is, among other things, to require the airline to transport the passenger from location A to location B aboard aircraft C. Being on the aircraft is the whole point of the contract, and it specifically lists the situations when the airline may deny transport to a ticketed customer.

Since the airline did not comply with those requirements, it should be liable for the damages associated with their breach.


United could actually be liable for damages done by the police? Similar principles to a getaway driver being charged with murder if there are deaths connected to the crime even if he wasnt involved in the killing?


Well, both articles present an interesting argument that is worth considering, but I do think there are a few things about the arguments that leave them open to be taken apart in a courtroom.

First, the author passes off his legal interpretations for set in stone law, so it is important to bear in mind that everything said in that article is interpretation and thus could be interpreted differently by a judge.

For example, this whole line of reasoning hinges very heavily on his interpretation of "boarded". He argues for it's plain meaning to be used as it's legal definition. United is an airline in a highly regulated industry, however, so it's probably a term of art that would be interpreted according to the market standard, which may be that boarding isn't over until the door is closed. So you can still be "denied boarding" after you've been seated.

After taking a look at the relevant federal statute (I'm spending way too much time on this) it seems pretty clear that the implication of "denied boarding" is "denied a seat on the plane and transport to the destination", so that would certainly cut against that article's interpretation of the phrase.

Secondly, it conflates the rights associated with denied boarding and the refusal to transport laws. It would seem that anyone arguing for Dao would prefer him to be treated under the rule on denied boarding rather than the rule on refusal to transport, because under denied boarding you get compensation, under refusal to transport you don't.

I don't think it is a very difficult argument for the airline to make that a force majeure event (unforeseeable circumstances that prevent someone from fulfilling a contract) made it advisable for them to refuse him transport so they could get the airline employees on the plane.

So if the above is legal, according to federal statute, then once Mr. Dao got agitated after they asked him to leave, he would certainly fall under the whole disorderly conduct provision that would prompt him to be removed.

Also, there is also this in the contract of carriage: Passengers who fail to comply with or interfere with the duties of the members of the flight crew, federal regulations, or security directives are subject to removal; This is the clause that puts a major dent in Dao's defense.

United can argue that a force majeure event created the need to get the other airline employees onto the plane to avoid cancelling other flights and inconveniencing hundreds of other passengers vs just inconveniencing one passenger. Federal law grants flight crews large leeways of power in this arena, since we are talking safety of operation in the matter as well.

I think everything hinges on your first point of contention. The ambiguity in the language of "boarding." To that, the author of lawnewz site seems to think that any ambiguity in contract helps the passenger not the airline who created the contract.

I dont think your second argument matters if the first point sides with the passenger. The refusal to transport have their own guidelines. You cant tell a passenger to get off the plane then when the passenger refuses say that because the passenger is uncooperative, he must now get off plane. If the airline never had authority to kick a passenger out of plane, the passenger isnt subjugated to the airline employee's demands.

And its a judgement call to accept the justification that the airline needed to kick people off the plane in order to transport employees not working that flight but for another flight the following day. They couldve made numerous other arrangements but (I'm guessing) made the best financial decision for themselves. I think this gets picked apart by Dao's legal team.

It will be interesting if this gets played out in court and what kind of precedents that might set. But I doubt it gets that far.
NYK 455 wrote:
greenhughes wrote:I hope Melo leaves and wins a championship and rubs it all in our face.

How does that make you better than the Lin, Gallo, and Wil fans who root for them over NY?
User avatar
GONYK
Forum Mod - Knicks
Forum Mod - Knicks
Posts: 65,398
And1: 41,868
Joined: Jun 27, 2003
Location: Brunson Gang
   

Re: Passenger forcibly removed from United airlines 

Post#68 » by GONYK » Fri Apr 14, 2017 5:48 pm

MelosSoreWrist wrote:
GONYK wrote:
MelosSoreWrist wrote:Different article, different author, same analysis.

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/united-cites-wrong-rule-for-illegally-de-boarding-passenger/

The two articles basically say that all the power in the contract to bump a passenger goes away once the passenger boards the plane. There is no language that says an airline can kick a passenger off once he has boarded unless he is unruly, belligerent etc. And according to the authors thats null and void as well since he didnt become "unruly" until he was giving unlawful orders.

FatKats article has this part thats interesting



United could actually be liable for damages done by the police? Similar principles to a getaway driver being charged with murder if there are deaths connected to the crime even if he wasnt involved in the killing?


Well, both articles present an interesting argument that is worth considering, but I do think there are a few things about the arguments that leave them open to be taken apart in a courtroom.

First, the author passes off his legal interpretations for set in stone law, so it is important to bear in mind that everything said in that article is interpretation and thus could be interpreted differently by a judge.

For example, this whole line of reasoning hinges very heavily on his interpretation of "boarded". He argues for it's plain meaning to be used as it's legal definition. United is an airline in a highly regulated industry, however, so it's probably a term of art that would be interpreted according to the market standard, which may be that boarding isn't over until the door is closed. So you can still be "denied boarding" after you've been seated.

After taking a look at the relevant federal statute (I'm spending way too much time on this) it seems pretty clear that the implication of "denied boarding" is "denied a seat on the plane and transport to the destination", so that would certainly cut against that article's interpretation of the phrase.

Secondly, it conflates the rights associated with denied boarding and the refusal to transport laws. It would seem that anyone arguing for Dao would prefer him to be treated under the rule on denied boarding rather than the rule on refusal to transport, because under denied boarding you get compensation, under refusal to transport you don't.

I don't think it is a very difficult argument for the airline to make that a force majeure event (unforeseeable circumstances that prevent someone from fulfilling a contract) made it advisable for them to refuse him transport so they could get the airline employees on the plane.

So if the above is legal, according to federal statute, then once Mr. Dao got agitated after they asked him to leave, he would certainly fall under the whole disorderly conduct provision that would prompt him to be removed.

Also, there is also this in the contract of carriage: Passengers who fail to comply with or interfere with the duties of the members of the flight crew, federal regulations, or security directives are subject to removal; This is the clause that puts a major dent in Dao's defense.

United can argue that a force majeure event created the need to get the other airline employees onto the plane to avoid cancelling other flights and inconveniencing hundreds of other passengers vs just inconveniencing one passenger. Federal law grants flight crews large leeways of power in this arena, since we are talking safety of operation in the matter as well.

I think everything hinges on your first point of contention. The ambiguity in the language of "boarding." To that, the author of lawnewz site seems to think that any ambiguity in contract helps the passenger not the airline who created the contract.

I dont think your second argument matters if the first point sides with the passenger. The refusal to transport have their own guidelines. You cant tell a passenger to get off the plane then when the passenger refuses say that because the passenger is uncooperative, he must now get off plane. If the airline never had authority to kick a passenger out of plane, the passenger isnt subjugated to the airline employee's demands.

And its a judgement call to accept the justification that the airline needed to kick people off the plane in order to transport employees not working that flight but for another flight the following day. They couldve made numerous other arrangements but (I'm guessing) made the best financial decision for themselves. I think this gets picked apart by Dao's legal team.

It will be interesting if this gets played out in court and what kind of precedents that might set. But I doubt it gets that far.


You are right, that it all hinges on the definition of "boarded". I tend to think that the federal statute will be the deciding factor in that, but who knows how a judge will choose to interpret it.

Either way, I think this case is a contract law professor's wet dream :lol:
CourtsideTV
RealGM
Posts: 20,755
And1: 349
Joined: Apr 12, 2004
Location: L-I-M-R
         

Re: Passenger forcibly removed from United airlines 

Post#69 » by CourtsideTV » Thu Apr 27, 2017 11:44 pm

GONYK wrote:
CourtsideTV wrote:
GONYK wrote:
No, he's not. Why would he? His issue is with the police, not with United.

The only way he would get that is if they went to court, and this case isn't going to court.


His medical bill alone will be over 100k.

It won't go to court because United will offer him a blank check. And his issue is with both.


Broken nose and teeth does not equal $100k. They will pay his medical bills, and give him a little something for pain and suffering.

They also will not offer him a blank check, because everyone knows the public won't care in 2 weeks, and they certainly won't care in 3-6 months when this would actually go to trial.

The man refused to leave a plane that he signed off on United having a right to remove him from.

They will settle, and the settlement will be in the thousands, because the law is totally on their side.

United, as a company, did nothing illegal. What they did certainly wasn't right or fair, but it was legal.


Estimate 5-10 million just a guess but no where close to your 100k figure. There is no way he would shut up for 100k. I'm guessing it is at least 1 million.

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/physician-dragged-off-flight-settles-united-192558121.html
Work Hard
User avatar
GONYK
Forum Mod - Knicks
Forum Mod - Knicks
Posts: 65,398
And1: 41,868
Joined: Jun 27, 2003
Location: Brunson Gang
   

Re: RE: Re: Passenger forcibly removed from United airlines 

Post#70 » by GONYK » Thu Apr 27, 2017 11:48 pm

CourtsideTV wrote:
GONYK wrote:
CourtsideTV wrote:
His medical bill alone will be over 100k.

It won't go to court because United will offer him a blank check. And his issue is with both.


Broken nose and teeth does not equal $100k. They will pay his medical bills, and give him a little something for pain and suffering.

They also will not offer him a blank check, because everyone knows the public won't care in 2 weeks, and they certainly won't care in 3-6 months when this would actually go to trial.

The man refused to leave a plane that he signed off on United having a right to remove him from.

They will settle, and the settlement will be in the thousands, because the law is totally on their side.

United, as a company, did nothing illegal. What they did certainly wasn't right or fair, but it was legal.


Estimate 5-10 million just a guess but no where close to your 100k figure. There is no way he would shut up for 100k. I'm guessing it is at least 1 million.

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/physician-dragged-off-flight-settles-united-192558121.html

How am I wrong if no figures are reported anywhere?
User avatar
AmazingJason
RealGM
Posts: 15,179
And1: 6,142
Joined: Aug 07, 2006
Location: NYC
   

Re: RE: Re: Passenger forcibly removed from United airlines 

Post#71 » by AmazingJason » Fri Apr 28, 2017 12:47 am

GONYK wrote:
CourtsideTV wrote:
GONYK wrote:
Broken nose and teeth does not equal $100k. They will pay his medical bills, and give him a little something for pain and suffering.

They also will not offer him a blank check, because everyone knows the public won't care in 2 weeks, and they certainly won't care in 3-6 months when this would actually go to trial.

The man refused to leave a plane that he signed off on United having a right to remove him from.

They will settle, and the settlement will be in the thousands, because the law is totally on their side.

United, as a company, did nothing illegal. What they did certainly wasn't right or fair, but it was legal.


Estimate 5-10 million just a guess but no where close to your 100k figure. There is no way he would shut up for 100k. I'm guessing it is at least 1 million.

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/physician-dragged-off-flight-settles-united-192558121.html

How am I wrong if no figures are reported anywhere?


Both parties have good reason not drag this out. I mean, why go through months or years to win a trial and give up most of the money to lawyer fees? Not to mention the lack of closure. Dao is a doctor, his wife is a doctor and all their children are doctors; they are not hurting for money. United probably gave him something in the low hundreds of thousands, definitely not millions :lol:
BAT 18.0 - MINNESOTA TIMBERWOLVES

El Poochio - POBO
Amazing Jason - Assistant to the VPOBO

PG: Lonzo Ball/Dennis Smith Jr.
SG: Donovan Mitchell/R. McGruder
SF: Jaylen Brown/Josh Jackson
PF: Jayson Tatum/T. Booker
C: Joel Embiid/McGee
CourtsideTV
RealGM
Posts: 20,755
And1: 349
Joined: Apr 12, 2004
Location: L-I-M-R
         

Re: RE: Re: Passenger forcibly removed from United airlines 

Post#72 » by CourtsideTV » Fri Apr 28, 2017 1:09 am

AmazingJason wrote:
GONYK wrote:
CourtsideTV wrote:
Estimate 5-10 million just a guess but no where close to your 100k figure. There is no way he would shut up for 100k. I'm guessing it is at least 1 million.

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/physician-dragged-off-flight-settles-united-192558121.html

How am I wrong if no figures are reported anywhere?


Both parties have good reason not drag this out. I mean, why go through months or years to win a trial and give up most of the money to lawyer fees? Not to mention the lack of closure. Dao is a doctor, his wife is a doctor and all their children are doctors; they are not hurting for money. United probably gave him something in the low hundreds of thousands, definitely not millions :lol:


All I'm saying is he def got more than 100k. Even the Dao himself said United was very generous.
Work Hard
User avatar
mugzi
General Manager
Posts: 9,179
And1: 1,009
Joined: Sep 29, 2001
Location: SB mountains. 6000 feet up.
       

Re: Passenger forcibly removed from United airlines 

Post#73 » by mugzi » Fri Apr 28, 2017 2:16 am

5 mil was my guess.
YouTube:CNDUBL
I never take offense
Or make amends
I was eight last time
I said Amen
Hard as steel won’t
Break or bend
Iron Mikes as real
As the day it ends.
Knicksfan20
RealGM
Posts: 18,678
And1: 5,759
Joined: Aug 19, 2006

Re: Passenger forcibly removed from United airlines 

Post#74 » by Knicksfan20 » Fri Apr 28, 2017 5:31 am

GONYK wrote:For all the people who are saying United owes this guy a blank check, I have a question:

If somebody trespasses on your property, and you call the police, are you responsible for what the police do to the trespasser? If they beat the snot out him, should he be able to sue you?

A plane ticket is really nothing more than a revocable license to sit on a plane, owned by the airline, for the duration of the flight. Once that license was revoked, which it was, the assaulted passenger was trespassing. United then called the police, and they wildly mishandled the situation.

Now it is totally a bullsh*t policy, but it is a legal and enforceable one.


I get what you are saying but I disagree with this. The passenger purchased a plane ticket. On this plane ticket there is a date, a time and a seat number. For April 8th 840 am seat b row 12 ...w.e...He owns this seat. He purchased a ticket for this seat and he now owns this seat for the duration of this flight(maybe the word "rent" would be more appropriate then own, but you get my point. ). The fact that the air line overbooked the flight is not the passengers fault. That is the airlines fault. Now the airline is demanding (not requesting) a person give up their seat, in which they purchased weeks/months in advace because of a mistake made by the airline?

This would be like blockbuster(out dated analogy incoming) coming to your house to take back a DVD you rented because they accidently rented out the last and only copy of that DVD. No man...fk u.. Im watching this movie tonight. Or being asked to leave a movie theatre at random because they over sold the theatre. Nope. Im in my seat already. Fk u. They made a mistake and handled the situation very poorly. From what I understand this man was already in his seat.. How do u tell a man to get up out of a seat he is already sitting in? Makes no sense.

No way. Find somebody else to give up their seat because I have somewhere to be. I purchased this ticket, for this time, for this date for a damn reason. Im not getting up. Bring in the national guard. Im not getting up. And if they force me up, best believe lawyers will be involved.
User avatar
GONYK
Forum Mod - Knicks
Forum Mod - Knicks
Posts: 65,398
And1: 41,868
Joined: Jun 27, 2003
Location: Brunson Gang
   

Re: RE: Re: Passenger forcibly removed from United airlines 

Post#75 » by GONYK » Fri Apr 28, 2017 5:34 am

Knicksfan20 wrote:
GONYK wrote:For all the people who are saying United owes this guy a blank check, I have a question:

If somebody trespasses on your property, and you call the police, are you responsible for what the police do to the trespasser? If they beat the snot out him, should he be able to sue you?

A plane ticket is really nothing more than a revocable license to sit on a plane, owned by the airline, for the duration of the flight. Once that license was revoked, which it was, the assaulted passenger was trespassing. United then called the police, and they wildly mishandled the situation.

Now it is totally a bullsh*t policy, but it is a legal and enforceable one.


I get what you are saying but I disagree with this. The passenger purchased a plane ticket. On this plane ticket there is a date, a time and a seat number. For April 8th 840 am seat b row 12 ...w.e...He owns this seat. He purchased a ticket for this seat and he now owns this seat for the duration of this flight(maybe the word "rent" would be more appropriate then own, but you get my point. ). The fact that the air line overbooked the flight is not the passengers fault. That is the airlines fault. Now the airline is demanding (not requesting) a person give up their seat, in which they purchased weeks/months in advace because of a mistake made by the airline?

This would be like blockbuster(out dated analogy incoming) coming to your house to take back a DVD you rented because they accidently rented out the last and only copy of that DVD. No man...fk u.. Im watching this movie tonight. Or being asked to leave a movie theatre at random because they over sold the theatre. Nope. Im in my seat already. Fk u. They made a mistake and handled the situation very poorly. From what I understand this man was already in his seat.. How do u tell a man to get up out of a seat he is already sitting in? Makes no sense.

No way. Find somebody else to give up their seat because I have somewhere to be. I purchased this ticket, for this time, for this date for a damn reason. Im not getting up. Bring in the national guard. Im not getting up. And if they force me up, best believe lawyers will be involved.

Very rational way of looking at the situation that I agree with. In a fair world, that's how it should work.

The law takes a different point of view though.
Knicksfan20
RealGM
Posts: 18,678
And1: 5,759
Joined: Aug 19, 2006

Re: RE: Re: Passenger forcibly removed from United airlines 

Post#76 » by Knicksfan20 » Fri Apr 28, 2017 5:42 am

GONYK wrote:
Knicksfan20 wrote:
GONYK wrote:For all the people who are saying United owes this guy a blank check, I have a question:

If somebody trespasses on your property, and you call the police, are you responsible for what the police do to the trespasser? If they beat the snot out him, should he be able to sue you?

A plane ticket is really nothing more than a revocable license to sit on a plane, owned by the airline, for the duration of the flight. Once that license was revoked, which it was, the assaulted passenger was trespassing. United then called the police, and they wildly mishandled the situation.

Now it is totally a bullsh*t policy, but it is a legal and enforceable one.


I get what you are saying but I disagree with this. The passenger purchased a plane ticket. On this plane ticket there is a date, a time and a seat number. For April 8th 840 am seat b row 12 ...w.e...He owns this seat. He purchased a ticket for this seat and he now owns this seat for the duration of this flight(maybe the word "rent" would be more appropriate then own, but you get my point. ). The fact that the air line overbooked the flight is not the passengers fault. That is the airlines fault. Now the airline is demanding (not requesting) a person give up their seat, in which they purchased weeks/months in advace because of a mistake made by the airline?

This would be like blockbuster(out dated analogy incoming) coming to your house to take back a DVD you rented because they accidently rented out the last and only copy of that DVD. No man...fk u.. Im watching this movie tonight. Or being asked to leave a movie theatre at random because they over sold the theatre. Nope. Im in my seat already. Fk u. They made a mistake and handled the situation very poorly. From what I understand this man was already in his seat.. How do u tell a man to get up out of a seat he is already sitting in? Makes no sense.

No way. Find somebody else to give up their seat because I have somewhere to be. I purchased this ticket, for this time, for this date for a damn reason. Im not getting up. Bring in the national guard. Im not getting up. And if they force me up, best believe lawyers will be involved.

Very rational way of looking at the situation that I agree with. In a fair world, that's how it should work.

The law takes a different point of view though.


What right does the law have in this situation to forcibly remove a person just at the request of the airline staff? What authority does the airline staff have to pick and chose who gets to fly and who doesn't? (legitimate question, i don't know the law when it comes to this situation. )Its not like this person was disruptive or sick... he was chosen at random am I right? Or was the same seat sold twice? Just because you have authority in some situations, doesn't mean the law allows you to misuse that authority. Demanding a paying person who is sitting in their seat to get up doesn't seem like something that they can do. Put the man in first class or up front with the flight attendants. Figure out a way that doesn't involve forcibly removing a person at random because of your **** up.


Get somebody else to leave, or put me first class for free on my next 10 flights. I have somewhere to be.
User avatar
GONYK
Forum Mod - Knicks
Forum Mod - Knicks
Posts: 65,398
And1: 41,868
Joined: Jun 27, 2003
Location: Brunson Gang
   

Re: RE: Re: Passenger forcibly removed from United airlines 

Post#77 » by GONYK » Fri Apr 28, 2017 6:00 am

Knicksfan20 wrote:
GONYK wrote:
Knicksfan20 wrote:
I get what you are saying but I disagree with this. The passenger purchased a plane ticket. On this plane ticket there is a date, a time and a seat number. For April 8th 840 am seat b row 12 ...w.e...He owns this seat. He purchased a ticket for this seat and he now owns this seat for the duration of this flight(maybe the word "rent" would be more appropriate then own, but you get my point. ). The fact that the air line overbooked the flight is not the passengers fault. That is the airlines fault. Now the airline is demanding (not requesting) a person give up their seat, in which they purchased weeks/months in advace because of a mistake made by the airline?

This would be like blockbuster(out dated analogy incoming) coming to your house to take back a DVD you rented because they accidently rented out the last and only copy of that DVD. No man...fk u.. Im watching this movie tonight. Or being asked to leave a movie theatre at random because they over sold the theatre. Nope. Im in my seat already. Fk u. They made a mistake and handled the situation very poorly. From what I understand this man was already in his seat.. How do u tell a man to get up out of a seat he is already sitting in? Makes no sense.

No way. Find somebody else to give up their seat because I have somewhere to be. I purchased this ticket, for this time, for this date for a damn reason. Im not getting up. Bring in the national guard. Im not getting up. And if they force me up, best believe lawyers will be involved.

Very rational way of looking at the situation that I agree with. In a fair world, that's how it should work.

The law takes a different point of view though.


What right does the law have in this situation to forcibly remove a person just at the request of the airline staff? What authority does the airline staff have to pick and chose who gets to fly and who doesn't? (legitimate question, i don't know the law when it comes to this situation. )Its not like this person was disruptive or sick... he was chosen at random am I right? Or was the same seat sold twice? Just because you have authority in some situations, doesn't mean the law allows you to misuse that authority. Demanding a paying person who is sitting in their seat to get up doesn't seem like something that they can do. Put the man in first class or up front with the flight attendants. Figure out a way that doesn't involve forcibly removing a person at random because of your **** up.


Get somebody else to leave, or put me first class for free on my next 10 flights. I have somewhere to be.


The FAA regulations give airlines a lot of latitude authority wise to remove a person from a flight if the airline deems that it is necessary to safe and timely operation of the business as a whole.

I this case, the flight was not overbooked. The airline needed to get 2 pilots to the destination so they can get to another flight on time. The airline offered $800 to whoever wants to leave, and no one took it.

But just because no one took it, that doesn't alleviate the airline's initial problem of needing to get the 2 pilots to their flight. So federal regulations then state, because this is a matter that affects the safe operation of the business as a whole, that they can just simply revoke the ticket. Which is what they chose to do, instead of offering more money.

They picked 2 people at random. The first pick left on his own. Mr Dao refused. United couldn't just pick someone else though, because then everyone could refuse. So they (unfortunately) called in the police to remove Dao.

As a customer service experience, that is obviously not the right choice, but it was a 100% legal choice according to FAA regulations, because if the 2 pilots don't make it to their flight that causes delays or cancellations which could affect hundreds of people, as opposed to just inconveniencing one passenger.

I agree with you, that the knowing I could get kicked off a flight for reasons that aren't my fault isn't fair at all, but from a safety and operations standpoint, I understand why the airlines are afforded that option by the law.

But, at least the fallout from this has caused United to raise their incentive to leave up to $10,000. So if it ever happens to you, you can make sure it is worth your while.
Knicksfan20
RealGM
Posts: 18,678
And1: 5,759
Joined: Aug 19, 2006

Re: RE: Re: Passenger forcibly removed from United airlines 

Post#78 » by Knicksfan20 » Fri Apr 28, 2017 6:05 am

GONYK wrote:
The FAA regulations give airlines a lot of latitude authority wise to remove a person from a flight if the airline deems that it is necessary to safe and timely operation of the business as a whole.

I this case, the flight was not overbooked. The airline needed to get 2 pilots to the destination so they can get to another flight on time. The airline offered $800 to whoever wants to leave, and no one took it.

But just because no one took it, that doesn't alleviate the airline's initial problem of needing to get the 2 pilots to their flight. So federal regulations then state, because this is a matter that affects the safe operation of the business as a whole, that they can just simply revoke the ticket. Which is what they chose to do, instead of offering more money.

They picked 2 people at random. The first pick left on his own. Mr Dao refused. United couldn't just pick someone else though, because then everyone could refuse. So they (unfortunately) called in the police to remove Dao.

As a customer service experience, that is obviously not the right choice, but it was a 100% legal choice according to FAA regulations, because if the 2 pilots don't make it to their flight that causes delays or cancellations which could affect hundreds of people, as opposed to just inconveniencing one passenger.

I agree with you, that the knowing I could get kicked off a flight for reasons that aren't my fault isn't fair at all, but from a safety and operations standpoint, I understand why the airlines are afforded that option by the law.

But, at least the fallout from this has caused United to raise their incentive to leave up to $10,000. So if it ever happens to you, you can make sure it is worth your while.


Thanks for the in depth explanation. Helps me understand the situation much better. Only way im getting off is by force. Tell those pilots to sit on the floor. There is 1 open seat in the bathroom as well. Group up in the cockpit.. But im Rosa Parks up in this motherfker and I am not getting up. 2 grand may change my mind though.

Return to New York Knicks