HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » United Airlines appears t...

Tue Apr 11, 2017, 03:22 PM

United Airlines appears to have violated their contract with their passenger.

Here is the contract:

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

Rule 25 is about how passengers may be denied boarding due to oversold flights.

This wouldn't apply because he wasn't denied boarding: he was already seated.

Rule 21 is about the circumstances in which a person can be removed from a flight, and includes a number of issues related to safety. But there is no indication that the doctor was removed because of poor or unsafe behavior. He only started yelling and went limp when they decided to improperly remove him.

And the reason they decided to remove him was for the airline's convenience.

I hope he sues.

160 replies, 13184 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 160 replies Author Time Post
Reply United Airlines appears to have violated their contract with their passenger. (Original post)
pnwmom Apr 2017 OP
KT2000 Apr 2017 #1
dalton99a Apr 2017 #84
AgadorSparticus Apr 2017 #2
dixiegrrrrl Apr 2017 #117
AgadorSparticus Apr 2017 #130
Foamfollower Apr 2017 #3
randome Apr 2017 #4
pnwmom Apr 2017 #9
aidbo Apr 2017 #21
TheDebbieDee Apr 2017 #51
womanofthehills Apr 2017 #55
Cha Apr 2017 #75
mn9driver Apr 2017 #26
pnwmom Apr 2017 #34
mn9driver Apr 2017 #40
pnwmom Apr 2017 #46
mn9driver Apr 2017 #50
JenniferJuniper Apr 2017 #52
pnwmom Apr 2017 #63
Solomon Apr 2017 #20
randome Apr 2017 #31
womanofthehills Apr 2017 #57
LanternWaste Apr 2017 #93
randome Apr 2017 #94
Angry Dragon Apr 2017 #128
randome Apr 2017 #129
WinkyDink Apr 2017 #65
bagelsforbreakfast Apr 2017 #5
Horse with no Name Apr 2017 #11
manicdem Apr 2017 #17
pnwmom Apr 2017 #49
athena Apr 2017 #54
SharonAnn Apr 2017 #18
liberal N proud Apr 2017 #58
mn9driver Apr 2017 #22
AtheistCrusader Apr 2017 #29
pnwmom Apr 2017 #35
mn9driver Apr 2017 #39
athena Apr 2017 #41
mn9driver Apr 2017 #43
spinbaby Apr 2017 #6
dalton99a Apr 2017 #10
spinbaby Apr 2017 #27
malaise Apr 2017 #32
dalton99a Apr 2017 #7
AngryAmish Apr 2017 #77
athena Apr 2017 #83
moonscape Apr 2017 #8
lark Apr 2017 #12
RamblingRose Apr 2017 #13
Ms. Toad Apr 2017 #14
pnwmom Apr 2017 #15
jberryhill Apr 2017 #62
Chemisse Apr 2017 #16
Shrek Apr 2017 #19
rdking647 Apr 2017 #23
lindysalsagal Apr 2017 #24
malaise Apr 2017 #33
gopiscrap Apr 2017 #25
AtheistCrusader Apr 2017 #28
athena Apr 2017 #36
AtheistCrusader Apr 2017 #37
athena Apr 2017 #38
former9thward Apr 2017 #42
athena Apr 2017 #45
former9thward Apr 2017 #69
athena Apr 2017 #72
former9thward Apr 2017 #78
athena Apr 2017 #81
former9thward Apr 2017 #82
muriel_volestrangler Apr 2017 #48
former9thward Apr 2017 #70
muriel_volestrangler Apr 2017 #74
former9thward Apr 2017 #80
muriel_volestrangler Apr 2017 #91
NutmegYankee Apr 2017 #59
former9thward Apr 2017 #71
NutmegYankee Apr 2017 #76
former9thward Apr 2017 #79
NutmegYankee Apr 2017 #101
pnwmom Apr 2017 #134
former9thward Apr 2017 #137
pnwmom Apr 2017 #138
former9thward Apr 2017 #139
AtheistCrusader Apr 2017 #89
muriel_volestrangler Apr 2017 #44
pnwmom Apr 2017 #133
AtheistCrusader Apr 2017 #136
AtheistCrusader Apr 2017 #87
muriel_volestrangler Apr 2017 #135
AtheistCrusader Apr 2017 #140
muriel_volestrangler Apr 2017 #141
AtheistCrusader Apr 2017 #142
muriel_volestrangler Apr 2017 #143
AtheistCrusader Apr 2017 #145
muriel_volestrangler Apr 2017 #154
AtheistCrusader Apr 2017 #157
muriel_volestrangler Apr 2017 #158
AtheistCrusader Apr 2017 #159
muriel_volestrangler Apr 2017 #160
WePurrsevere Apr 2017 #47
pnwmom Apr 2017 #56
NutmegYankee Apr 2017 #60
pnwmom Apr 2017 #73
AtheistCrusader Apr 2017 #86
pnwmom Apr 2017 #92
AtheistCrusader Apr 2017 #95
pnwmom Apr 2017 #96
AtheistCrusader Apr 2017 #97
pnwmom Apr 2017 #99
AtheistCrusader Apr 2017 #100
pnwmom Apr 2017 #102
spooky3 Apr 2017 #108
hooptie Apr 2017 #144
AtheistCrusader Apr 2017 #146
NutmegYankee Apr 2017 #103
NutmegYankee Apr 2017 #147
pnwmom Apr 2017 #148
NutmegYankee Apr 2017 #149
pnwmom Apr 2017 #150
NutmegYankee Apr 2017 #151
pnwmom Apr 2017 #152
NutmegYankee Apr 2017 #153
pnwmom Apr 2017 #155
NutmegYankee Apr 2017 #156
WinkyDink Apr 2017 #66
AtheistCrusader Apr 2017 #85
flying-skeleton Apr 2017 #30
sharedvalues Apr 2017 #53
HoneyBadger Apr 2017 #61
WinkyDink Apr 2017 #64
BannonsLiver Apr 2017 #67
AtheistCrusader Apr 2017 #90
spooky3 Apr 2017 #109
WinkyDink Apr 2017 #68
athena Apr 2017 #88
Recursion Apr 2017 #98
athena Apr 2017 #105
Recursion Apr 2017 #106
athena Apr 2017 #107
pnwmom Apr 2017 #110
Recursion Apr 2017 #111
pnwmom Apr 2017 #112
Recursion Apr 2017 #114
pnwmom Apr 2017 #116
Recursion Apr 2017 #119
pnwmom Apr 2017 #121
Recursion Apr 2017 #122
pnwmom Apr 2017 #123
athena Apr 2017 #113
Recursion Apr 2017 #115
muriel_volestrangler Apr 2017 #118
Recursion Apr 2017 #120
pnwmom Apr 2017 #124
muriel_volestrangler Apr 2017 #131
pnwmom Apr 2017 #132
pnwmom Apr 2017 #125
Recursion Apr 2017 #126
pnwmom Apr 2017 #127
Ahpook Apr 2017 #104

Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Tue Apr 11, 2017, 03:25 PM

1. i hope they show

the computer printout that named the people to be removed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KT2000 (Reply #1)

Wed Apr 12, 2017, 09:16 AM

84. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Tue Apr 11, 2017, 03:36 PM

2. I hope he sues too. UA CEO's response tells me it will happen again

It is such a shitty company. I hope people boycott it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AgadorSparticus (Reply #2)

Wed Apr 12, 2017, 03:28 PM

117. It happened a week before to another passenger

a very rich first class passenger
who can afford a LOT of legal representation.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10028923680

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dixiegrrrrl (Reply #117)

Wed Apr 12, 2017, 06:26 PM

130. I JUST saw this!! Unbelievable! I hope United gets sued.

They certainly need to revamp the way they do business.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Tue Apr 11, 2017, 03:40 PM

3. Once they let him on that flight, they screwed up.

 

They could have denied him the right to board involuntarily under their contract. It would have been completely legit.

They are going to lose BILLIONS over this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Tue Apr 11, 2017, 03:44 PM

4. Someone pointed out that you may not be considered 'boarded' until the plane takes flight.

 

Don't know if that's true, but it sounds like a loophole to me.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)
[/center][/font][hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #4)

Tue Apr 11, 2017, 04:14 PM

9. I don't think so. Because Rule 21 is all about removing passengers and it includes

Last edited Tue Apr 11, 2017, 05:13 PM - Edit history (1)

removing them before takeoff. And none of the listed safety reasons includes ejecting someone simply because they needed the seat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #9)

Tue Apr 11, 2017, 06:07 PM

21. Eventually they'll be removing passengers after takeoff.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aidbo (Reply #21)

Tue Apr 11, 2017, 07:41 PM

51. Lololol! Give those ba$tards an inch and they'll take a mile, right?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aidbo (Reply #21)

Tue Apr 11, 2017, 07:51 PM

55. I like this John Schindler tweet today

John Schindler‏Verified account @20committee 7h7 hours ago

Hey peeps, busy day here. I'm a bit behind on the news.

Has @united beaten the shit out of any paying customers today?

Thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to womanofthehills (Reply #55)

Wed Apr 12, 2017, 04:42 AM

75. Mahalo for that tweet, woth

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #9)

Tue Apr 11, 2017, 06:17 PM

26. The aircraft cannot be closed and the aircraft cannot leave the gate

Until all passengers are in their seats and all carry on luggage is stowed. This is all considered "boarding".

Once the airplane leaves the gate, by definition there must be a seat for every person on board, so bumping would not be an issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mn9driver (Reply #26)

Tue Apr 11, 2017, 06:55 PM

34. That's not what this article by a law professor says.

Rule 21 clearly spells out the acceptable reasons for removing a seated passenger, and overbooking isn't one of them.

And when there is ambiguity in a contract, it is interpreted AGAINST whoever drafted the contract -- which is UA.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10028919487

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #34)

Tue Apr 11, 2017, 07:18 PM

40. The law professor is not an airline lawyer.

I've already explained that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mn9driver (Reply #40)

Tue Apr 11, 2017, 07:31 PM

46. So what? Basic principle of contract law: when there is ambiguity in a contract,

the decision goes to the other side -- not the airline lawyers who drafted the contract.

Normal people won't interpret "denial of boarding" rules to apply to people who have already entered an airplane and taken their seats. So unless the contract specifically defines that term to include seated passengers -- which it doesn't -- then it doesn't matter what airline lawyers think when they used the term. It matters what PASSENGERS with common sense would think.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #46)

Tue Apr 11, 2017, 07:36 PM

50. Feel free to bookmark this.

When it goes to court we will see who is correct.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mn9driver (Reply #50)

Tue Apr 11, 2017, 07:41 PM

52. This is never going near a court.

UA needs this gone with a confidential settlement asap.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mn9driver (Reply #50)

Tue Apr 11, 2017, 09:41 PM

63. Any court would award him damages for physical pain and suffering, on top of his other damages.

I read that he's in the hospital today still recovering from his injuries.

No doubt this won't go to court though -- United airlines would be even dumber than they seem to be if they don't settle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #4)

Tue Apr 11, 2017, 06:04 PM

20. Aw Jeezuz man...

Give it up! I used to respect you but this case has really exposed you. Get a grip. They fucked up and it wasn't the victim's fault. It hurts me to watch you throw away your cred on this case. Didn't know you are such an authoritarian and so okay with fascism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Solomon (Reply #20)

Tue Apr 11, 2017, 06:39 PM

31. It was a screwup on UA's part & a screwup on the passenger...

 

...who squealed and thrashed about when the police told him to leave. I don't know what's so difficult about trying to fully understand the situation. The ticket conditions state that passengers can be evicted under certain circumstances. Sure, it's fine print and gobbldedegook but that's another conversation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #31)

Tue Apr 11, 2017, 07:54 PM

57. Fellow passengers said he "squealed and thrashed" after he was injured - he is a senior citizen

He is still in the hospital.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #31)

Wed Apr 12, 2017, 11:35 AM

93. It is indeed, bad form to "squeal and thrash" after being injured, you heroic manly-man-man

It is indeed, bad form to "squeal and thrash" after being injured, you heroic manly-man-man.

And that your Freudian slip is showing so obviously only shows your divine fashion sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LanternWaste (Reply #93)

Wed Apr 12, 2017, 11:40 AM

94. Here is my summary of the event, only going where I think the facts warrant.

 

The hyperbole on DU about this has been interesting, indeed.

1. "The man was beaten!" The video does not show that, imo. The officers are not making the shoulder movements of officers throwing punches. It shows them trying to pull the man from his seat.

2. "Look at the blood!" Again, the video shows Dr. Dao being pulled from his seat and his head striking the opposing row of seats. That is likely because he lost his grip on the seat and the officer's momentum was too much to stop.

3. "He was tased!" Not a single person on the airplane has said this. It is a DU rumor from start to finish.

4. "United violated their contract!" As mn9Driver points out, 'boarding' covers everything from sitting down in a seat to actual takeoff.

5. "He's a doctor!" So what?

6. "He probably has patients waiting for him!" Another DU rumor.

7. "United should have kept upping the bribe!" That's not how anything works in the real world.

8. "He paid for his ticket!" Pretty much for any contract for any purpose, a business or a customer can stop what they are doing if the transaction is not completed. Obviously the transaction was not complete in this case.

9. "United was giving preference to their employees over passengers!" Yeah. They were. They felt they had no choice due to the thousands of delays and canceled flights in the region. They could and should have had other means for seeing to their shortage.

10. Dr. Dao's odd reaction was a red flag to me. Now it turns out he has mental health issues. https://www.democraticunderground.com/10028921188 Which means, additionally, that the police should have been prepared for this possibility and known how to react. Dao's reaction was not 'normal' so they should have immediately reassessed the situation.

11. The one thing in this entire incident that troubles me and that I have no ability to truly address is this: some of you have pointed out that refusing to obey the orders of a law enforcement official is no different from saying that it's a minority member's fault when he/she is gunned down in the street by a trigger-happy cop.

I am not a member of a minority and I have no explanation (some of you would say 'excuse') to put to this point. This is the one thing that 'haunts' me, for lack of a better word.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A 90% chance of rain means the same as a 10% chance:
It might rain and it might not.
[/center][/font][hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #94)

Wed Apr 12, 2017, 04:49 PM

128. #11 is obeying lawful orders

did the officer refer to an actual law??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Reply #128)

Wed Apr 12, 2017, 04:53 PM

129. Doubtful. I think the 'law' anywhere is to do what a police officer says.

 

You resist at your peril or if you think you have a solid foundational reason to do so. It doesn't appear that David Dao was thinking about his Constitutional privileges when he went into "screech mode".

The police aren't there to open an investigation into who has a more moral claim. They aren't the jury or judge. They are there to enforce airport security. If an airline says so-and-so is no longer a valid passenger, they enforce that decision. If a passenger says someone is harassing them, they would confront that harasser, as well.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A 90% chance of rain means the same as a 10% chance:
It might rain and it might not.
[/center][/font][hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #4)

Tue Apr 11, 2017, 09:45 PM

65. WTH? So if the plane is hit on the runway, "nobody had boarded" so it's okay? (See: Tenerife.)

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Tue Apr 11, 2017, 03:49 PM

5. not boarded till flight takes off?

 

"Someone pointed out that you may not be considered 'boarded' until the plane takes flight."

I imagine there will be no shortage of lawyers to explore that opinion...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bagelsforbreakfast (Reply #5)

Tue Apr 11, 2017, 04:16 PM

11. "Boarding Pass" is a dead giveaway. N/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bagelsforbreakfast (Reply #5)

Tue Apr 11, 2017, 05:55 PM

17. boarding period

Instead of boarding the plane, it could refer to the boarding period or window from when they take your ticket to the time the doors close.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to manicdem (Reply #17)

Tue Apr 11, 2017, 07:34 PM

49. It could, IF it were defined that way in the contract. But it isn't.

So the conventional, common sense meaning would most likely apply in any court with a reasonable judge.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to manicdem (Reply #17)

Tue Apr 11, 2017, 07:43 PM

54. So what would "being denied boarding" mean, then?

Because that's how it is used in the contract.

Why are so many DUers trying so hard to twist this thing in United's favor?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bagelsforbreakfast (Reply #5)

Tue Apr 11, 2017, 05:58 PM

18. So once they're airborne they can throw him out? interesting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SharonAnn (Reply #18)

Tue Apr 11, 2017, 07:56 PM

58. That will be their next step.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bagelsforbreakfast (Reply #5)

Tue Apr 11, 2017, 06:07 PM

22. "Boarding" has a very specific meaning in the airline business

It is the period between the first passenger proceeding down the jetway and when the aircraft first moves from the gate. Everything in between these two events is "boarding".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mn9driver (Reply #22)

Tue Apr 11, 2017, 06:23 PM

29. +1

Similar to getting a ship underway, as a public carrier.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mn9driver (Reply #22)

Tue Apr 11, 2017, 06:58 PM

35. Where in the contract is that meaning defined? Nowhere that I could see.

And when there is ambiguity in meaning -- which there is when a term isn't defined -- the law interprets it against the side who drafted a contract with the ambiguity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #35)

Tue Apr 11, 2017, 07:16 PM

39. That is up to a court to decide.

The term "boarding" has had a very specific meaning across the industry for decades. A plaintiff lawyer will have their work cut out trying to convince a judge or jury that it should mean something different.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mn9driver (Reply #22)

Tue Apr 11, 2017, 07:19 PM

41. You must be referring to the "boarding period" --

i.e., the period during which people are boarding the plane. Note that there is a verb there: to board. The boarding period is the period during which passengers board the plane. When you refer to a passenger who has boarded a plane, you are referring to a passenger who is seated in his/her seat, not to a passenger who is already airborne. Note that the contract refers to denying passengers boarding. It does not refer to kicking people off the plane any time during the "boarding period".

To claim that "boarding" means "taking off", you must also believe that "re-accommodate" means "physical assault".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to athena (Reply #41)

Tue Apr 11, 2017, 07:26 PM

43. I defined the term quite specifically.

Your definition of the term is not the one used by the airline industry.

To say that a passenger is no longer subject to boarding rules once his butt has touched his seat is absurd. Good luck to whoever tries to take that argument to court.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Tue Apr 11, 2017, 04:06 PM

6. Also

They're supposed to give him a written statement of his rights. No indication that they did that.

I'm in Asia at the moment and this is getting huge news coverage, the feeling being he was discrimated against because he was Chinese.

On edit: Yes, I am aware the man is Vietnamese, but Japanese news--yesterday, at least--had him pegged as Chinese.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spinbaby (Reply #6)

Tue Apr 11, 2017, 04:15 PM

10. He is probably ethnic Chinese and had Vietnamese citizenship before becoming a U.S. citizen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dalton99a (Reply #10)

Tue Apr 11, 2017, 06:19 PM

27. That could be it

I just caught the morning news. My Japanese isn't great, but I can get the gist of it. No mention of Chinese this morning but the video is being shown over and over, they have an animation explaining what happened, another animation showing why this could never happen on a Japanese airline, and interviews with people who don't want to fly American Airlines, let alone United.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spinbaby (Reply #27)

Tue Apr 11, 2017, 06:43 PM

32. The doctor himself said he was Chinese

so he appears to be was ethnically Chinese even though he lived in Vietnam

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Tue Apr 11, 2017, 04:13 PM

7. I hope United Airlines goes down the drain.

Fuck United Airlines and their apologists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dalton99a (Reply #7)

Wed Apr 12, 2017, 05:45 AM

77. It was not a United flight.

 

They did nothing wrong. United was not even involved.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AngryAmish (Reply #77)

Wed Apr 12, 2017, 09:14 AM

83. I think you forgot the sarcasm tag.

Welcome to ignore.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Tue Apr 11, 2017, 04:14 PM

8. Oh I'm sure he'll sue. He has probably

been contacted by dozens of attorneys already!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Tue Apr 11, 2017, 05:07 PM

12. + several millions.

I hope he sues and wins at least a million dollars and makes United do a full page ad apologizing for breaking the law and mistreating badly a customer. That would be justice, IMO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Tue Apr 11, 2017, 05:14 PM

13. If he sued and it got appealed all the way to the Supreme Court

you can count on Gorsuch and the other conservative justices to side with United

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Tue Apr 11, 2017, 05:38 PM

14. That's the question I kept asking yesterday -

he wasn't denied boarding, yet everyone defending United kept citing the right to deny boarding provision.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ms. Toad (Reply #14)

Tue Apr 11, 2017, 05:42 PM

15. Did you happen to see this piece?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ms. Toad (Reply #14)

Tue Apr 11, 2017, 08:47 PM

62. On the breach of contract claim...

 

...note the absence of discussion on the measure of damages for breach of contract.

There are other claims on the table, but if we're talking about the breach of contract claim, it's not as if there are going to be incidentals or specials.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Tue Apr 11, 2017, 05:54 PM

16. They are probably already tripping over themselves with settlement offers.

They screwed up royally.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Tue Apr 11, 2017, 06:02 PM

19. Another reason rule 25 doesn't apply: the flight wasn't oversold

Every paying passenger had a seat.

United wanted to make room for employees and not for other paying customers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Tue Apr 11, 2017, 06:09 PM

23. according to a lawyer who sues airline UAL may be liable

they didnt follow the proper procedures for involuntary booking,including giving a written copy oif the passangers rights

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/11/opinions/i-got-bumped-from-a-flight-then-i-sued-opinion-stone/index.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Tue Apr 11, 2017, 06:10 PM

24. Pretty sure any time you're dragged physically for doing nothing wrong, that's a violation

They should have left him and tried to remove someone else, or just given up and sent their people on another flight.

No one should be dragged against their will like that unless they're previously a danger to others. And he wasn't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lindysalsagal (Reply #24)

Tue Apr 11, 2017, 06:48 PM

33. Precisely n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Tue Apr 11, 2017, 06:11 PM

25. Fuck United and all the other airlines

I have spent the last 12 years of my life flying all over kingdom come and the worst fucking carriers are the ones based in the USA. Thank God for cell phones!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Tue Apr 11, 2017, 06:20 PM

28. Boarding ends when the wheels leave the ground.

I know that's stupid, and I absolutely don't mean to defend United here, they suck, etc, but boarding isn't over when everyone is physically seated.

I think he will sue, and should sue, but the mechanism will need to be something else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #28)

Tue Apr 11, 2017, 07:00 PM

36. Nice try, but not according to this law professor:

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

Clearly, a “boarding priority” does not include or imply an involuntary removal or refusal of transport. Moreover, under well accepted contract law, any ambiguous term in a contract must be construed against – and in the way least favorable to – the party which drafted it.

So, even if United argued that there was some ambiguity in “denied boarding” based upon “boarding priority” – and that it could possibly mean removal based upon a removal priority – a court would be forced to rule against this interpretation because United drafted the contract.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to athena (Reply #36)

Tue Apr 11, 2017, 07:04 PM

37. It's an industry usage.

Until the plane departs the gate, boarding is underway. That is universally true nationwide, carrier-wide.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #37)

Tue Apr 11, 2017, 07:06 PM

38. Tough luck, but the industry does not get to define the term.

The plaintiff does, according to the law professor. Moreover, to the vast majority of people, boarding means what it sounds like. It does not mean taking off. In other words, someone who defines "re-accommodate" to mean physical assault does not get to define "boarding" to mean "taking off".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to athena (Reply #38)

Tue Apr 11, 2017, 07:23 PM

42. The law professor does not know what he was talking about.

The definition of boarding aside -- and I agree with the poster you replied to -- Dao refused an order from the flight crew. He broke two federal laws when he did that. You are not allowed to defy or question orders when aboard an aircraft. That is the law whether anyone likes it or not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #42)

Tue Apr 11, 2017, 07:31 PM

45. So you know the law better than a law professor?

And not any old law professor, but a "professor of public interest law at the George Washington University Law School"? Are you sure you didn't forget the sarcasm smilie?

If you're serious, please provide a reference. Which law, exactly, says that "you are not allowed to defy or question orders when aboard an aircraft"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to athena (Reply #45)

Tue Apr 11, 2017, 10:41 PM

69. Oh I love softball questions.

Yes I do know the law better. 49 U.S. Code § 46504 - Interference with flight crew members and attendants. Its 20 years in prison.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #69)

Tue Apr 11, 2017, 11:27 PM

72. The law you quoted does not say what you claim.

An individual on an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States who, by assaulting or intimidating a flight crew member or flight attendant of the aircraft, interferes with the performance of the duties of the member or attendant or lessens the ability of the member or attendant to perform those duties, or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both. However, if a dangerous weapon is used in assaulting or intimidating the member or attendant, the individual shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life.


This law does not say that "you are not allowed to defy or question orders when aboard an aircraft". Dr. Dao did not assault or intimidate anyone. Quite the contrary: he was intimidated and assaulted. Moreover, he did not "interfere with the performance of the duties" of any crew member or attendant.

Fortunately, we do not (yet) live in a police state.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to athena (Reply #72)

Wed Apr 12, 2017, 08:16 AM

78. I saw what you did.

You bolded one part of the law, which you address in your post but ignore the rest. Courts don't like it when you do that....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #78)

Wed Apr 12, 2017, 08:44 AM

81. Reading comprehension skills are important.

I emphasized the part of the sentence you neglected. There is only one way to interpret that sentence, and it is not that you are sent to prison for questioning or refusing to obey any order given by the crew. Courts don't take sentences apart, ignore parts of them, and decide that the law says what they want it to say.

It's pretty bad when someone can't admit they were wrong. In this case, it's actually pretty funny.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to athena (Reply #81)

Wed Apr 12, 2017, 08:47 AM

82. I really wish you were on my opposite side in court cases.

Have a nice day!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #42)

Tue Apr 11, 2017, 07:34 PM

48. Of course you can defy or question orders. The orders themselves need to be legal

and necessary. If the flight crew told you weren't allowed to talk in a normal voice, you would not need to obey them unless there was a safety reason.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #48)

Tue Apr 11, 2017, 10:45 PM

70. I sure you will be volunteering to defend him court.

With your brilliant knowledge of aircraft law. Under federal law its a dictatorship when you onboard an aircraft, like it or not. 49 U.S. Code § 46504 - Interference with flight crew members and attendants

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #70)

Wed Apr 12, 2017, 03:49 AM

74. I can see they'd be glad you're not defending them

An individual on an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States who, by assaulting or intimidating a flight crew member or flight attendant of the aircraft, interferes with the performance of the duties of the member or attendant or lessens the ability of the member or attendant to perform those duties, or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both. However, if a dangerous weapon is used in assaulting or intimidating the member or attendant, the individual shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/46504

You've just implied that refusing to obey any order, however irrational, is "assaulting or intimidating" the crew. And that their "duties" can include ordering you to do anything they want.

No, it's not a "dictatorship". They run the aircraft, they don't have totalitarian power over the passengers. You are so obviously wrong, it's quite funny.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #74)

Wed Apr 12, 2017, 08:23 AM

80. United would be praying someone like you would go after them.

You would be laughed out of court. I guess the " interferes with the performance of the duties of the member or attendant or lessens the ability of the member or attendant to perform those duties" part means nothing to you. You can't pick and choose what parts of the law you like and just ignore the rest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #80)

Wed Apr 12, 2017, 10:51 AM

91. Here's how English works: you have to read all of a sentence to get its meaning

So that , in "an individual on an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States who, by assaulting or intimidating a flight crew member or flight attendant of the aircraft, interferes with the performance of the duties of the member or attendant or lessens the ability of the member or attendant to perform those duties, or attempts or conspires to do such an act ..." the phrase that I've helpfully emboldened for you is extremely important. If assault or intimidation is not involved, then this does not apply at all.

Literally, it was you who wished to "pick and choose what parts of the law you like and just ignore the rest".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #42)

Tue Apr 11, 2017, 07:57 PM

59. "You are not allowed to defy or question orders when aboard an aircraft"

So if the flight crew tells you to gouge out your eyeballs, you must comply or be arrested?

Nah, the law only applies to LEGAL orders.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NutmegYankee (Reply #59)

Tue Apr 11, 2017, 10:46 PM

71. They gave LEGAL orders.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #71)

Wed Apr 12, 2017, 05:33 AM

76. No, they did not.

They were in violation of their contract to carry the passenger.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NutmegYankee (Reply #76)

Wed Apr 12, 2017, 08:19 AM

79. Nope.

The contract is to move the passenger from one airport to another. That is it. You are not guaranteed a particular flight or seat no matter what you may have paid. You can't make up your own little individual "contract".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #79)

Wed Apr 12, 2017, 12:36 PM

101. FAIL.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #42)

Wed Apr 12, 2017, 06:35 PM

134. The flight crew gave an illegal order. The 'contract of carriage' didn't allow them to order

him off the plane, and FAA regulations required them to give a paying customer with a confirmed seat priority over an employee flying on a pass.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #134)

Wed Apr 12, 2017, 06:54 PM

137. Oh I'm sure you are an aviation law expert.

I wish this case would go to court so all the internet experts would see what actually happens in actual court cases. Unfortunately this case will never see court because of PR.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #137)

Wed Apr 12, 2017, 06:58 PM

138. You didn't believe the law professor, or the aviation law specialist that has signed on to

represent the doctor, so you probably won't believe the Chairman of the City of Chicago Committee that oversees the Aviation Department -- the department that employs the goons. But this is what he had to say:


http://chicago.suntimes.com/news/viral-video-kills-chance-aviation-security-officers-will-be-armed/

Viral video of a man being dragged off a United Airlines flight has virtually snuffed out any chance for city aviation security officers to be authorized to carry weapons, an influential alderman said Monday.

Ald. Mike Zalewski (23rd), chairman of the City Council’s Aviation Committee, said Sunday’s embarrassing incident at O’Hare Airport was so “poorly handled from A-to-Z” that the officers have lost their argument to bear arms.

Zalewski said the aviation officer who is now on a leave of absence had no business getting involved in the incident, let alone boarding the flight from Chicago to Louisville.

It should have been handled by United, O’Hare’s flagship carrier, in the boarding area, before passengers ever boarded the flight, the alderman said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #138)

Wed Apr 12, 2017, 07:02 PM

139. Do you live in Chicago?

I do. If you want to go by what a Chicago alderman says, good luck. I do agree with the last sentence which is bolded but that is not what the present case is about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to athena (Reply #38)

Wed Apr 12, 2017, 10:39 AM

89. In this case, the Government does. (FAA)

Allowing the passenger to define what 'boarding' means is ridiculous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #37)

Tue Apr 11, 2017, 07:30 PM

44. That's "boarding for the plane". Do they say that an individual sitting in a seat

is in the act of boarding? Notice that the contract talks about denying boarding, or removal from the plane, as options (for an uncontrollable service animal). That indicates they see being on the plane as meaning you have boarded.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #37)

Wed Apr 12, 2017, 06:32 PM

133. Doesn't matter. If that arcane definition isn't spelled out on the Contract of Carriage

then no passenger would be expected to know that the conventional definition of 'board' doesn't apply.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #133)

Wed Apr 12, 2017, 06:51 PM

136. You are free to call it arcane if you want. The FAA even uses it.

I don't think a lot of contracts define terms that the government defines for them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to athena (Reply #36)

Wed Apr 12, 2017, 10:36 AM

87. I did make a mistake.

When I said 'wheels up', that was wrong. Boarding ends when the doors on the aircraft are shut. The contract doesn't need to define a common term.

4.9 A2.2—PERFORM PASSENGER SERVICES. 4.9.1 A2.2.1—Manage Passenger Services. This function directs, schedules, and coordinates the following component activities of passenger services:

• Perform boarding services • Perform in-flight services • Perform deplaning services • Provide passenger service resources

It provides directives, defines requirements and controls for the execution of those activities, and also checks that the execution is done in accordance with company polices and procedures and any required regulations for these activities. This activity also provides controls (on-line/off-line directives) to other process modules.

4.9.2 A2.2.2—Perform Boarding Services. This function boards passengers and includes, but is not limited to, the following activities:

• Check-in • Security screening • Screening for carry-on baggage • Checking for intoxicated passengers, exit-row-seating compliance, and so forth • Seating services before aircraft leaves the gate for takeoff

4.9.3 A2.2.3—Perform In-Flight Services. This function serves passengers during the aircraft flight, such as:

• Briefing passengers • Controlling passengers during flight • Storing of carry-on baggage • Ensuring passenger regulatory compliance, i.e., Portable Electronic Device’s (PED), smoking, and seat belt rules


42
This process starts at the departure airport after all the doors of the aircraft are secured for departure and ends at the destination airport before the doors of the aircraft are opened for passenger/cargo deplaning.


https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/maintenance_hf/library/documents/media/human_factors_maintenance/ar00-45.pdf


All too simple to go to FAA.GOV and search for the word 'boarding'. (United was a contributor to that FAA document.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #87)

Wed Apr 12, 2017, 06:47 PM

135. Again, that does not specify that a passenger is still in the process of boarding after

they are seated. It says that seating them is part of boarding. But the passenger had been seated. He had boarded. What that document is about is the airline's processes, not what happens to a passenger.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #135)

Wed Apr 12, 2017, 07:03 PM

140. HE may be boarded, but the document describes a process, not an individual experience.

'Boarding' applies to the entire craft complement. All crew and passengers.

Stepping back from this incident, if they overbook a single seat and two people make it on to the plane, who wins? The person who sat first, because he or she 'is boarded'? That's not how the airlines resolve that problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #140)

Thu Apr 13, 2017, 07:16 AM

141. And we're talking about the individual, not the airline's process, or the crew and all passengers

The contract is between the individual and the company, not the collective group of passengers.

That's why they have a boarding pass system in which someone stands at a gate, checking you have been assigned a seat number. As this man had been. If the airline assigns the same seat to 2 people, it's a fault in their system, and the airline would clearly be to blame.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #141)

Thu Apr 13, 2017, 12:57 PM

142. That document I linked also specifies how mobility chairs and wheel chairs be secured.

Until the chair is on the plane, depending on the design of the chair, they may not be able to accommodate it. They can't know until they get it onboard and try. Not everything is caught/determined at the gate.

If the airline assigns the same seat to 2 people, it's a fault in their system, and the airline would clearly be to blame.

Indeed the airline would be to blame, but that does not resolve the immediate situation wherein there is two bodies and one seat. In the actual situation that just happened, the aircrew that needed to dead-head should have sat in the jump seats in the fore/aft galleys. Apparently that was beneath them. In the hypothetical, one of those two people is going to have to walk off the plane and accept whatever remediation the airline can offer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #142)

Thu Apr 13, 2017, 01:07 PM

143. Your hypothetical is just that - an imaginary situation that tells us nothing about reality

Has someone actually said there were available jump seats for the crew? If there were, then the United/Republic employees are themselves moronic and at fault.

If they have to test wheelchairs to know if they can accommodate them, then that's fine - that's a matter of safety, which always has to be a consideration. But that doesn't affect the definition of 'boarding' for another passenger.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #143)

Thu Apr 13, 2017, 03:35 PM

145. Many instances of my hypothetical (all airline human error) have come forward to describe how they

were treated. So, no, it's not just a hypothetical, i've witnessed it myself. Have you never seen it in the wild?

I suspect air crew (captain, co-pilot) will insist on a regular seat regardless, and point to some sort of policy as cover for that. Meaning, the customer does not come first. I have never seen an aircraft without at least 6 jump seats, if not more.

Boarding is boarding. I don't know how else to explain it. I would think the FAA's usage, being regulatory AND universal to the industry, would be acceptable as source definition for the meaning of 'boarding'. Your objection doesn't make sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #145)

Thu Apr 13, 2017, 06:14 PM

154. My objection is that you are thinking about an aircraft, not the passenger

This is about when a passenger was taken out of the aircraft. That passenger had entered the aircraft and sat down - thus, he had boarded. The boarding process for the plane might not have completed, but it had for the passenger. You have not yet found an FAA usage of 'boarding' that applies to a person, not an airline process for an aircraft. In the absence of such a non-standard definition, we use the English language meaning.

No, I have never seen anyone removed from an aircraft - even for the reasons that are acknowledged as valid, eg being disruptive. But if they hand out the same seat to 2 people, they clearly have to do everything they can to hold up their end of the contracts. In this case, they didn't have a contract with the flight crew, so that should have been what they let slip - even if it meant they had to delay a flight the next day to complete their rest period. Or they should have offered passengers more money.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #154)

Thu Apr 13, 2017, 06:52 PM

157. Boarding isn't a passenger-specific workflow.

Boarding is not complete until ALL passengers and ALL carry-on cargo is in place and secure, and the doors close. Up until that point any number of boarding-related issues may occur, such as needing to de-plane a person in a wheelchair whose mobility device cannot be safely secured to the aircraft.

I have seen people removed from aircraft before, not often, and usually at less technically-ready airports. I've also had to be marched across the tarmac at SeaTac which should NEVER happen, if for no other reason than noise regulations and lack of hearing protection. Shit happens.

The difference here is, that wasn't shit, that was bullshit. It was NOT a security issue. The carrier made it a security issue, and security dealt with it the only way security knows how. Same reason we don't use the military for law enforcement. Security isn't customer service, and doesn't know how to incentivize a user off the plane.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #157)

Thu Apr 13, 2017, 07:05 PM

158. Yeah, we're not talking about a workflow. We're talking about an action.

'Boarding' is something the passenger does. He or she boards. That's how it can talk about 'denying boarding' to an individual. They don't mean that no one at all will enter the aircraft. Your workflow is the "boarding process".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #158)

Fri Apr 14, 2017, 09:58 AM

159. I'm not really sure why I bother discussing this with you.

You're wrong, and you'll see that plainly if it goes to court. The plaintiff will win damages, but not by the mechanism you're so concerned about.

So go ahead and just assume you're right based off the opinion of one 'legal expert', and have a nice day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #159)

Fri Apr 14, 2017, 06:31 PM

160. There are plenty of more lawyers pointing to the meaning of 'deny boarding'

and how he had already boarded, and that it's not about an aircraft's boarding process. For instance:
hhttp://www.natlawreview.com/article/united-airlines-dr-dao-and-contract-carriage
http://www.newsweek.com/why-united-were-legally-wrong-deplane-dr-dao-583535
https://www.forbes.com/sites/omribenshahar/2017/04/14/david-dao-versus-united-what-does-the-airline-contract-say/

I suggest that by discussing it, we'll get a better understanding. You've shown that the 'boarding process' lasts until the doors are closed, but there's a good case that that is not what counts in the contract between an individual passenger and the airline.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #28)

Tue Apr 11, 2017, 07:32 PM

47. If true then the airline's jargon...

of how 'they' define boarding goes against the commonly understood and accepted definition of boarding a plane meaning simply to get onto the airplane. So unless the meaning of the airlines jargon is clearly spelled out for passengers before hand, the legal default should be, and I suspect will be, to the commonly accepted dictionary definition, not the airlines insider jargon.

Most industries use jargon that's a bit unique to them but will often go over an outsiders heads. In this case it's not just going over someone's head, it would be using a common term in a way that's different enough that it's misleading to those not in on it.

If "boarding ends when the wheels leave the ground" than my airplane boarding pass should get me onto a plane that's already separating from the stairs/tunnel, taxiing down the runway or in the que for take off... but dollars to donuts it won't... nor should it.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WePurrsevere (Reply #47)

Tue Apr 11, 2017, 07:52 PM

56. Exactly! If they're going to use an arcane definition then they need to define it in the contract.

Otherwise, the side who drafted the contract with an ambiguous term will have it interpreted against them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #28)

Tue Apr 11, 2017, 08:01 PM

60. Boarding ends several minutes prior to pushing away from the gate. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NutmegYankee (Reply #60)

Wed Apr 12, 2017, 12:48 AM

73. Where does the UA contract specify that? I saw no definition of "boarding' as in

"denial of boarding" anywhere. If they didn't define it differently on the ticket, then the conventional meaning would apply -- someone would have "boarded" once they entered the aircraft and settled into their seat.

Here's the contract language on the tickets. Maybe you can find their special definition of boarding here:


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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #73)

Wed Apr 12, 2017, 10:34 AM

86. I don't think that's necessary. You'd have to look to privately operated public utilities to find a

more regulated industry than air travel. The FAA uses these terms consistently.

Throughout FAA guidelines and literature, 'boarding' appears to end when the doors are shut, and in-flight begins at that point.


4.9 A2.2—PERFORM PASSENGER SERVICES. 4.9.1 A2.2.1—Manage Passenger Services. This function directs, schedules, and coordinates the following component activities of passenger services:

• Perform boarding services
• Perform in-flight services
• Perform deplaning services
• Provide passenger service resources

It provides directives, defines requirements and controls for the execution of those activities, and also checks that the execution is done in accordance with company polices and procedures and any required regulations for these activities. This activity also provides controls (on-line/off-line directives) to other process modules.

4.9.2 A2.2.2—Perform Boarding Services. This function boards passengers and includes, but is not limited to, the following activities:

• Check-in
• Security screening
• Screening for carry-on baggage
• Checking for intoxicated passengers, exit-row-seating compliance, and so forth
Seating services before aircraft leaves the gate for takeoff

4.9.3 A2.2.3—Perform In-Flight Services. This function serves passengers during the aircraft flight, such as:

• Briefing passengers
• Controlling passengers during flight
• Storing of carry-on baggage
• Ensuring passenger regulatory compliance, i.e., Portable Electronic Device’s (PED), smoking, and seat belt rules


42
This process starts at the departure airport after all the doors of the aircraft are secured for departure and ends at the destination airport before the doors of the aircraft are opened for passenger/cargo deplaning.


https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/maintenance_hf/library/documents/media/human_factors_maintenance/ar00-45.pdf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #86)

Wed Apr 12, 2017, 11:27 AM

92. If it's not part of the CONTRACT in the TICKET, then it's not something that passengers

have agreed to. Passengers can't be expected to read everything the FAA has ever put out, in case there is something relevant to their ticket.

Here is more information from a law professor at George Washington:


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

But that rule, as its title and history clearly establish, applies only if an airline wishes to deny boarding to a passenger, not to remove a passenger who has already boarded an airplane.

The current federal rule grew out of a situation in which Ralph Nader was denied the opportunity to board a flight, even though he had a valid ticket. He sued, in a case which went to the U.S. Supreme Court, and it was eventually held that he was entitled to compensation if he was denied boarding.

As a direct result, the government adopted a rule which permits a carrier to deny boarding to a ticketed passenger, but only after going through a process of seeking other passengers to give up their seats.

United’s Rule 25, as its title clearly implies, applies only to denied boarding. Thus, it uses the word “denied boarding,” and variants such as “deny boarding,” but says nothing about requiring passengers who have already boarded to give up their seats.

SNIP

Clearly, a “boarding priority” does not include or imply an involuntary removal or refusal of transport. Moreover, under well accepted contract law, any ambiguous term in a contract must be construed against – and in the way least favorable to – the party which drafted it.

So, even if United argued that there was some ambiguity in “denied boarding” based upon “boarding priority” – and that it could possibly mean removal based upon a removal priority – a court would be forced to rule against this interpretation because United drafted the contract.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #92)

Wed Apr 12, 2017, 11:46 AM

95. You don't get to use common terms in contract language.

That same contract spells out boarding for mobility devices/chairs and how they must be secured and that may not be determined until the device has 'boarded' the aircraft and is discovered cannot be secured to the PARTICULAR plane/interior package.


Service Animals must be properly harnessed or leashed and remain under the direct control of the Passenger. A Service Animal will be denied boarding or removed from the flight by UA if the animal cannot be contained by the passenger or otherwise exhibits behavior that poses a threat to the health or safety of other passengers or a significant threat of disruption.


United has not bothered to define Boarding nor Flight here, and PRESUMABLY, there's no 'no man's land' between physically boarding the plane, and the plane actually taking aerodynamic flight, where the service animal can misbehave and STILL BE REMOVED FROM THE PLANE.

'Deny Boarding' is sufficient to cover up to the moment the doors are secured.
There is no ambiguity, except in your 'legal expert's' use of 'boarding' to mean only physically walking onto the plane and sitting down.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #95)

Wed Apr 12, 2017, 11:53 AM

96. If you don't define a word in its plain English meaning, then the contract has to

include the special meaning -- or the plain English meaning would apply.

Here is the plain English meaning:

21.
to go on board of or enter (a ship, train, etc.).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #96)

Wed Apr 12, 2017, 12:05 PM

97. So, we just ignore the common use as defined by the carriers AND the FAA?

That seems unworkable to me.

Contracts are fucking wall-of-text enough as it is, without spending time defining every 10th common-use industry standard word.

I was totally wrong earlier about it extending to cover taxiing up to the point of takeoff. My bad. But 'until the doors close' makes total sense. If there's not enough room for all the carry-on baggage, everyone could be seated already, but the carrier must still be confronted with a safety issue that prevents flight if NO ONE on the plane wants to check a bag, or take another flight. Boarding is more than sitting down in a seat, it includes things like stowing the passenger's luggage too. There's no distinct luggage 'stowing' phase between boarding, and takeoff.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #97)

Wed Apr 12, 2017, 12:10 PM

99. Yes. If it's not in the contract, then the passenger hasn't agreed to it. It would be completely

unworkable to expect a passenger to be responsible not only for the terms of his actual contract, but for all the internal communications of the FAA that might be relevant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #99)

Wed Apr 12, 2017, 12:14 PM

100. It's not internal communications, they're regulations on the carrier.

In some cases anyway. Both certainly exist.


I don't think your position will hold in court, but I'm skeptical that it will be fully tested, because United is likely to settle, or rather, United AND the airport security are likely to settle with the victim.

(I do feel the need to point out, just because I disagree with this suspected violation of the contract, does not mean I don't think the victim is entitled to compensation for this boondoggle. He is. And I think he will prevail in court. I just disagree about the mechanism by which it will be decided.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #100)

Wed Apr 12, 2017, 12:40 PM

102. Whatever they are, they're NOT part of the contract between the passenger and the airline. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #102)

Wed Apr 12, 2017, 01:07 PM

108. Some of the folks on this thread would improve

Their legal knowledge simply by watching Judge Judy.

She arbitrated a case where a roofer claimed that the terminology he used (I think it was "re-roof" was understood throughout the industry to mean putting a new roof on top of an existing one. But the plaintiffs, his customers, thought he would tear off the old roof first, then construct the new one. She used exactly the same reasoning in telling the roofer that he was wrong--that where a term could reasonably mean something different to a layperson than what he believes the industry to intend, it was his responsibility to spell out exactly what the term meant.

Obviously we know she's not a Supreme Court Justice and TV is not a real courtroom. The point is this principle is exactly the same as you described it, with a great source--and she is a trained attorney and was "real" judge for a long time, so she probably wasn't hallucinating the concept.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #95)

Thu Apr 13, 2017, 02:05 PM

144. If there is no ambiguity

Then why does your quoted text specifically say "... will be denied boarding or removed from the flight..."

Why the need to add "or removed from the flight" if "denied boarding" covers removing people who have already gotten on the aircraft and taken their seats, but who apparently have not yet boarded the aircraft? Are they really going to open the doors and throw a service dog onto the tarmac? Or out of the plane at FL320?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hooptie (Reply #144)

Thu Apr 13, 2017, 03:38 PM

146. Removed from the flight may include diversion and landing.

If someone's service animal has decided that latching onto people's faces mid-flight is the thing to be doing, they will emergency divert and land to de-plane the animal and it's human.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #73)

Wed Apr 12, 2017, 12:42 PM

103. Yeah, they board people while taxiing out to the runway...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #73)

Thu Apr 13, 2017, 05:36 PM

147. I was using the plain language definition of boarding.

It ends several minutes prior to pushing away from the gate. Everyone is onboard and luggage is stowed, boarding is over and we are just waiting to shift to engine power and get towed out for taxiing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NutmegYankee (Reply #147)

Thu Apr 13, 2017, 05:42 PM

148. No, that isn't the plain language definition of boarding, as applied to the individual ticket holder

The person has boarded once she has entered the craft and taken her seat.

This is from an article by the Dean of Cornell university's law school:


http://www.newsweek.com/why-united-were-legally-wrong-deplane-dr-dao-583535

In truth, airlines do indeed “bump” passengers from oversold flights, but the process by which they do so is to “deny boarding” to ticketed passengers who have otherwise complied with the boarding requirements. However, Dao was not denied boarding. Dao was granted boarding, and then subsequently involuntarily deplaned, which is not the same thing.

SNIP

One might argue that Dao had not completed “boarding” until the cabin door was closed. This argument would be wrong. The term “boarding” is not defined in the definition section of the contract, and absent an explicit definition in the contract, terms are to be afforded their plain meaning.

“Boarding” means that the passenger presents a boarding pass to the gate agent who accepts or scans the pass and permits entry through the gate to the airplane, allowing the passenger to enter the aircraft and take a seat.

It is possible in this regard to distinguish between the collective completion of the plane’s boarding process, which is not complete until all passengers have boarded and the cabin door is closed. But that is different from each passenger’s boarding, which is complete for each individual once he or she has been accepted for transportation by the gate agent and proceeded to the aircraft and taken his or her assigned seat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #148)

Thu Apr 13, 2017, 05:47 PM

149. Did you even read the post you originally replied to at all?

I commented to someone claiming that boarding ends when the plane takes off with a comment "Boarding ends several minutes prior to pushing away from the gate. nt". Which is entirely accurate as all customers are seated by that time. And then you replied with a response that initially made me think you were one of the United Suck ups until I saw your OP today.

Just admit you read my post wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NutmegYankee (Reply #149)

Thu Apr 13, 2017, 05:51 PM

150. You were replying to me. Did you read the post you wrote to me?

It said:

147. I was using the plain language definition of boarding.

It ends several minutes prior to pushing away from the gate. Everyone is onboard and luggage is stowed, boarding is over and we are just waiting to shift to engine power and get towed out for taxiing.


And that post you wrote was in response to this post of mine:

73. Where does the UA contract specify that? I saw no definition of "boarding' as in

"denial of boarding" anywhere. If they didn't define it differently on the ticket, then the conventional meaning would apply -- someone would have "boarded" once they entered the aircraft and settled into their seat.

Here's the contract language on the tickets. Maybe you can find their special definition of boarding here:




I replied to your post 147 that that wasn't the plain language definition of boarding for an individual -- which is what is relevant here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #150)

Thu Apr 13, 2017, 05:55 PM

151. What exactly is incorrect there?

Boarding ends once the person is on board (I.E. on plane), and everyone is on board several minutes (usually) before the plane departs the gate. So the phrase "boarding ends several minutes prior to leaving the gate" isn't wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NutmegYankee (Reply #151)

Thu Apr 13, 2017, 06:00 PM

152. The problem is that the definition you were using has been used by some people

to excuse UA's actions.

They have been defining boarding as only completed once EVERYONE has boarded and the doors are closed. So they use that definition to say that the doctor was merely denied boarding, which is allowed when there is overbooking.

But what is relevant in this case is when an individual has boarded -- once that person has entered the plane and taken his seat, then he has completed his boarding. That person may only be removed under very limited circumstances that do not include overbooking or the airline needing a seat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #152)

Thu Apr 13, 2017, 06:04 PM

153. I agree the doctor had boarded.

I was just annoyed that I got the response you gave about Contracts when I was just making a dismissive comment to a "boarding ends onm wheels up" comment. Much of the early debate on this was authoritarian nightmare.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NutmegYankee (Reply #153)

Thu Apr 13, 2017, 06:19 PM

155. It seems you replied to me about someone else's "wheels up" comment -- and that's what confused me.

Anyway, we're on the same page about this now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #155)

Thu Apr 13, 2017, 06:20 PM

156. I'm with you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #28)

Tue Apr 11, 2017, 09:47 PM

66. Who says? (See: Tenerife.)

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinkyDink (Reply #66)

Wed Apr 12, 2017, 10:26 AM

85. The fucking FAA.

4.9.2 A2.2.2—Perform Boarding Services. This function boards passengers and includes, but is not limited to, the following activities:

• Check-in
• Security screening
• Screening for carry-on baggage
• Checking for intoxicated passengers, exit-row-seating compliance, and so forth
• Seating services before aircraft leaves the gate for takeoff


https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/maintenance_hf/library/documents/media/human_factors_maintenance/ar00-45.pdf

Emphasis mine. I did exceed the definition when I specified 'wheels up'. Apparently taxiing away from the gate is the demarcation point.

Alaska Air and United contributed to that FAA doc, but if you poke around on their site, the term is commonly defined in many places.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Tue Apr 11, 2017, 06:29 PM

30. The courts have to set an example once and for all that ....

The BIG companies can not get away with behavior like this.
They need to be HURT where it counts the most ....... in their Pocket Book ..... BIGLY !!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Tue Apr 11, 2017, 07:42 PM

53. United WROTE the forced contract

Consumers have zero negotiating power in these forced terms. It's not a contract in the historical sense, because it's not negotiated. United could write whatever they want in there. That's not an agreement, it's a dictate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Tue Apr 11, 2017, 08:24 PM

61. US DOT calls it involuntary bumping

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Tue Apr 11, 2017, 09:43 PM

64. Oh, he will sue. I'm sure the lawyers have been lining up all day. I envy them.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinkyDink (Reply #64)

Tue Apr 11, 2017, 09:49 PM

67. Yep, despite all the arm chair lawyers and United shillbots here

They will be writing a very large check in the very near future. It will be a settlement, no trial, and the Dr. will probably be restricted from discussing it as one of the terms of the settlement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BannonsLiver (Reply #67)

Wed Apr 12, 2017, 10:40 AM

90. Hey, just curious, can we all have a discussion about a thing without jumping to calling people

names and shit?

There's a couple viewpoints here, and some people are going to rat-hole on technicalities, and that's all good and fine without calling people 'shills' for X or Y.

Thanks, and have a great day!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BannonsLiver (Reply #67)

Wed Apr 12, 2017, 01:11 PM

109. And business and communications professors will be

Talking with students about what a disastrous incident this was for years to come.

Heck of a job, United.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Tue Apr 11, 2017, 09:52 PM

68. So according to some here, "nobody had boarded" this Pan Am 747:

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinkyDink (Reply #68)

Wed Apr 12, 2017, 10:38 AM

88. I guess the next time I'm on a plane, I will hear an announcement like,

"Please fasten your seatbelts and prepare for boarding."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Wed Apr 12, 2017, 12:06 PM

98. The flight was not oversold or overbooked, though

And as I read it that rule only applies in that case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #98)

Wed Apr 12, 2017, 12:48 PM

105. That means they had no right to remove the passenger

in the first place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to athena (Reply #105)

Wed Apr 12, 2017, 12:49 PM

106. They did; it was to seat the crew of another flight (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #106)

Wed Apr 12, 2017, 12:52 PM

107. Where is that written in the contract?

Please indicate the wording in the contract that gives United the right to remove passengers who have a paid and reserved seat in order to fly their own staff instead.

Or is your argument that United is a powerful corporation, and we Americans worship large corporations and love to bow down before authority?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #106)

Wed Apr 12, 2017, 01:29 PM

110. Rule 21 lists allowable reasons for removing a seated passenger and needing

to seat their employees is not one of them. They're all to do with safety.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #110)

Wed Apr 12, 2017, 02:02 PM

111. Right: this was not a removal under Rule 21, because it was to seat another flight's crew

That's my point: you have fewer contractual rights in that situation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #111)

Wed Apr 12, 2017, 02:05 PM

112. There is NO contract rule that allows a seated passenger to be removed

in order to accommodate another flight crew.

To the contrary, FAA regs require that paying customers with confirmed reservations be given priority over non-paying employees of the airlines.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #112)

Wed Apr 12, 2017, 02:29 PM

114. Right. They don't need one.

And since it's not one of the ones listed, the protections in Rules 21 and 25 don't apply.

Also, United wasn't operating the flight.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #114)

Wed Apr 12, 2017, 03:10 PM

116. Yes, they do -- or they're in violation of the contract, and in violation of FAA regs

that give priority to paying customers over airline employees flying on passes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #116)

Wed Apr 12, 2017, 04:00 PM

119. It's not actually a contract

For starters, neither party executed it. Also, the flight wasn't operated by United (and in fact a plane's livery means almost nothing nowadays), so even if it were a contract, the operating airline wasn't a party to it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #119)

Wed Apr 12, 2017, 04:03 PM

121. Yes it is a contract -- a Contract of Carriage -- and yes, it does apply to United Express.

https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriage.aspx

Contract of Carriage Document
(revised February 17, 2017)

Transportation of Passengers and Baggage provided by United Airlines, Inc. and Carriers doing business as United Express, are subject to the following terms and conditions, in addition to any terms and conditions printed on or in any ticket, ticket jacket or eticket receipt. To the extent there is a conflict between this Contract of Carriage and any terms and conditions printed on or in any ticket, ticket jacket or eticket receipt, this Contract governs. By purchasing a ticket or accepting transportation, the passenger agrees to be bound by these controlling terms of this Contract of Carriage, and no covenants at law or in equity shall be implied or incorporated. Note, only the English version of United’s Contract of Carriage governs the transportation of Passengers and Baggage provided by United Airlines, Inc. and Carriers doing business as United Express.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #121)

Wed Apr 12, 2017, 04:04 PM

122. But not to Republic Airline, who was the operator

Do you see Republic Airline mentioned in there?

And, no, it's just not in any way legally a contract.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #122)

Wed Apr 12, 2017, 04:09 PM

123. Republic Airlines is one of the partner airlines in United Express.

United Express's Contract of Carriage applies to all the partner airlines.

https://www.united.com/CMS/en-US/AboutUnited/Pages/UnitedExpressPartners.aspx

You can earn and use miles on United Express flights just as you do on other United flights.

Cape Air CommutAir ExpressJet GoJet Airlines Mesa Airlines Republic Airways – A Republic Airways Company SkyWest Airlines Trans States Airlines

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #111)

Wed Apr 12, 2017, 02:06 PM

113. You can't quote a part of the contract that says

United can remove passengers with paid and reserved seats in order to make space for its own employees, and yet you continue to insist that United has contractual rights to do so?

Where does this right come from? What is it based on? That it's a large company and can therefore do as it pleases?

It's amazing to me that there are people here who will make a false statement, fail to back it up, and yet continue to make the same, unsubstantiated statement to others. Do you seriously think we're that stupid? Don't you realize that you're just wasting your time?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to athena (Reply #113)

Wed Apr 12, 2017, 02:30 PM

115. Why are you acting like they need a contract clause?

You're saying the same thing as me: this wasn't a removal provided for by the Contract of Carriage. They don't need to follow the Contract of Carriage. It's not actually a contract (hint: it's not executed by either party).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #115)

Wed Apr 12, 2017, 03:55 PM

118. The contract applies. It says so.

"RULE 3 APPLICATION OF CONTRACT
These rules constitute the conditions of carriage upon which UA agrees to provide Domestic and International Carriage and are expressly agreed to by the Passenger. These Rules are also the tariffs filed by UA in accordance with certain government regulations.
This Contract of Carriage is subject to applicable laws, regulations, rules, and security directives imposed by governmental agencies, including but not limited to those imposed during or as a result of a national emergency, war, civil unrest or terrorist activities. In the event of a conflict between the Rules contained herein and such government laws, regulations, rules, security directives and their corresponding effects on UA’s operation, the latter shall prevail.
The rules herein are applicable to transportation of Passengers and Baggage provided by UA. See Rule 18 regarding application of these rules to Codeshare services provided by UA on flights operated by a carrier other than UA.
Certain International Carriage is subject to the rules relating to liability established by, and to all other provisions of the Warsaw and/or Montreal Conventions. Any provisions of these rules that are inconsistent with any provision of the applicable Convention shall, to that extent, but only to that extent, be inapplicable to International Carriage.
Except as otherwise provided within specific fare rules, transportation is subject to the Contract of Carriage and charges in effect on the date on which the Ticket is issued. References to pages, rules, items and notes are coterminous and include revisions, supplements and reissues thereof."

So, unless they wrote something else on the ticket or elsewhere, "transportation is subject to the Contract of Carriage". Giving themselves the right to forcibly remove paying customers because they feel like it (because they screwed up the locations of their crew for other flights) is not something they can just assume they have the right to do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #118)

Wed Apr 12, 2017, 04:01 PM

120. Well that's easy: the flight wasn't operated by United Airlines, but by Republic Airlines (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #120)

Wed Apr 12, 2017, 04:11 PM

124. Republic Airlines is one of the partner airlines in United Express.

And the same Contract of Carriage applies to the airlines in United Express as to United Airlines.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #124)

Wed Apr 12, 2017, 06:28 PM

131. Indeed - the flight is designated 'UA 3411', so it's covered under rule 18 (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #131)

Wed Apr 12, 2017, 06:30 PM

132. Thanks!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #115)

Wed Apr 12, 2017, 04:14 PM

125. Not every contract needs to be executed. The passenger indicates acceptance when they

purchase the ticket. (Don't you remember checking off the box accepting the terms when you get a ticket online? That's you, agreeing to the contract.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #125)

Wed Apr 12, 2017, 04:25 PM

126. Except, "terms of sale" are not a legally binding contract

Same thing with software click-through "licenses", which aren't even licenses legally.

A contract of carriage is closer to an SLA or something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #126)

Wed Apr 12, 2017, 04:47 PM

127. No, the "contract of carriage" is a legally binding contract that the passenger enters into

with the airline, by accepting the terms and paying money for the ticket.

https://www.airhelp.com/en/blog/the-legal-agreement-airlines-dont-want-you-to-know-about-519/

The Legal Agreement Airlines Don’t Want You to Know About

Date:May 18, 2015 AuthorAda Kozłowska

Did you know that every time you purchase airline tickets, you’re entering into a contract with the airline? More specifically, one that requires them to offer a certain set of benefits in various circumstances?

I didn’t, at least not before I worked for AirHelp.

I guess you could say it’s common sense: any time you enter into a purchase, you’re entering into a contract with the seller. But what’s interesting, in this case is that the contract of carriage points out that air travelers have rights they might not even know about.

SNIP

Why It’s Important to Understand How to Read a Contract of Carriage

Airlines’ contracts of carriage aren’t just for the frequent travelers or the savviest legal minds — they’re for all of us. If you’re purchasing plane tickets, you should know how to read an airline’s contract of carriage. If you’re planning on flying anywhere in the future, you should know how to navigate an airline’s contract of carriage. These are your rights — and until airlines get better at transparently extending those rights to passengers, it’s up to us to be aware of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Wed Apr 12, 2017, 12:46 PM

104. This airline is a mess

My mother and her boyfriend fly from Mexico back home constantly on United. They have a layover in Houston and that particular flight is NEVER on time. Anywhere from 2 to 12 hours late every single time.

They flew in a couple weeks ago and were delayed 8 fucking hours. The excuse this time was they had no pilots that could fly due to overtime. Right! Customers have to wait because they screwed up their schedules?

They are avoiding United at all costs

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread