Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: United Airlines appears to have violated their contract with their passenger. [View all]pnwmom
(108,977 posts)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.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
160 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
United Airlines appears to have violated their contract with their passenger. [View all]
pnwmom
Apr 2017
OP
Someone pointed out that you may not be considered 'boarded' until the plane takes flight.
randome
Apr 2017
#4
I don't think so. Because Rule 21 is all about removing passengers and it includes
pnwmom
Apr 2017
#9
So what? Basic principle of contract law: when there is ambiguity in a contract,
pnwmom
Apr 2017
#46
Any court would award him damages for physical pain and suffering, on top of his other damages.
pnwmom
Apr 2017
#63
Fellow passengers said he "squealed and thrashed" after he was injured - he is a senior citizen
womanofthehills
Apr 2017
#57
It is indeed, bad form to "squeal and thrash" after being injured, you heroic manly-man-man
LanternWaste
Apr 2017
#93
WTH? So if the plane is hit on the runway, "nobody had boarded" so it's okay? (See: Tenerife.)
WinkyDink
Apr 2017
#65
He is probably ethnic Chinese and had Vietnamese citizenship before becoming a U.S. citizen.
dalton99a
Apr 2017
#10
Pretty sure any time you're dragged physically for doing nothing wrong, that's a violation
lindysalsagal
Apr 2017
#24
Of course you can defy or question orders. The orders themselves need to be legal
muriel_volestrangler
Apr 2017
#48
Here's how English works: you have to read all of a sentence to get its meaning
muriel_volestrangler
Apr 2017
#91
The flight crew gave an illegal order. The 'contract of carriage' didn't allow them to order
pnwmom
Apr 2017
#134
You didn't believe the law professor, or the aviation law specialist that has signed on to
pnwmom
Apr 2017
#138
That's "boarding for the plane". Do they say that an individual sitting in a seat
muriel_volestrangler
Apr 2017
#44
Doesn't matter. If that arcane definition isn't spelled out on the Contract of Carriage
pnwmom
Apr 2017
#133
Again, that does not specify that a passenger is still in the process of boarding after
muriel_volestrangler
Apr 2017
#135
HE may be boarded, but the document describes a process, not an individual experience.
AtheistCrusader
Apr 2017
#140
And we're talking about the individual, not the airline's process, or the crew and all passengers
muriel_volestrangler
Apr 2017
#141
That document I linked also specifies how mobility chairs and wheel chairs be secured.
AtheistCrusader
Apr 2017
#142
Your hypothetical is just that - an imaginary situation that tells us nothing about reality
muriel_volestrangler
Apr 2017
#143
Many instances of my hypothetical (all airline human error) have come forward to describe how they
AtheistCrusader
Apr 2017
#145
My objection is that you are thinking about an aircraft, not the passenger
muriel_volestrangler
Apr 2017
#154
Yeah, we're not talking about a workflow. We're talking about an action.
muriel_volestrangler
Apr 2017
#158
There are plenty of more lawyers pointing to the meaning of 'deny boarding'
muriel_volestrangler
Apr 2017
#160
Exactly! If they're going to use an arcane definition then they need to define it in the contract.
pnwmom
Apr 2017
#56
Where does the UA contract specify that? I saw no definition of "boarding' as in
pnwmom
Apr 2017
#73
I don't think that's necessary. You'd have to look to privately operated public utilities to find a
AtheistCrusader
Apr 2017
#86
If it's not part of the CONTRACT in the TICKET, then it's not something that passengers
pnwmom
Apr 2017
#92
If you don't define a word in its plain English meaning, then the contract has to
pnwmom
Apr 2017
#96
So, we just ignore the common use as defined by the carriers AND the FAA?
AtheistCrusader
Apr 2017
#97
Yes. If it's not in the contract, then the passenger hasn't agreed to it. It would be completely
pnwmom
Apr 2017
#99
Whatever they are, they're NOT part of the contract between the passenger and the airline. n/t
pnwmom
Apr 2017
#102
No, that isn't the plain language definition of boarding, as applied to the individual ticket holder
pnwmom
Apr 2017
#148
It seems you replied to me about someone else's "wheels up" comment -- and that's what confused me.
pnwmom
Apr 2017
#155
Oh, he will sue. I'm sure the lawyers have been lining up all day. I envy them.
WinkyDink
Apr 2017
#64
Hey, just curious, can we all have a discussion about a thing without jumping to calling people
AtheistCrusader
Apr 2017
#90
Right: this was not a removal under Rule 21, because it was to seat another flight's crew
Recursion
Apr 2017
#111
Yes, they do -- or they're in violation of the contract, and in violation of FAA regs
pnwmom
Apr 2017
#116
Yes it is a contract -- a Contract of Carriage -- and yes, it does apply to United Express.
pnwmom
Apr 2017
#121
Well that's easy: the flight wasn't operated by United Airlines, but by Republic Airlines (nt)
Recursion
Apr 2017
#120
Indeed - the flight is designated 'UA 3411', so it's covered under rule 18 (nt)
muriel_volestrangler
Apr 2017
#131
Not every contract needs to be executed. The passenger indicates acceptance when they
pnwmom
Apr 2017
#125