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]NutmegYankee
(16,199 posts)60. Boarding ends several minutes prior to pushing away from the gate. nt
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