General Discussion

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)

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

Thu Apr 13, 2017, 03:38 PM

Apr 2017

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.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

160 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

United Airlines appears to have violated their contract with their passenger. [View all] pnwmom Apr 2017 OP

i hope they show KT2000 Apr 2017 #1

+1 dalton99a Apr 2017 #84

I hope he sues too. UA CEO's response tells me it will happen again AgadorSparticus Apr 2017 #2

It happened a week before to another passenger dixiegrrrrl Apr 2017 #117

I JUST saw this!! Unbelievable! I hope United gets sued. AgadorSparticus Apr 2017 #130

Once they let him on that flight, they screwed up. Foamfollower Apr 2017 #3

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

Eventually they'll be removing passengers after takeoff. aidbo Apr 2017 #21

Lololol! Give those ba$tards an inch and they'll take a mile, right? TheDebbieDee Apr 2017 #51

I like this John Schindler tweet today womanofthehills Apr 2017 #55

Mahalo for that tweet, woth Cha Apr 2017 #75

The aircraft cannot be closed and the aircraft cannot leave the gate mn9driver Apr 2017 #26

That's not what this article by a law professor says. pnwmom Apr 2017 #34

The law professor is not an airline lawyer. mn9driver Apr 2017 #40

So what? Basic principle of contract law: when there is ambiguity in a contract, pnwmom Apr 2017 #46

Feel free to bookmark this. mn9driver Apr 2017 #50

This is never going near a court. JenniferJuniper Apr 2017 #52

Any court would award him damages for physical pain and suffering, on top of his other damages. pnwmom Apr 2017 #63

Aw Jeezuz man... Solomon Apr 2017 #20

It was a screwup on UA's part & a screwup on the passenger... randome Apr 2017 #31

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

Here is my summary of the event, only going where I think the facts warrant. randome Apr 2017 #94

#11 is obeying lawful orders Angry Dragon Apr 2017 #128

Doubtful. I think the 'law' anywhere is to do what a police officer says. randome Apr 2017 #129

WTH? So if the plane is hit on the runway, "nobody had boarded" so it's okay? (See: Tenerife.) WinkyDink Apr 2017 #65

not boarded till flight takes off? bagelsforbreakfast Apr 2017 #5

"Boarding Pass" is a dead giveaway. N/t Horse with no Name Apr 2017 #11

boarding period manicdem Apr 2017 #17

It could, IF it were defined that way in the contract. But it isn't. pnwmom Apr 2017 #49

So what would "being denied boarding" mean, then? athena Apr 2017 #54

So once they're airborne they can throw him out? interesting. SharonAnn Apr 2017 #18

That will be their next step. liberal N proud Apr 2017 #58

"Boarding" has a very specific meaning in the airline business mn9driver Apr 2017 #22

+1 AtheistCrusader Apr 2017 #29

Where in the contract is that meaning defined? Nowhere that I could see. pnwmom Apr 2017 #35

That is up to a court to decide. mn9driver Apr 2017 #39

You must be referring to the "boarding period" -- athena Apr 2017 #41

I defined the term quite specifically. mn9driver Apr 2017 #43

Also spinbaby Apr 2017 #6

He is probably ethnic Chinese and had Vietnamese citizenship before becoming a U.S. citizen. dalton99a Apr 2017 #10

That could be it spinbaby Apr 2017 #27

The doctor himself said he was Chinese malaise Apr 2017 #32

I hope United Airlines goes down the drain. dalton99a Apr 2017 #7

It was not a United flight. AngryAmish Apr 2017 #77

I think you forgot the sarcasm tag. athena Apr 2017 #83

Oh I'm sure he'll sue. He has probably moonscape Apr 2017 #8

+ several millions. lark Apr 2017 #12

If he sued and it got appealed all the way to the Supreme Court RamblingRose Apr 2017 #13

That's the question I kept asking yesterday - Ms. Toad Apr 2017 #14

Did you happen to see this piece? pnwmom Apr 2017 #15

On the breach of contract claim... jberryhill Apr 2017 #62

They are probably already tripping over themselves with settlement offers. Chemisse Apr 2017 #16

Another reason rule 25 doesn't apply: the flight wasn't oversold Shrek Apr 2017 #19

according to a lawyer who sues airline UAL may be liable rdking647 Apr 2017 #23

Pretty sure any time you're dragged physically for doing nothing wrong, that's a violation lindysalsagal Apr 2017 #24

Precisely n/t malaise Apr 2017 #33

Fuck United and all the other airlines gopiscrap Apr 2017 #25

Boarding ends when the wheels leave the ground. AtheistCrusader Apr 2017 #28

Nice try, but not according to this law professor: athena Apr 2017 #36

It's an industry usage. AtheistCrusader Apr 2017 #37

Tough luck, but the industry does not get to define the term. athena Apr 2017 #38

The law professor does not know what he was talking about. former9thward Apr 2017 #42

So you know the law better than a law professor? athena Apr 2017 #45

Oh I love softball questions. former9thward Apr 2017 #69

The law you quoted does not say what you claim. athena Apr 2017 #72

I saw what you did. former9thward Apr 2017 #78

Reading comprehension skills are important. athena Apr 2017 #81

I really wish you were on my opposite side in court cases. former9thward Apr 2017 #82

Of course you can defy or question orders. The orders themselves need to be legal muriel_volestrangler Apr 2017 #48

I sure you will be volunteering to defend him court. former9thward Apr 2017 #70

I can see they'd be glad you're not defending them muriel_volestrangler Apr 2017 #74

United would be praying someone like you would go after them. former9thward Apr 2017 #80

Here's how English works: you have to read all of a sentence to get its meaning muriel_volestrangler Apr 2017 #91

"You are not allowed to defy or question orders when aboard an aircraft" NutmegYankee Apr 2017 #59

They gave LEGAL orders. former9thward Apr 2017 #71

No, they did not. NutmegYankee Apr 2017 #76

Nope. former9thward Apr 2017 #79

FAIL. NutmegYankee Apr 2017 #101

The flight crew gave an illegal order. The 'contract of carriage' didn't allow them to order pnwmom Apr 2017 #134

Oh I'm sure you are an aviation law expert. former9thward Apr 2017 #137

You didn't believe the law professor, or the aviation law specialist that has signed on to pnwmom Apr 2017 #138

Do you live in Chicago? former9thward Apr 2017 #139

In this case, the Government does. (FAA) AtheistCrusader Apr 2017 #89

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

You are free to call it arcane if you want. The FAA even uses it. AtheistCrusader Apr 2017 #136

I did make a mistake. AtheistCrusader Apr 2017 #87

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

Boarding isn't a passenger-specific workflow. AtheistCrusader Apr 2017 #157

Yeah, we're not talking about a workflow. We're talking about an action. muriel_volestrangler Apr 2017 #158

I'm not really sure why I bother discussing this with you. AtheistCrusader Apr 2017 #159

There are plenty of more lawyers pointing to the meaning of 'deny boarding' muriel_volestrangler Apr 2017 #160

If true then the airline's jargon... WePurrsevere Apr 2017 #47

Exactly! If they're going to use an arcane definition then they need to define it in the contract. pnwmom Apr 2017 #56

Boarding ends several minutes prior to pushing away from the gate. nt NutmegYankee Apr 2017 #60

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

You don't get to use common terms in contract language. AtheistCrusader Apr 2017 #95

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

It's not internal communications, they're regulations on the carrier. AtheistCrusader Apr 2017 #100

Whatever they are, they're NOT part of the contract between the passenger and the airline. n/t pnwmom Apr 2017 #102

Some of the folks on this thread would improve spooky3 Apr 2017 #108

If there is no ambiguity hooptie Apr 2017 #144

Removed from the flight may include diversion and landing. AtheistCrusader Apr 2017 #146

Yeah, they board people while taxiing out to the runway... NutmegYankee Apr 2017 #103

I was using the plain language definition of boarding. NutmegYankee Apr 2017 #147

No, that isn't the plain language definition of boarding, as applied to the individual ticket holder pnwmom Apr 2017 #148

Did you even read the post you originally replied to at all? NutmegYankee Apr 2017 #149

You were replying to me. Did you read the post you wrote to me? pnwmom Apr 2017 #150

What exactly is incorrect there? NutmegYankee Apr 2017 #151

The problem is that the definition you were using has been used by some people pnwmom Apr 2017 #152

I agree the doctor had boarded. NutmegYankee Apr 2017 #153

It seems you replied to me about someone else's "wheels up" comment -- and that's what confused me. pnwmom Apr 2017 #155

I'm with you. NutmegYankee Apr 2017 #156

Who says? (See: Tenerife.) WinkyDink Apr 2017 #66

The fucking FAA. AtheistCrusader Apr 2017 #85

The courts have to set an example once and for all that .... flying-skeleton Apr 2017 #30

United WROTE the forced contract sharedvalues Apr 2017 #53

US DOT calls it involuntary bumping HoneyBadger Apr 2017 #61

Oh, he will sue. I'm sure the lawyers have been lining up all day. I envy them. WinkyDink Apr 2017 #64

Yep, despite all the arm chair lawyers and United shillbots here BannonsLiver Apr 2017 #67

Hey, just curious, can we all have a discussion about a thing without jumping to calling people AtheistCrusader Apr 2017 #90

And business and communications professors will be spooky3 Apr 2017 #109

So according to some here, "nobody had boarded" this Pan Am 747: WinkyDink Apr 2017 #68

I guess the next time I'm on a plane, I will hear an announcement like, athena Apr 2017 #88

The flight was not oversold or overbooked, though Recursion Apr 2017 #98

That means they had no right to remove the passenger athena Apr 2017 #105

They did; it was to seat the crew of another flight (nt) Recursion Apr 2017 #106

Where is that written in the contract? athena Apr 2017 #107

Rule 21 lists allowable reasons for removing a seated passenger and needing pnwmom Apr 2017 #110

Right: this was not a removal under Rule 21, because it was to seat another flight's crew Recursion Apr 2017 #111

There is NO contract rule that allows a seated passenger to be removed pnwmom Apr 2017 #112

Right. They don't need one. Recursion Apr 2017 #114

Yes, they do -- or they're in violation of the contract, and in violation of FAA regs pnwmom Apr 2017 #116

It's not actually a contract Recursion Apr 2017 #119

Yes it is a contract -- a Contract of Carriage -- and yes, it does apply to United Express. pnwmom Apr 2017 #121

But not to Republic Airline, who was the operator Recursion Apr 2017 #122

Republic Airlines is one of the partner airlines in United Express. pnwmom Apr 2017 #123

You can't quote a part of the contract that says athena Apr 2017 #113

Why are you acting like they need a contract clause? Recursion Apr 2017 #115

The contract applies. It says so. muriel_volestrangler Apr 2017 #118

Well that's easy: the flight wasn't operated by United Airlines, but by Republic Airlines (nt) Recursion Apr 2017 #120

Republic Airlines is one of the partner airlines in United Express. pnwmom Apr 2017 #124

Indeed - the flight is designated 'UA 3411', so it's covered under rule 18 (nt) muriel_volestrangler Apr 2017 #131

Thanks! pnwmom Apr 2017 #132

Not every contract needs to be executed. The passenger indicates acceptance when they pnwmom Apr 2017 #125

Except, "terms of sale" are not a legally binding contract Recursion Apr 2017 #126

No, the "contract of carriage" is a legally binding contract that the passenger enters into pnwmom Apr 2017 #127

This airline is a mess Ahpook Apr 2017 #104