Well it didn't take the screamer long to get his lawyers lined up

[Care4all]

Divine.wind

this is the point in the thread where you say,

I am wrong.

 

[Divine Wind]

The soon to be rich doctor already has his lawyers ready to sick 'em on the soon to be defendents.


Watch now: Dr. David Dao's lawyers, daughter speak to the media

Lawyers for Dr. David Dao, the Kentucky doctor who was violently pulled from a United Airlines flight on Sunday, have called a press conference for 11 a.m. Thursday in Chicago. His daughter, Crystal Dao Pepper, will also speak....

Watch now: Dr. David Dao's lawyers, daughter speak to the media

It's always instructive when some jackboot authoritarian citizen-abuse event happens ---- who comes out on which side.

Always instructive, rarely surprising.

To a conservative the worst possible crime is not accepting, without question, instructions from 'authority'.

Conversely, by your standard, the worst possible crime for a liberal is to follow the rules they agreed to. To a liberal, cheating and lying are acceptable to get what you want.

 

[Divine Wind]

Divine.wind

this is the point in the thread where you say,

I am wrong.

For what? Please specify.

 

[Picaro]

The soon to be rich doctor already has his lawyers ready to sick 'em on the soon to be defendents.


Watch now: Dr. David Dao's lawyers, daughter speak to the media

Lawyers for Dr. David Dao, the Kentucky doctor who was violently pulled from a United Airlines flight on Sunday, have called a press conference for 11 a.m. Thursday in Chicago. His daughter, Crystal Dao Pepper, will also speak....

Watch now: Dr. David Dao's lawyers, daughter speak to the media

Worthless without criminal charges against Delta management and the attendants who are responsible for this felony assault.

 

[Picaro]

It's always instructive when some jackboot authoritarian citizen-abuse event happens ---- who comes out on which side.

Always instructive, rarely surprising.

Moron......did they ask the man to leave the seat? Yes. Did he refuse that lawful request? Yes. Did they ask him again to leave his seat? Yes. Did they give him a lawful order to leave the seat according to the law? Yes. Did he again refuse to now follow a lawful order from a law enforcement officer, enforcing the law? Yes.

You guys are morons....he knew exactly what he was doing....he is a criminal who knew he had a golden opportunity ...

Don't worry syco --- I had you in mind when I wrote that as well, not just the OP. Your voice in applauding authoritarian overreach with yelps of "yes Master may I have another" is well known around here. Any time the powerful start punching the commoner, you start drooling. We all know that.

As I said -- always instructive, rarely surprising.

To your "content" here swooning over the jackboots --- did they assault a passenger who was in the seat he paid for? Did they bloody his nose and drag him out? These are the questions you won't touch, since they stand in the way of the Rambo bedroom poster you jerk off to.

It was definitely a felony assault, no question about that. And it was over a civil matter to boot.

 

[Divine Wind]

Nice jailhouse lawyering, but the fact remains that Dao, regardless of actually being on board or not, was denied "boarding". IE, his seat aboard a flight.

NO. HE. WAS. NOT.
If he'd been denied boarding ---- then he wouldn't have been physically in the seat he was yanked out of because he wouldn't be on the plane, because the laws of physics demand that a body cannot exist in two places at the same time.

Holy SHIT, engage brain.

Dao was boarded, as was everybody else on the plane. At that point --- the airline can't just bump you because they didn't think of it at the gate. That was United's first fuckup.

When he interfered with the flight crew and the airline operation by his refusal to vacate the aircraft, he violated several laws, including FAR 121.580.

BULLSHIT. Find me anywhere in that document that gives the airline the right to extricate a passenger they've already boarded.

'Fraid not Gummo. If they're going to bump you they need to do it before boarding --- not after.

When he disobeyed the lawful orders of Chicago's aviation authorities, he violated more laws. When he resisted, he violated those laws. When he ran back onboard the aircraft without authorization, he violated Federal law.

Again, fucking bullshit. He doesn't even have a memory of returning, nor was he aware of his own condition --- ALL of which are the result of those "aviation authority" thugs. Who apparently must be minimum-wage rent-a-cops, since three of them couldn't control a 69-year-old man they had just knocked unconscious with a concussion and broken teeth. Some "security force" that is.

Scream and yell all you want, but the fact remains Mr. Dao will have to answer for his behavior.

True, so will Chicago's plainclothes man, but that's a different matter.

 

[Divine Wind]

It's always instructive when some jackboot authoritarian citizen-abuse event happens ---- who comes out on which side.

Always instructive, rarely surprising.

Moron......did they ask the man to leave the seat? Yes. Did he refuse that lawful request? Yes. Did they ask him again to leave his seat? Yes. Did they give him a lawful order to leave the seat according to the law? Yes. Did he again refuse to now follow a lawful order from a law enforcement officer, enforcing the law? Yes.

You guys are morons....he knew exactly what he was doing....he is a criminal who knew he had a golden opportunity ...

Don't worry syco --- I had you in mind when I wrote that as well, not just the OP. Your voice in applauding authoritarian overreach with yelps of "yes Master may I have another" is well known around here. Any time the powerful start punching the commoner, you start drooling. We all know that.

As I said -- always instructive, rarely surprising.

To your "content" here swooning over the jackboots --- did they assault a passenger who was in the seat he paid for? Did they bloody his nose and drag him out? These are the questions you won't touch, since they stand in the way of the Rambo bedroom poster you jerk off to.

It was definitely a felony assault, no question about that. And it was over a civil matter to boot.

If true, then the officer in question will be convicted of a crime....unless Rahm's Chicago is as corrupt as many thing, then maybe not, eh?

 

[Pogo]

Nice jailhouse lawyering, but the fact remains that Dao, regardless of actually being on board or not, was denied "boarding". IE, his seat aboard a flight.

NO. HE. WAS. NOT.
If he'd been denied boarding ---- then he wouldn't have been physically in the seat he was yanked out of because he wouldn't be on the plane, because the laws of physics demand that a body cannot exist in two places at the same time.

Holy SHIT, engage brain.

Dao was boarded, as was everybody else on the plane. At that point --- the airline can't just bump you because they didn't think of it at the gate. That was United's first fuckup.

When he interfered with the flight crew and the airline operation by his refusal to vacate the aircraft, he violated several laws, including FAR 121.580.

BULLSHIT. Find me anywhere in that document that gives the airline the right to extricate a passenger they've already boarded.

'Fraid not Gummo. If they're going to bump you they need to do it before boarding --- not after.

When he disobeyed the lawful orders of Chicago's aviation authorities, he violated more laws. When he resisted, he violated those laws. When he ran back onboard the aircraft without authorization, he violated Federal law.

Again, fucking bullshit. He doesn't even have a memory of returning, nor was he aware of his own condition --- ALL of which are the result of those "aviation authority" thugs. Who apparently must be minimum-wage rent-a-cops, since three of them couldn't control a 69-year-old man they had just knocked unconscious with a concussion and broken teeth. Some "security force" that is.

Scream and yell all you want, but the fact remains Mr. Dao will have to answer for his behavior.

True, so will Chicago's plainclothes man, but that's a different matter.

Doesn't sound like much of a hurdle, since this "behavior" consisted of:

• Brazenly paying money for a seat on an airplane; AND
• Handing his ticket to the gate agent while boarding AND
  
• Having the temerity to sit in said seat, per the airline's assignment.

Why I'll bet he even had the audacity to slip the seat belt buckle into the snap. The fiend!

Say --- won't all the other passengers on that flight "have to answer for" the same scurrilous behavior?

 

[Pogo]

The soon to be rich doctor already has his lawyers ready to sick 'em on the soon to be defendents.


Watch now: Dr. David Dao's lawyers, daughter speak to the media

Lawyers for Dr. David Dao, the Kentucky doctor who was violently pulled from a United Airlines flight on Sunday, have called a press conference for 11 a.m. Thursday in Chicago. His daughter, Crystal Dao Pepper, will also speak....

Watch now: Dr. David Dao's lawyers, daughter speak to the media

It's always instructive when some jackboot authoritarian citizen-abuse event happens ---- who comes out on which side.

Always instructive, rarely surprising.

To a conservative the worst possible crime is not accepting, without question, instructions from 'authority'.

Conversely, by your standard, the worst possible crime for a liberal is to follow the rules they agreed to. To a liberal, cheating and lying are acceptable to get what you want.

"the rules they agreed to". Interesting phrase. Such as, oh I dunno, United Airlines own Contract of Carriage that I just quoted, which establish no basis whatsoever for pulling a passenger off at random, a fact that United Airlines itself has acknowledged? That kind of "rules they agreed to"? Or in this case --- "rules they literally WROTE"?

 

[DigitalDrifter]

What would United have done if those four employees showed up at the gate ten minutes later?
They would have chartered a flight or driven them

I've been bumped on a LaGuardia (NYC) to Tampa and rebooked on a flight from NYC to another city in Florida, and the Airlines Paid a LIMO Driver to get me to the Tampa Airport where my car was, over 100 miles away.

Why did you give up your seat ? You're a coward according to the other retarded liberals here.

Obviously she didn't "give up her seat". That's not how bumping works. Again for you 'special' kids --- if an airline is going to bump you they have to do it BEFORE they board you. Meaning, at the gate, outside the aircraft. Once they have boarded and seated you they have entered the part of the contract where they have to transport you, unless some extreme circumstances present.

None of that happened here. Dao paid for his seat, was legitimately boarded and occupied his seat. The airline's got no ground to stand on changing its mind after it's already boarded him.

Understand?

Yes Pugo, I know how it works (insert rolling eyes here).
I've never supported United in this story. They fucked up, I get it. They should have offered much more, and had they done so they would not only have had all the volunteers they needed, but they wouldn't be in this huge mess.
What I've been saying is even when you have boarded and taken your seat, once you've been selected to be removed and security and or police arrive, act like an adult and make the best of a lousy situation.
Instead, this man held on for dear life like a three year old, and not only ruined his day and made himself late, he also ruined it for everyone else aboard and made them late as well.

And what I've been saying is YOU'RE WRONG. The airline has no basis to remove already-boarded passengers for its own convenience, period.

Who says so? United Airlines says so. Their own Contract of Carriage says so.

The complete UA Contract of Carriage Rule 21:

Rule 21 Refusal of Transport
UA shall have the right to refuse to transport or shall have the right to remove from the aircraft at any point, any Passenger for the following reasons:

1. Breach of Contract of Carriage – Failure by Passenger to comply with the Rules of the Contract of Carriage.
2. Government Request, Regulations or Security Directives – Whenever such action is necessary to comply with any government regulation, Customs and Border Protection, government or airport security directive of any sort, or any governmental request for emergency transportation in connection with the national defense.
3. Force Majeure and Other Unforeseeable Conditions – Whenever such action is necessary or advisable by reason of weather or other conditions beyond UA’s control including, but not limited to, acts of God, force majeure, strikes, civil commotions, embargoes, wars, hostilities, terrorist activities, or disturbances, whether actual, threatened, or reported.
4. Search of Passenger or Property – Whenever a Passenger refuses to submit to electronic surveillance or to permit search of his/her person or property.
5. Proof of Identity – Whenever a Passenger refuses on request to produce identification satisfactory to UA or who presents a Ticket to board and whose identification does not match the name on the Ticket. UA shall have the right, but shall not be obligated, to require identification of persons purchasing tickets and/or presenting a ticket(s) for the purpose of boarding the aircraft.
6. Failure to Pay – Whenever a Passenger has not paid the appropriate fare for a Ticket, Baggage, or applicable service charges for services required for travel, has not paid an outstanding debt or Court judgment, or has not produced satisfactory proof to UA that the Passenger is an authorized non-revenue Passenger or has engaged in a prohibited practice as specified in Rule 6.
7. Across International Boundaries – Whenever a Passenger is traveling across any international boundary if:
   1. The government required travel documents of such Passenger appear not to be in order according to UA's reasonable belief; or
   2. Such Passenger’s embarkation from, transit through, or entry into any country from, through, or to which such Passenger desires transportation would be unlawful or denied for any reason.
8. Safety – Whenever refusal or removal of a Passenger may be necessary for the safety of such Passenger or other Passengers or members of the crew including, but not limited to:
   1. Passengers whose conduct is disorderly, offensive, abusive, or violent;
   2. Passengers who fail to comply with or interfere with the duties of the members of the flight crew, federal regulations, or security directives;
   3. Passengers who assault any employee of UA, including the gate agents and flight crew, or any UA Passenger;
   4. Passengers who, through and as a result of their conduct, cause a disturbance such that the captain or member of the cockpit crew must leave the cockpit in order to attend to the disturbance;
   5. Passengers who are barefoot or not properly clothed;
   6. Passengers who appear to be intoxicated or under the influence of drugs to a degree that the Passenger may endanger the Passenger or another Passenger or members of the crew (other than a qualified individual whose appearance or involuntary behavior may make them appear to be intoxicated or under the influence of drugs);
   7. Passengers wearing or possessing on or about their person concealed or unconcealed deadly or dangerous weapons; provided, however, that UA will carry law enforcement personnel who meet the qualifications and conditions established in 49 C.F.R. §1544.219;
   8. Passengers who are unwilling or unable to follow UA’s policy on smoking or use of other smokeless materials;
   9. Unless they comply with Rule 6 I), Passengers who are unable to sit in a single seat with the seat belt properly secured, and/or are unable to put the seat’s armrests down when seated and remain seated with the armrest down for the entirety of the flight, and/or passengers who significantly encroach upon the adjoining passenger’s seat;
   10. Passengers who are manacled or in the custody of law enforcement personnel;
   11. Passengers who have resisted or may reasonably be believed to be capable of resisting custodial supervision;
   12. Pregnant Passengers in their ninth month, unless such Passenger provides a doctor’s certificate dated no more than 72 hours prior to departure stating that the doctor has examined and found the Passenger to be physically fit for air travel to and from the destination requested on the date of the flight, and that the estimated date of delivery is after the date of the last flight;
   13. Passengers who are incapable of completing a flight safely, without requiring extraordinary medical assistance during the flight, as well as Passengers who appear to have symptoms of or have a communicable disease or condition that could pose a direct threat to the health or safety of others on the flight, or who refuse a screening for such disease or condition. (NOTE: UA requires a medical certificate for Passengers who wish to travel under such circumstances. Visit UA’s website, united.com, for more information regarding UA’s requirements for medical certificates);
   14. Passengers who fail to travel with the required safety assistant(s), advance notice and/or other safety requirements pursuant to Rules 14 and 15;
   15. Passengers who do not qualify as acceptable Non-Ambulatory Passengers (see Rule 14);
   16. Passengers who have or cause a malodorous condition (other than individuals qualifying as disabled);
   17. Passengers whose physical or mental condition is such that, in United’s sole opinion, they are rendered or likely to be rendered incapable of comprehending or complying with safety instructions without the assistance of an escort. The escort must accompany the escorted passenger at all times; and
   18. Unaccompanied passengers who are both blind and deaf, unless such passenger is able to communicate with representatives of UA by either physical, mechanical, electronic, or other means. Such passenger must inform UA of the method of communication to be used; and
   19. Passengers who are unwilling to follow UA’s policy that prohibits voice calls after the aircraft doors have closed, while taxiing in preparation for takeoff, or while airborne.
   
   
9. Any Passenger who, by reason of engaging in the above activities in this Rule 21, causes UA any loss, damage or expense of any kind, consents and acknowledges that he or she shall reimburse UA for any such loss, damage or expense. UA has the right to refuse transport, on a permanent basis, to any passenger who, by reason of engaging in the above activities in this Rule 21, causes UA any loss, damage or expense of any kind, or who has been disorderly, offensive, abusive, or violent. In addition, the activities enumerated in H) 1) through 8) shall constitute a material breach of contract, for which UA shall be excused from performing its obligations under this contract.
10. UA is not liable for its refusal to transport any passenger or for its removal of any passenger in accordance with this Rule. A Passenger who is removed or refused transportation in accordance with this Rule may be eligible for a refund upon request. See Rule 27 A). As an express precondition to issuance of any refund, UA shall not be responsible for damages of any kind whatsoever. The passenger’s sole and exclusive remedy shall be Rule 27 A).

Exactly ZERO (0) of these conditions applied to Dao and his wife.



Any days or travel that were ruined --- and there certainly were ruins ---- were solely and completely the fault of United Airlines, who perpetrated the entire incident. Again --- who says so? Again--- United Airlines.

Yep, shouldn't have happened, but once they come for you, suck it up, act like an adult, get off the plane, allow others to make their destinations ON TIME. Then, start the wheels of justice by calling lawyers, United officials, etc.
Save the juvenile hissy fits for juveniles.

 

[Pogo]

I've been bumped on a LaGuardia (NYC) to Tampa and rebooked on a flight from NYC to another city in Florida, and the Airlines Paid a LIMO Driver to get me to the Tampa Airport where my car was, over 100 miles away.

Why did you give up your seat ? You're a coward according to the other retarded liberals here.

Obviously she didn't "give up her seat". That's not how bumping works. Again for you 'special' kids --- if an airline is going to bump you they have to do it BEFORE they board you. Meaning, at the gate, outside the aircraft. Once they have boarded and seated you they have entered the part of the contract where they have to transport you, unless some extreme circumstances present.

None of that happened here. Dao paid for his seat, was legitimately boarded and occupied his seat. The airline's got no ground to stand on changing its mind after it's already boarded him.

Understand?

Yes Pugo, I know how it works (insert rolling eyes here).
I've never supported United in this story. They fucked up, I get it. They should have offered much more, and had they done so they would not only have had all the volunteers they needed, but they wouldn't be in this huge mess.
What I've been saying is even when you have boarded and taken your seat, once you've been selected to be removed and security and or police arrive, act like an adult and make the best of a lousy situation.
Instead, this man held on for dear life like a three year old, and not only ruined his day and made himself late, he also ruined it for everyone else aboard and made them late as well.

And what I've been saying is YOU'RE WRONG. The airline has no basis to remove already-boarded passengers for its own convenience, period.

Who says so? United Airlines says so. Their own Contract of Carriage says so.

The complete UA Contract of Carriage Rule 21:

Rule 21 Refusal of Transport
UA shall have the right to refuse to transport or shall have the right to remove from the aircraft at any point, any Passenger for the following reasons:

1. Breach of Contract of Carriage – Failure by Passenger to comply with the Rules of the Contract of Carriage.
2. Government Request, Regulations or Security Directives – Whenever such action is necessary to comply with any government regulation, Customs and Border Protection, government or airport security directive of any sort, or any governmental request for emergency transportation in connection with the national defense.
3. Force Majeure and Other Unforeseeable Conditions – Whenever such action is necessary or advisable by reason of weather or other conditions beyond UA’s control including, but not limited to, acts of God, force majeure, strikes, civil commotions, embargoes, wars, hostilities, terrorist activities, or disturbances, whether actual, threatened, or reported.
4. Search of Passenger or Property – Whenever a Passenger refuses to submit to electronic surveillance or to permit search of his/her person or property.
5. Proof of Identity – Whenever a Passenger refuses on request to produce identification satisfactory to UA or who presents a Ticket to board and whose identification does not match the name on the Ticket. UA shall have the right, but shall not be obligated, to require identification of persons purchasing tickets and/or presenting a ticket(s) for the purpose of boarding the aircraft.
6. Failure to Pay – Whenever a Passenger has not paid the appropriate fare for a Ticket, Baggage, or applicable service charges for services required for travel, has not paid an outstanding debt or Court judgment, or has not produced satisfactory proof to UA that the Passenger is an authorized non-revenue Passenger or has engaged in a prohibited practice as specified in Rule 6.
7. Across International Boundaries – Whenever a Passenger is traveling across any international boundary if:
   1. The government required travel documents of such Passenger appear not to be in order according to UA's reasonable belief; or
   2. Such Passenger’s embarkation from, transit through, or entry into any country from, through, or to which such Passenger desires transportation would be unlawful or denied for any reason.
8. Safety – Whenever refusal or removal of a Passenger may be necessary for the safety of such Passenger or other Passengers or members of the crew including, but not limited to:
   1. Passengers whose conduct is disorderly, offensive, abusive, or violent;
   2. Passengers who fail to comply with or interfere with the duties of the members of the flight crew, federal regulations, or security directives;
   3. Passengers who assault any employee of UA, including the gate agents and flight crew, or any UA Passenger;
   4. Passengers who, through and as a result of their conduct, cause a disturbance such that the captain or member of the cockpit crew must leave the cockpit in order to attend to the disturbance;
   5. Passengers who are barefoot or not properly clothed;
   6. Passengers who appear to be intoxicated or under the influence of drugs to a degree that the Passenger may endanger the Passenger or another Passenger or members of the crew (other than a qualified individual whose appearance or involuntary behavior may make them appear to be intoxicated or under the influence of drugs);
   7. Passengers wearing or possessing on or about their person concealed or unconcealed deadly or dangerous weapons; provided, however, that UA will carry law enforcement personnel who meet the qualifications and conditions established in 49 C.F.R. §1544.219;
   8. Passengers who are unwilling or unable to follow UA’s policy on smoking or use of other smokeless materials;
   9. Unless they comply with Rule 6 I), Passengers who are unable to sit in a single seat with the seat belt properly secured, and/or are unable to put the seat’s armrests down when seated and remain seated with the armrest down for the entirety of the flight, and/or passengers who significantly encroach upon the adjoining passenger’s seat;
   10. Passengers who are manacled or in the custody of law enforcement personnel;
   11. Passengers who have resisted or may reasonably be believed to be capable of resisting custodial supervision;
   12. Pregnant Passengers in their ninth month, unless such Passenger provides a doctor’s certificate dated no more than 72 hours prior to departure stating that the doctor has examined and found the Passenger to be physically fit for air travel to and from the destination requested on the date of the flight, and that the estimated date of delivery is after the date of the last flight;
   13. Passengers who are incapable of completing a flight safely, without requiring extraordinary medical assistance during the flight, as well as Passengers who appear to have symptoms of or have a communicable disease or condition that could pose a direct threat to the health or safety of others on the flight, or who refuse a screening for such disease or condition. (NOTE: UA requires a medical certificate for Passengers who wish to travel under such circumstances. Visit UA’s website, united.com, for more information regarding UA’s requirements for medical certificates);
   14. Passengers who fail to travel with the required safety assistant(s), advance notice and/or other safety requirements pursuant to Rules 14 and 15;
   15. Passengers who do not qualify as acceptable Non-Ambulatory Passengers (see Rule 14);
   16. Passengers who have or cause a malodorous condition (other than individuals qualifying as disabled);
   17. Passengers whose physical or mental condition is such that, in United’s sole opinion, they are rendered or likely to be rendered incapable of comprehending or complying with safety instructions without the assistance of an escort. The escort must accompany the escorted passenger at all times; and
   18. Unaccompanied passengers who are both blind and deaf, unless such passenger is able to communicate with representatives of UA by either physical, mechanical, electronic, or other means. Such passenger must inform UA of the method of communication to be used; and
   19. Passengers who are unwilling to follow UA’s policy that prohibits voice calls after the aircraft doors have closed, while taxiing in preparation for takeoff, or while airborne.
   
   
9. Any Passenger who, by reason of engaging in the above activities in this Rule 21, causes UA any loss, damage or expense of any kind, consents and acknowledges that he or she shall reimburse UA for any such loss, damage or expense. UA has the right to refuse transport, on a permanent basis, to any passenger who, by reason of engaging in the above activities in this Rule 21, causes UA any loss, damage or expense of any kind, or who has been disorderly, offensive, abusive, or violent. In addition, the activities enumerated in H) 1) through 8) shall constitute a material breach of contract, for which UA shall be excused from performing its obligations under this contract.
10. UA is not liable for its refusal to transport any passenger or for its removal of any passenger in accordance with this Rule. A Passenger who is removed or refused transportation in accordance with this Rule may be eligible for a refund upon request. See Rule 27 A). As an express precondition to issuance of any refund, UA shall not be responsible for damages of any kind whatsoever. The passenger’s sole and exclusive remedy shall be Rule 27 A).

Exactly ZERO (0) of these conditions applied to Dao and his wife.



Any days or travel that were ruined --- and there certainly were ruins ---- were solely and completely the fault of United Airlines, who perpetrated the entire incident. Again --- who says so? Again--- United Airlines.

Yep, shouldn't have happened, but once they come for you, suck it up, act like an adult, get off the plane, allow others to make their destinations ON TIME. Then, start the wheels of justice by calling lawyers, United officials, etc.
Save the juvenile hissy fits for juveniles.

Juvenile hissy fit huh? Oh right, you mean like the way he swept the aisle with his back while being dragged after the goons had knocked him out and popped a couple of teeth. And the way he viciously attacked that arm rest just because he was thrown against it ---- that kind of hissyfit. Huh.

Diga me this about "hissyfits", if you please-----

--- how come you corporapologists can only argue from emotion?

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Why did you give up your seat ? You're a coward according to the other retarded liberals here.

Obviously she didn't "give up her seat". That's not how bumping works. Again for you 'special' kids --- if an airline is going to bump you they have to do it BEFORE they board you. Meaning, at the gate, outside the aircraft. Once they have boarded and seated you they have entered the part of the contract where they have to transport you, unless some extreme circumstances present.

None of that happened here. Dao paid for his seat, was legitimately boarded and occupied his seat. The airline's got no ground to stand on changing its mind after it's already boarded him.

Understand?

Yes Pugo, I know how it works (insert rolling eyes here).
I've never supported United in this story. They fucked up, I get it. They should have offered much more, and had they done so they would not only have had all the volunteers they needed, but they wouldn't be in this huge mess.
What I've been saying is even when you have boarded and taken your seat, once you've been selected to be removed and security and or police arrive, act like an adult and make the best of a lousy situation.
Instead, this man held on for dear life like a three year old, and not only ruined his day and made himself late, he also ruined it for everyone else aboard and made them late as well.

And what I've been saying is YOU'RE WRONG. The airline has no basis to remove already-boarded passengers for its own convenience, period.

Who says so? United Airlines says so. Their own Contract of Carriage says so.

The complete UA Contract of Carriage Rule 21:

Rule 21 Refusal of Transport
UA shall have the right to refuse to transport or shall have the right to remove from the aircraft at any point, any Passenger for the following reasons:

1. Breach of Contract of Carriage – Failure by Passenger to comply with the Rules of the Contract of Carriage.
2. Government Request, Regulations or Security Directives – Whenever such action is necessary to comply with any government regulation, Customs and Border Protection, government or airport security directive of any sort, or any governmental request for emergency transportation in connection with the national defense.
3. Force Majeure and Other Unforeseeable Conditions – Whenever such action is necessary or advisable by reason of weather or other conditions beyond UA’s control including, but not limited to, acts of God, force majeure, strikes, civil commotions, embargoes, wars, hostilities, terrorist activities, or disturbances, whether actual, threatened, or reported.
4. Search of Passenger or Property – Whenever a Passenger refuses to submit to electronic surveillance or to permit search of his/her person or property.
5. Proof of Identity – Whenever a Passenger refuses on request to produce identification satisfactory to UA or who presents a Ticket to board and whose identification does not match the name on the Ticket. UA shall have the right, but shall not be obligated, to require identification of persons purchasing tickets and/or presenting a ticket(s) for the purpose of boarding the aircraft.
6. Failure to Pay – Whenever a Passenger has not paid the appropriate fare for a Ticket, Baggage, or applicable service charges for services required for travel, has not paid an outstanding debt or Court judgment, or has not produced satisfactory proof to UA that the Passenger is an authorized non-revenue Passenger or has engaged in a prohibited practice as specified in Rule 6.
7. Across International Boundaries – Whenever a Passenger is traveling across any international boundary if:
   1. The government required travel documents of such Passenger appear not to be in order according to UA's reasonable belief; or
   2. Such Passenger’s embarkation from, transit through, or entry into any country from, through, or to which such Passenger desires transportation would be unlawful or denied for any reason.
8. Safety – Whenever refusal or removal of a Passenger may be necessary for the safety of such Passenger or other Passengers or members of the crew including, but not limited to:
   1. Passengers whose conduct is disorderly, offensive, abusive, or violent;
   2. Passengers who fail to comply with or interfere with the duties of the members of the flight crew, federal regulations, or security directives;
   3. Passengers who assault any employee of UA, including the gate agents and flight crew, or any UA Passenger;
   4. Passengers who, through and as a result of their conduct, cause a disturbance such that the captain or member of the cockpit crew must leave the cockpit in order to attend to the disturbance;
   5. Passengers who are barefoot or not properly clothed;
   6. Passengers who appear to be intoxicated or under the influence of drugs to a degree that the Passenger may endanger the Passenger or another Passenger or members of the crew (other than a qualified individual whose appearance or involuntary behavior may make them appear to be intoxicated or under the influence of drugs);
   7. Passengers wearing or possessing on or about their person concealed or unconcealed deadly or dangerous weapons; provided, however, that UA will carry law enforcement personnel who meet the qualifications and conditions established in 49 C.F.R. §1544.219;
   8. Passengers who are unwilling or unable to follow UA’s policy on smoking or use of other smokeless materials;
   9. Unless they comply with Rule 6 I), Passengers who are unable to sit in a single seat with the seat belt properly secured, and/or are unable to put the seat’s armrests down when seated and remain seated with the armrest down for the entirety of the flight, and/or passengers who significantly encroach upon the adjoining passenger’s seat;
   10. Passengers who are manacled or in the custody of law enforcement personnel;
   11. Passengers who have resisted or may reasonably be believed to be capable of resisting custodial supervision;
   12. Pregnant Passengers in their ninth month, unless such Passenger provides a doctor’s certificate dated no more than 72 hours prior to departure stating that the doctor has examined and found the Passenger to be physically fit for air travel to and from the destination requested on the date of the flight, and that the estimated date of delivery is after the date of the last flight;
   13. Passengers who are incapable of completing a flight safely, without requiring extraordinary medical assistance during the flight, as well as Passengers who appear to have symptoms of or have a communicable disease or condition that could pose a direct threat to the health or safety of others on the flight, or who refuse a screening for such disease or condition. (NOTE: UA requires a medical certificate for Passengers who wish to travel under such circumstances. Visit UA’s website, united.com, for more information regarding UA’s requirements for medical certificates);
   14. Passengers who fail to travel with the required safety assistant(s), advance notice and/or other safety requirements pursuant to Rules 14 and 15;
   15. Passengers who do not qualify as acceptable Non-Ambulatory Passengers (see Rule 14);
   16. Passengers who have or cause a malodorous condition (other than individuals qualifying as disabled);
   17. Passengers whose physical or mental condition is such that, in United’s sole opinion, they are rendered or likely to be rendered incapable of comprehending or complying with safety instructions without the assistance of an escort. The escort must accompany the escorted passenger at all times; and
   18. Unaccompanied passengers who are both blind and deaf, unless such passenger is able to communicate with representatives of UA by either physical, mechanical, electronic, or other means. Such passenger must inform UA of the method of communication to be used; and
   19. Passengers who are unwilling to follow UA’s policy that prohibits voice calls after the aircraft doors have closed, while taxiing in preparation for takeoff, or while airborne.
   
   
9. Any Passenger who, by reason of engaging in the above activities in this Rule 21, causes UA any loss, damage or expense of any kind, consents and acknowledges that he or she shall reimburse UA for any such loss, damage or expense. UA has the right to refuse transport, on a permanent basis, to any passenger who, by reason of engaging in the above activities in this Rule 21, causes UA any loss, damage or expense of any kind, or who has been disorderly, offensive, abusive, or violent. In addition, the activities enumerated in H) 1) through 8) shall constitute a material breach of contract, for which UA shall be excused from performing its obligations under this contract.
10. UA is not liable for its refusal to transport any passenger or for its removal of any passenger in accordance with this Rule. A Passenger who is removed or refused transportation in accordance with this Rule may be eligible for a refund upon request. See Rule 27 A). As an express precondition to issuance of any refund, UA shall not be responsible for damages of any kind whatsoever. The passenger’s sole and exclusive remedy shall be Rule 27 A).

Exactly ZERO (0) of these conditions applied to Dao and his wife.



Any days or travel that were ruined --- and there certainly were ruins ---- were solely and completely the fault of United Airlines, who perpetrated the entire incident. Again --- who says so? Again--- United Airlines.

Yep, shouldn't have happened, but once they come for you, suck it up, act like an adult, get off the plane, allow others to make their destinations ON TIME. Then, start the wheels of justice by calling lawyers, United officials, etc.
Save the juvenile hissy fits for juveniles.

Juvenile hissy fit huh? Oh right, you mean like the way he swept the aisle with his back while being dragged after the goons had knocked him out and popped a couple of teeth. And the way he viciously attacked that arm rest just because he was thrown against it ---- that kind of hissyfit. Huh.

Diga me this about "hissyfits", if you please-----

--- how come you corporapologists can only argue from emotion?

I'm talking about his refusal to leave.
Act like an adult, tell the security you are angry you are being forced off, but in the end realize you are not the center of the universe. His refusal created such a scene that it escalated to a physical situation.
Grow up, make the best of it, contemplate retribution later, and allow the rest of the passengers get to their destinations.
The man is obviously a liberal, and true to form liberals are narcicistic pricks.

 

[Pogo]

Obviously she didn't "give up her seat". That's not how bumping works. Again for you 'special' kids --- if an airline is going to bump you they have to do it BEFORE they board you. Meaning, at the gate, outside the aircraft. Once they have boarded and seated you they have entered the part of the contract where they have to transport you, unless some extreme circumstances present.

None of that happened here. Dao paid for his seat, was legitimately boarded and occupied his seat. The airline's got no ground to stand on changing its mind after it's already boarded him.

Understand?

Yes Pugo, I know how it works (insert rolling eyes here).
I've never supported United in this story. They fucked up, I get it. They should have offered much more, and had they done so they would not only have had all the volunteers they needed, but they wouldn't be in this huge mess.
What I've been saying is even when you have boarded and taken your seat, once you've been selected to be removed and security and or police arrive, act like an adult and make the best of a lousy situation.
Instead, this man held on for dear life like a three year old, and not only ruined his day and made himself late, he also ruined it for everyone else aboard and made them late as well.

And what I've been saying is YOU'RE WRONG. The airline has no basis to remove already-boarded passengers for its own convenience, period.

Who says so? United Airlines says so. Their own Contract of Carriage says so.

The complete UA Contract of Carriage Rule 21:

Rule 21 Refusal of Transport
UA shall have the right to refuse to transport or shall have the right to remove from the aircraft at any point, any Passenger for the following reasons:

1. Breach of Contract of Carriage – Failure by Passenger to comply with the Rules of the Contract of Carriage.
2. Government Request, Regulations or Security Directives – Whenever such action is necessary to comply with any government regulation, Customs and Border Protection, government or airport security directive of any sort, or any governmental request for emergency transportation in connection with the national defense.
3. Force Majeure and Other Unforeseeable Conditions – Whenever such action is necessary or advisable by reason of weather or other conditions beyond UA’s control including, but not limited to, acts of God, force majeure, strikes, civil commotions, embargoes, wars, hostilities, terrorist activities, or disturbances, whether actual, threatened, or reported.
4. Search of Passenger or Property – Whenever a Passenger refuses to submit to electronic surveillance or to permit search of his/her person or property.
5. Proof of Identity – Whenever a Passenger refuses on request to produce identification satisfactory to UA or who presents a Ticket to board and whose identification does not match the name on the Ticket. UA shall have the right, but shall not be obligated, to require identification of persons purchasing tickets and/or presenting a ticket(s) for the purpose of boarding the aircraft.
6. Failure to Pay – Whenever a Passenger has not paid the appropriate fare for a Ticket, Baggage, or applicable service charges for services required for travel, has not paid an outstanding debt or Court judgment, or has not produced satisfactory proof to UA that the Passenger is an authorized non-revenue Passenger or has engaged in a prohibited practice as specified in Rule 6.
7. Across International Boundaries – Whenever a Passenger is traveling across any international boundary if:
   1. The government required travel documents of such Passenger appear not to be in order according to UA's reasonable belief; or
   2. Such Passenger’s embarkation from, transit through, or entry into any country from, through, or to which such Passenger desires transportation would be unlawful or denied for any reason.
8. Safety – Whenever refusal or removal of a Passenger may be necessary for the safety of such Passenger or other Passengers or members of the crew including, but not limited to:
   1. Passengers whose conduct is disorderly, offensive, abusive, or violent;
   2. Passengers who fail to comply with or interfere with the duties of the members of the flight crew, federal regulations, or security directives;
   3. Passengers who assault any employee of UA, including the gate agents and flight crew, or any UA Passenger;
   4. Passengers who, through and as a result of their conduct, cause a disturbance such that the captain or member of the cockpit crew must leave the cockpit in order to attend to the disturbance;
   5. Passengers who are barefoot or not properly clothed;
   6. Passengers who appear to be intoxicated or under the influence of drugs to a degree that the Passenger may endanger the Passenger or another Passenger or members of the crew (other than a qualified individual whose appearance or involuntary behavior may make them appear to be intoxicated or under the influence of drugs);
   7. Passengers wearing or possessing on or about their person concealed or unconcealed deadly or dangerous weapons; provided, however, that UA will carry law enforcement personnel who meet the qualifications and conditions established in 49 C.F.R. §1544.219;
   8. Passengers who are unwilling or unable to follow UA’s policy on smoking or use of other smokeless materials;
   9. Unless they comply with Rule 6 I), Passengers who are unable to sit in a single seat with the seat belt properly secured, and/or are unable to put the seat’s armrests down when seated and remain seated with the armrest down for the entirety of the flight, and/or passengers who significantly encroach upon the adjoining passenger’s seat;
   10. Passengers who are manacled or in the custody of law enforcement personnel;
   11. Passengers who have resisted or may reasonably be believed to be capable of resisting custodial supervision;
   12. Pregnant Passengers in their ninth month, unless such Passenger provides a doctor’s certificate dated no more than 72 hours prior to departure stating that the doctor has examined and found the Passenger to be physically fit for air travel to and from the destination requested on the date of the flight, and that the estimated date of delivery is after the date of the last flight;
   13. Passengers who are incapable of completing a flight safely, without requiring extraordinary medical assistance during the flight, as well as Passengers who appear to have symptoms of or have a communicable disease or condition that could pose a direct threat to the health or safety of others on the flight, or who refuse a screening for such disease or condition. (NOTE: UA requires a medical certificate for Passengers who wish to travel under such circumstances. Visit UA’s website, united.com, for more information regarding UA’s requirements for medical certificates);
   14. Passengers who fail to travel with the required safety assistant(s), advance notice and/or other safety requirements pursuant to Rules 14 and 15;
   15. Passengers who do not qualify as acceptable Non-Ambulatory Passengers (see Rule 14);
   16. Passengers who have or cause a malodorous condition (other than individuals qualifying as disabled);
   17. Passengers whose physical or mental condition is such that, in United’s sole opinion, they are rendered or likely to be rendered incapable of comprehending or complying with safety instructions without the assistance of an escort. The escort must accompany the escorted passenger at all times; and
   18. Unaccompanied passengers who are both blind and deaf, unless such passenger is able to communicate with representatives of UA by either physical, mechanical, electronic, or other means. Such passenger must inform UA of the method of communication to be used; and
   19. Passengers who are unwilling to follow UA’s policy that prohibits voice calls after the aircraft doors have closed, while taxiing in preparation for takeoff, or while airborne.
   
   
9. Any Passenger who, by reason of engaging in the above activities in this Rule 21, causes UA any loss, damage or expense of any kind, consents and acknowledges that he or she shall reimburse UA for any such loss, damage or expense. UA has the right to refuse transport, on a permanent basis, to any passenger who, by reason of engaging in the above activities in this Rule 21, causes UA any loss, damage or expense of any kind, or who has been disorderly, offensive, abusive, or violent. In addition, the activities enumerated in H) 1) through 8) shall constitute a material breach of contract, for which UA shall be excused from performing its obligations under this contract.
10. UA is not liable for its refusal to transport any passenger or for its removal of any passenger in accordance with this Rule. A Passenger who is removed or refused transportation in accordance with this Rule may be eligible for a refund upon request. See Rule 27 A). As an express precondition to issuance of any refund, UA shall not be responsible for damages of any kind whatsoever. The passenger’s sole and exclusive remedy shall be Rule 27 A).

Exactly ZERO (0) of these conditions applied to Dao and his wife.



Any days or travel that were ruined --- and there certainly were ruins ---- were solely and completely the fault of United Airlines, who perpetrated the entire incident. Again --- who says so? Again--- United Airlines.

Yep, shouldn't have happened, but once they come for you, suck it up, act like an adult, get off the plane, allow others to make their destinations ON TIME. Then, start the wheels of justice by calling lawyers, United officials, etc.
Save the juvenile hissy fits for juveniles.

Juvenile hissy fit huh? Oh right, you mean like the way he swept the aisle with his back while being dragged after the goons had knocked him out and popped a couple of teeth. And the way he viciously attacked that arm rest just because he was thrown against it ---- that kind of hissyfit. Huh.

Diga me this about "hissyfits", if you please-----

--- how come you corporapologists can only argue from emotion?

I'm talking about his refusal to leave.

I'm hip. That's what I'm talking about too. And the question stands --- how come y'all corporapologists can only argue from emotion? You know, shit like "juvenile hissyfit" and "center of the universe" and "grow up" and "narcissistic pricks". Why is it you have no argument from any rational basis?

Really? You want to admit the airline fucked up and then start whining that a paying customer resisted instead of going "lie back and think of England"? REALLY?

Doesn't work that way I'm afraid. You already admitted United fucked up. Well-- BINGO, that's the answer. It's no more complex than that. Your petulant stomping around hurling ad homs because you can't find a way to fluff the corporate cock means absolutely nothing. Nothing except that you have no argument.

Pathetic.

 

[Picaro]

It's always instructive when some jackboot authoritarian citizen-abuse event happens ---- who comes out on which side.

Always instructive, rarely surprising.

Moron......did they ask the man to leave the seat? Yes. Did he refuse that lawful request? Yes. Did they ask him again to leave his seat? Yes. Did they give him a lawful order to leave the seat according to the law? Yes. Did he again refuse to now follow a lawful order from a law enforcement officer, enforcing the law? Yes.

You guys are morons....he knew exactly what he was doing....he is a criminal who knew he had a golden opportunity ...

Don't worry syco --- I had you in mind when I wrote that as well, not just the OP. Your voice in applauding authoritarian overreach with yelps of "yes Master may I have another" is well known around here. Any time the powerful start punching the commoner, you start drooling. We all know that.

As I said -- always instructive, rarely surprising.

To your "content" here swooning over the jackboots --- did they assault a passenger who was in the seat he paid for? Did they bloody his nose and drag him out? These are the questions you won't touch, since they stand in the way of the Rambo bedroom poster you jerk off to.

It was definitely a felony assault, no question about that. And it was over a civil matter to boot.

If true, then the officer in question will be convicted of a crime....unless Rahm's Chicago is as corrupt as many thing, then maybe not, eh?

The airline is an accomplice to the crime; like I said he wasn't committing a crime to begin with, so they had no cause to call the cops in the first place, nor have him dragged off.Federal regulations require airlines to pay 4 times the cost of the fare, or up to $1,350 as compensation; they didn't offer that, so everything is on them as well as the cops.

 

[Divine Wind]

Obviously she didn't "give up her seat". That's not how bumping works. Again for you 'special' kids --- if an airline is going to bump you they have to do it BEFORE they board you. Meaning, at the gate, outside the aircraft. Once they have boarded and seated you they have entered the part of the contract where they have to transport you, unless some extreme circumstances present.

None of that happened here. Dao paid for his seat, was legitimately boarded and occupied his seat. The airline's got no ground to stand on changing its mind after it's already boarded him.

Understand?

Yes Pugo, I know how it works (insert rolling eyes here).
I've never supported United in this story. They fucked up, I get it. They should have offered much more, and had they done so they would not only have had all the volunteers they needed, but they wouldn't be in this huge mess.
What I've been saying is even when you have boarded and taken your seat, once you've been selected to be removed and security and or police arrive, act like an adult and make the best of a lousy situation.
Instead, this man held on for dear life like a three year old, and not only ruined his day and made himself late, he also ruined it for everyone else aboard and made them late as well.

And what I've been saying is YOU'RE WRONG. The airline has no basis to remove already-boarded passengers for its own convenience, period.

Who says so? United Airlines says so. Their own Contract of Carriage says so.

The complete UA Contract of Carriage Rule 21:

Rule 21 Refusal of Transport
UA shall have the right to refuse to transport or shall have the right to remove from the aircraft at any point, any Passenger for the following reasons:

1. Breach of Contract of Carriage – Failure by Passenger to comply with the Rules of the Contract of Carriage.
2. Government Request, Regulations or Security Directives – Whenever such action is necessary to comply with any government regulation, Customs and Border Protection, government or airport security directive of any sort, or any governmental request for emergency transportation in connection with the national defense.
3. Force Majeure and Other Unforeseeable Conditions – Whenever such action is necessary or advisable by reason of weather or other conditions beyond UA’s control including, but not limited to, acts of God, force majeure, strikes, civil commotions, embargoes, wars, hostilities, terrorist activities, or disturbances, whether actual, threatened, or reported.
4. Search of Passenger or Property – Whenever a Passenger refuses to submit to electronic surveillance or to permit search of his/her person or property.
5. Proof of Identity – Whenever a Passenger refuses on request to produce identification satisfactory to UA or who presents a Ticket to board and whose identification does not match the name on the Ticket. UA shall have the right, but shall not be obligated, to require identification of persons purchasing tickets and/or presenting a ticket(s) for the purpose of boarding the aircraft.
6. Failure to Pay – Whenever a Passenger has not paid the appropriate fare for a Ticket, Baggage, or applicable service charges for services required for travel, has not paid an outstanding debt or Court judgment, or has not produced satisfactory proof to UA that the Passenger is an authorized non-revenue Passenger or has engaged in a prohibited practice as specified in Rule 6.
7. Across International Boundaries – Whenever a Passenger is traveling across any international boundary if:
   1. The government required travel documents of such Passenger appear not to be in order according to UA's reasonable belief; or
   2. Such Passenger’s embarkation from, transit through, or entry into any country from, through, or to which such Passenger desires transportation would be unlawful or denied for any reason.
8. Safety – Whenever refusal or removal of a Passenger may be necessary for the safety of such Passenger or other Passengers or members of the crew including, but not limited to:
   1. Passengers whose conduct is disorderly, offensive, abusive, or violent;
   2. Passengers who fail to comply with or interfere with the duties of the members of the flight crew, federal regulations, or security directives;
   3. Passengers who assault any employee of UA, including the gate agents and flight crew, or any UA Passenger;
   4. Passengers who, through and as a result of their conduct, cause a disturbance such that the captain or member of the cockpit crew must leave the cockpit in order to attend to the disturbance;
   5. Passengers who are barefoot or not properly clothed;
   6. Passengers who appear to be intoxicated or under the influence of drugs to a degree that the Passenger may endanger the Passenger or another Passenger or members of the crew (other than a qualified individual whose appearance or involuntary behavior may make them appear to be intoxicated or under the influence of drugs);
   7. Passengers wearing or possessing on or about their person concealed or unconcealed deadly or dangerous weapons; provided, however, that UA will carry law enforcement personnel who meet the qualifications and conditions established in 49 C.F.R. §1544.219;
   8. Passengers who are unwilling or unable to follow UA’s policy on smoking or use of other smokeless materials;
   9. Unless they comply with Rule 6 I), Passengers who are unable to sit in a single seat with the seat belt properly secured, and/or are unable to put the seat’s armrests down when seated and remain seated with the armrest down for the entirety of the flight, and/or passengers who significantly encroach upon the adjoining passenger’s seat;
   10. Passengers who are manacled or in the custody of law enforcement personnel;
   11. Passengers who have resisted or may reasonably be believed to be capable of resisting custodial supervision;
   12. Pregnant Passengers in their ninth month, unless such Passenger provides a doctor’s certificate dated no more than 72 hours prior to departure stating that the doctor has examined and found the Passenger to be physically fit for air travel to and from the destination requested on the date of the flight, and that the estimated date of delivery is after the date of the last flight;
   13. Passengers who are incapable of completing a flight safely, without requiring extraordinary medical assistance during the flight, as well as Passengers who appear to have symptoms of or have a communicable disease or condition that could pose a direct threat to the health or safety of others on the flight, or who refuse a screening for such disease or condition. (NOTE: UA requires a medical certificate for Passengers who wish to travel under such circumstances. Visit UA’s website, united.com, for more information regarding UA’s requirements for medical certificates);
   14. Passengers who fail to travel with the required safety assistant(s), advance notice and/or other safety requirements pursuant to Rules 14 and 15;
   15. Passengers who do not qualify as acceptable Non-Ambulatory Passengers (see Rule 14);
   16. Passengers who have or cause a malodorous condition (other than individuals qualifying as disabled);
   17. Passengers whose physical or mental condition is such that, in United’s sole opinion, they are rendered or likely to be rendered incapable of comprehending or complying with safety instructions without the assistance of an escort. The escort must accompany the escorted passenger at all times; and
   18. Unaccompanied passengers who are both blind and deaf, unless such passenger is able to communicate with representatives of UA by either physical, mechanical, electronic, or other means. Such passenger must inform UA of the method of communication to be used; and
   19. Passengers who are unwilling to follow UA’s policy that prohibits voice calls after the aircraft doors have closed, while taxiing in preparation for takeoff, or while airborne.
   
   
9. Any Passenger who, by reason of engaging in the above activities in this Rule 21, causes UA any loss, damage or expense of any kind, consents and acknowledges that he or she shall reimburse UA for any such loss, damage or expense. UA has the right to refuse transport, on a permanent basis, to any passenger who, by reason of engaging in the above activities in this Rule 21, causes UA any loss, damage or expense of any kind, or who has been disorderly, offensive, abusive, or violent. In addition, the activities enumerated in H) 1) through 8) shall constitute a material breach of contract, for which UA shall be excused from performing its obligations under this contract.
10. UA is not liable for its refusal to transport any passenger or for its removal of any passenger in accordance with this Rule. A Passenger who is removed or refused transportation in accordance with this Rule may be eligible for a refund upon request. See Rule 27 A). As an express precondition to issuance of any refund, UA shall not be responsible for damages of any kind whatsoever. The passenger’s sole and exclusive remedy shall be Rule 27 A).

Exactly ZERO (0) of these conditions applied to Dao and his wife.



Any days or travel that were ruined --- and there certainly were ruins ---- were solely and completely the fault of United Airlines, who perpetrated the entire incident. Again --- who says so? Again--- United Airlines.

Yep, shouldn't have happened, but once they come for you, suck it up, act like an adult, get off the plane, allow others to make their destinations ON TIME. Then, start the wheels of justice by calling lawyers, United officials, etc.
Save the juvenile hissy fits for juveniles.

Juvenile hissy fit huh? Oh right, you mean like the way he swept the aisle with his back while being dragged after the goons had knocked him out and popped a couple of teeth. And the way he viciously attacked that arm rest just because he was thrown against it ---- that kind of hissyfit. Huh.

Diga me this about "hissyfits", if you please-----

--- how come you corporapologists can only argue from emotion?

I'm talking about his refusal to leave.
Act like an adult, tell the security you are angry you are being forced off, but in the end realize you are not the center of the universe. His refusal created such a scene that it escalated to a physical situation.
Grow up, make the best of it, contemplate retribution later, and allow the rest of the passengers get to their destinations.
The man is obviously a liberal, and true to form liberals are narcicistic pricks.

The City of Chicago's aviation officer was the one who escalated it to violence. The aircraft should have been deplaned along with the cockpit crew. If Dao still refused to leave, then the aviation officers would wait him out as they explained how, when he's hungry enough or has to pee, he'll be arrested.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Broken nose, two teeth knocked out, concussion, needs reconstructive surgery ...

You would scream too.

He deserves jail time.

 

[Divine Wind]

It's always instructive when some jackboot authoritarian citizen-abuse event happens ---- who comes out on which side.

Always instructive, rarely surprising.

Moron......did they ask the man to leave the seat? Yes. Did he refuse that lawful request? Yes. Did they ask him again to leave his seat? Yes. Did they give him a lawful order to leave the seat according to the law? Yes. Did he again refuse to now follow a lawful order from a law enforcement officer, enforcing the law? Yes.

You guys are morons....he knew exactly what he was doing....he is a criminal who knew he had a golden opportunity ...

Don't worry syco --- I had you in mind when I wrote that as well, not just the OP. Your voice in applauding authoritarian overreach with yelps of "yes Master may I have another" is well known around here. Any time the powerful start punching the commoner, you start drooling. We all know that.

As I said -- always instructive, rarely surprising.

To your "content" here swooning over the jackboots --- did they assault a passenger who was in the seat he paid for? Did they bloody his nose and drag him out? These are the questions you won't touch, since they stand in the way of the Rambo bedroom poster you jerk off to.

It was definitely a felony assault, no question about that. And it was over a civil matter to boot.

If true, then the officer in question will be convicted of a crime....unless Rahm's Chicago is as corrupt as many thing, then maybe not, eh?

The airline is an accomplice to the crime; like I said he wasn't committing a crime to begin with, so they had no cause to call the cops in the first place, nor have him dragged off.Federal regulations require airlines to pay 4 times the cost of the fare, or up to $1,350 as compensation; they didn't offer that, so everything is on them as well as the cops.

How was the airline an accomplice? Yes, Dao did commit a crime by interfering with both flight crew and airline operations. Part 121 airline operations are governed by strict rules. It's not Burger King and it's not Greyhound.

Since the fare was $220, 4X that amount is $880. My understanding is that's the amount offered. If not, then that's the amount Dao could have demanded in the terminal.

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

We are still talking about this one?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

We are still talking about this one?

Unfortunately, yes.

There are still some who think that this guy deserves some form of sympathy.

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

We are still talking about this one?

Unfortunately, yes.

There are still some who think that this guy deserves some form of sympathy.

I sure as hell don't.