Incompetent United Air Lines Physically Drags Passenger Off Plane For Their (Airline) Mistake

[MikeK]

There should be no limits on compensation. They overbook for the bottom line.

The flight wasn't overbooked. The four passengers needed to be deplaned when, apparently, a flight crew needed to be moved to SDF. It's simple math: Better to inconvenience 4 passengers rather than inconveniencing up to 75 passengers the next morning.

A Cessna couldn't have done the job? Paying customers are, always right.

United's original response was...We followed the rules and the guy did not accept our request...even though we asked real nice

As of yesterday, their CEO is groveling, throwing money around and claiming the customer is always right

Which means exactly nothing when it comes to Federal and State laws.

 

[OnePercenter]

On the contrary, sir, you are the one playing semantics. The plane was booked even. People were loaded up and ready to go but then a situation arose where the airline had to choose between cancelling an entire flight in the morning at SDF or inconveniencing 4 passengers in ORD.

Which would you have done given those choices?

Why couldn't they have made other arrangements. Why is this the passengers' problem?

Force Majeure.

What other arrangements? It was an E170 with 71 passengers paying about $220 for their ORD-SDF ticket. Total gross revenue ~$15,620. Losing the morning flight would have cost them about the same plus misconnections.

If it was my call, I'd have depland everyone first, then reboarded minus 4 passengers. If that didn't work, then cancel the flight, refund the $15K+ and ferry the aircraft to SDF with the second crew onboard.

Force majeure belongs to Government, not the private sector. Capital is what the private sector should always be about; especially in public accommodations.

Awesome that you actually believe this. Fine, let's see how it plays out between the lawyers.

Contract of Carriage Document | United Airlines
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.

--------------------
RULE 24 FLIGHT DELAYS/CANCELLATIONS/AIRCRAFT CHANGES

1. 
   
   
   • General
     1. S.A. Origin Flights - Where the UA flights originate in the U.S.A., the provisions of this Rule apply to a Passenger who has a Ticket and a confirmed reservation on a flight that incurs a Schedule Change, Force Majeure Event or Irregular Operations.
     2. Non-U.S.A. Origin Flights - Where the UA flight originates outside the U.S.A., the following provisions apply to a Passenger who has a Ticket and a confirmed reservation on a flight:
        1. If local or international laws regulate a Schedule Change, Force Majeure or Irregular Operations, then the procedures in Rule 24 will not be applied.
        2. If no local law otherwise regulates a Schedule Change, Force Majeure or Irregular Operations, then the procedures in Rule 24 will be applied.

-----------------------
Definitions - For the purpose of this Rule, the following terms have the meanings below:

1. 
   
   
   • Schedule Change – an advance change in UA’s schedule (including a change in operating carrier or itinerary) that is not a unique event such as Irregular Operations or Force Majeure Event as defined below.
   • Connecting Point – a point to which a Passenger holds or held confirmed space on a flight of one carrier and out of which the Passenger holds or held confirmed space on a flight of the same or another carrier. All airports through which a city is served by any carrier will be deemed to be a single Connecting Point when the receiving carrier has confirmed reservations to the Delivering Carrier.
   • Delivering Carrier – a carrier on whose flight a Passenger holds or held confirmed space to a Connecting Point.
   • Force Majeure Event – any of the following situations:
     1. Any condition beyond UA’s control including, but not limited to, meteorological or geological conditions, acts of God, riots, terrorist activities, civil commotions, embargoes, wars, hostilities, disturbances, or unsettled international conditions, either actual, anticipated, threatened or reported, or any delay, demand, circumstances, or requirement due directly or indirectly to such condition;
     2. Any strike, work stoppage, slowdown, lockout, or any other labor-related dispute involving or affecting UA’s services;
     3. Any governmental regulation, demand or requirement;
     4. Any shortage of labor, fuel, or facilities of UA or others;
     5. Damage to UA’s Aircraft or equipment caused by another party;
     6. Any emergency situation requiring immediate care or protection for a person or property; or
     7. Any event not reasonably foreseen, anticipated or predicted by UA.

Great, none of those apply to Dao. Thanks for playing.

Any event not reasonably foreseen, anticipated or predicted by UA.

 

[Divine Wind]

******* Liberals always hate the police.

And you just love cops, don't you?

I know the LWLs hate them. As stated before, I think the plainclothes cop mishandled the situation, but Dao was still in the wrong.

Your hero, Nader, wrote a solution. Let's see Congress jump on this and change the law like they did with "excessive ramp waiting times". The Law of Unintended Consequences will be fun to watch:
Ralph Nader: Use United's bloody O'Hare debacle to demand change

 

[OnePercenter]

There should be no recourse, to Force Majeure for the private sector, but for actual emergencies.

Capital should work fine in the private sector in public accommodation.

There should be no limits on compensation due to airlines routinely overbooking, simply for the bottom line.

So if you're flying to Miami and there's a hurricane there, you expect the airline to continue to fly as scheduled or pay 1000% compensation? Interesting.

The next time you fly, pay the extra $15 or so for an exit row seat for the extra legroom. When the flight attendant briefs you and asks if you are willing to operate the exit in an emergency and assist others, say "No, I won't". When you asks you to move say "No, I won't. I paid for this seat and the customer is always right". Let me know how that works out for you.

Agreed. No overbooking ever. I'm good with that. That's not the problem on this flight, but I'm still good with it.

Agreed. No overbooking ever. I'm good with that. That's not the problem on this flight, but I'm still good with it.

Overbooking equates to tens of millions for the airlines. It's NOT going away.

UAL had more bodies than seats, so the plane was overbooked.

 

[Divine Wind]

Why couldn't they have made other arrangements. Why is this the passengers' problem?

Force Majeure.

What other arrangements? It was an E170 with 71 passengers paying about $220 for their ORD-SDF ticket. Total gross revenue ~$15,620. Losing the morning flight would have cost them about the same plus misconnections.

If it was my call, I'd have depland everyone first, then reboarded minus 4 passengers. If that didn't work, then cancel the flight, refund the $15K+ and ferry the aircraft to SDF with the second crew onboard.

Force majeure belongs to Government, not the private sector. Capital is what the private sector should always be about; especially in public accommodations.

Awesome that you actually believe this. Fine, let's see how it plays out between the lawyers.

Contract of Carriage Document | United Airlines
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.

--------------------
RULE 24 FLIGHT DELAYS/CANCELLATIONS/AIRCRAFT CHANGES

1. 
   
   
   • General
     1. S.A. Origin Flights - Where the UA flights originate in the U.S.A., the provisions of this Rule apply to a Passenger who has a Ticket and a confirmed reservation on a flight that incurs a Schedule Change, Force Majeure Event or Irregular Operations.
     2. Non-U.S.A. Origin Flights - Where the UA flight originates outside the U.S.A., the following provisions apply to a Passenger who has a Ticket and a confirmed reservation on a flight:
        1. If local or international laws regulate a Schedule Change, Force Majeure or Irregular Operations, then the procedures in Rule 24 will not be applied.
        2. If no local law otherwise regulates a Schedule Change, Force Majeure or Irregular Operations, then the procedures in Rule 24 will be applied.

-----------------------
Definitions - For the purpose of this Rule, the following terms have the meanings below:

1. 
   
   
   • Schedule Change – an advance change in UA’s schedule (including a change in operating carrier or itinerary) that is not a unique event such as Irregular Operations or Force Majeure Event as defined below.
   • Connecting Point – a point to which a Passenger holds or held confirmed space on a flight of one carrier and out of which the Passenger holds or held confirmed space on a flight of the same or another carrier. All airports through which a city is served by any carrier will be deemed to be a single Connecting Point when the receiving carrier has confirmed reservations to the Delivering Carrier.
   • Delivering Carrier – a carrier on whose flight a Passenger holds or held confirmed space to a Connecting Point.
   • Force Majeure Event – any of the following situations:
     1. Any condition beyond UA’s control including, but not limited to, meteorological or geological conditions, acts of God, riots, terrorist activities, civil commotions, embargoes, wars, hostilities, disturbances, or unsettled international conditions, either actual, anticipated, threatened or reported, or any delay, demand, circumstances, or requirement due directly or indirectly to such condition;
     2. Any strike, work stoppage, slowdown, lockout, or any other labor-related dispute involving or affecting UA’s services;
     3. Any governmental regulation, demand or requirement;
     4. Any shortage of labor, fuel, or facilities of UA or others;
     5. Damage to UA’s Aircraft or equipment caused by another party;
     6. Any emergency situation requiring immediate care or protection for a person or property; or
     7. Any event not reasonably foreseen, anticipated or predicted by UA.

Great, none of those apply to Dao. Thanks for playing.

Any event not reasonably foreseen, anticipated or predicted by UA.

Exactly correct. The crew addition was last minute, not regularly scheduled. Obviously they were trying to fix a problem. The lawsuit will reveal the facts. In the meantime, that doesn't absolve Dao from breaking multiple Federal and State laws.

 

[Divine Wind]

There should be no recourse, to Force Majeure for the private sector, but for actual emergencies.

Capital should work fine in the private sector in public accommodation.

There should be no limits on compensation due to airlines routinely overbooking, simply for the bottom line.

So if you're flying to Miami and there's a hurricane there, you expect the airline to continue to fly as scheduled or pay 1000% compensation? Interesting.

The next time you fly, pay the extra $15 or so for an exit row seat for the extra legroom. When the flight attendant briefs you and asks if you are willing to operate the exit in an emergency and assist others, say "No, I won't". When you asks you to move say "No, I won't. I paid for this seat and the customer is always right". Let me know how that works out for you.

Agreed. No overbooking ever. I'm good with that. That's not the problem on this flight, but I'm still good with it.

Agreed. No overbooking ever. I'm good with that. That's not the problem on this flight, but I'm still good with it.

Overbooking equates to tens of millions for the airlines. It's NOT going away.

UAL had more bodies than seats, so the plane was overbooked.

If Congress passes a law, the airlines will have to stop overbooking. OTOH, what they'll all end up doing is making passengers pay "no show" fees and other penalties. They kind of do that now with "low cost but non-refundable tickets".

 

[OnePercenter]

Dao will have the sympathy of any court because he was in the right...

Disagreed, but time will tell. In the end, I suspect United will throw some money at him to shut him up and put this behind them and Dao will take plea deals from both the Feds and the State to avoid jail time.

In Basketball, It's Called "Flopping"

If United pays off this nasty pervert, others will try the same scam.

Agreed. United wants to avoid a PR nightmare for something they didn't do, but if they pay off Dao, thousands of passengers will start "flopping" every time they are asked to move or deplane. Thousands more will be inconvenienced when flights are cancelled rather than airlines risk a similar PR nightmare.

Again, the solution here should have been deplaning the entire flight once a belligerent and non-compliant passenger was identified.

What if people don't want to deplane?

 

[OnePercenter]

There should be no recourse, to Force Majeure for the private sector, but for actual emergencies.

Capital should work fine in the private sector in public accommodation.

There should be no limits on compensation due to airlines routinely overbooking, simply for the bottom line.

So if you're flying to Miami and there's a hurricane there, you expect the airline to continue to fly as scheduled or pay 1000% compensation? Interesting.

The next time you fly, pay the extra $15 or so for an exit row seat for the extra legroom. When the flight attendant briefs you and asks if you are willing to operate the exit in an emergency and assist others, say "No, I won't". When you asks you to move say "No, I won't. I paid for this seat and the customer is always right". Let me know how that works out for you.

Agreed. No overbooking ever. I'm good with that. That's not the problem on this flight, but I'm still good with it.

Agreed. No overbooking ever. I'm good with that. That's not the problem on this flight, but I'm still good with it.

Overbooking equates to tens of millions for the airlines. It's NOT going away.

UAL had more bodies than seats, so the plane was overbooked.

If Congress passes a law, the airlines will have to stop overbooking. OTOH, what they'll all end up doing is making passengers pay "no show" fees and other penalties. They kind of do that now with "low cost but non-refundable tickets".

A Republican Congress is going to pass a law reducing tens of millions in revenue from companies that support ($$$$) them?

 

[MikeK]

So if you're flying to Miami and there's a hurricane there, you expect the airline to continue to fly as scheduled or pay 1000% compensation?

[...]

You're introducing an entirely different situation.

There was absolutely nothing close to exigent, emergency, or dangerous circumstances involved in the selection of Dr. Dao to be forcibly removed from the airplane seat he'd paid for. And this will be the pivotal factor in civil litigation if this issue ends up in a jury trial -- which I hope it does.

But I believe United will offer Dao an enormous settlement rather than risk what could be a ruinous punitive award. United CEO's currently submissive position clearly reveals he's been advised by their team of corporate lawyers about what to expect -- but you know better. Don't you?

 

[OnePercenter]

So if you're flying to Miami and there's a hurricane there, you expect the airline to continue to fly as scheduled or pay 1000% compensation?

[...]

You're introducing an entirely different situation.

There was absolutely nothing close to exigent, emergency, or dangerous circumstances involved in the selection of Dr. Dao to be forcibly removed from the airplane seat he'd paid for. And this will be the pivotal factor in civil litigation if this issue ends up in a jury trial -- which I hope it does.

But I believe United will offer Dao an enormous settlement rather than risk what could be a ruinous punitive award. United CEO's currently submissive position clearly reveals he's been advised by their team of corporate lawyers about what to expect -- but you know better. Don't you?

You've quoted the wrong poster.

 

[MikeK]

So if you're flying to Miami and there's a hurricane there, you expect the airline to continue to fly as scheduled or pay 1000% compensation?

[...]

You're introducing an entirely different situation.

There was absolutely nothing close to exigent, emergency, or dangerous circumstances involved in the selection of Dr. Dao to be forcibly removed from the airplane seat he'd paid for. And this will be the pivotal factor in civil litigation if this issue ends up in a jury trial -- which I hope it does.

But I believe United will offer Dao an enormous settlement rather than risk what could be a ruinous punitive award. United CEO's currently submissive position clearly reveals he's been advised by their team of corporate lawyers about what to expect -- but you know better. Don't you?

You've quoted the wrong poster.

Sorry.

That response was intended for the Divine one. Please accept my apology.

 

[OnePercenter]

So if you're flying to Miami and there's a hurricane there, you expect the airline to continue to fly as scheduled or pay 1000% compensation?

[...]

You're introducing an entirely different situation.

There was absolutely nothing close to exigent, emergency, or dangerous circumstances involved in the selection of Dr. Dao to be forcibly removed from the airplane seat he'd paid for. And this will be the pivotal factor in civil litigation if this issue ends up in a jury trial -- which I hope it does.

But I believe United will offer Dao an enormous settlement rather than risk what could be a ruinous punitive award. United CEO's currently submissive position clearly reveals he's been advised by their team of corporate lawyers about what to expect -- but you know better. Don't you?

You've quoted the wrong poster.

Sorry.

That response was intended for the Divine one. Please accept my apology.

No problem.

 

[Faun]

Why couldn't they have made other arrangements. Why is this the passengers' problem?

Force Majeure.

What other arrangements? It was an E170 with 71 passengers paying about $220 for their ORD-SDF ticket. Total gross revenue ~$15,620. Losing the morning flight would have cost them about the same plus misconnections.

If it was my call, I'd have depland everyone first, then reboarded minus 4 passengers. If that didn't work, then cancel the flight, refund the $15K+ and ferry the aircraft to SDF with the second crew onboard.

Force majeure belongs to Government, not the private sector. Capital is what the private sector should always be about; especially in public accommodations.

Awesome that you actually believe this. Fine, let's see how it plays out between the lawyers.

Contract of Carriage Document | United Airlines
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.

--------------------
RULE 24 FLIGHT DELAYS/CANCELLATIONS/AIRCRAFT CHANGES

1. 
   
   
   • General
     1. S.A. Origin Flights - Where the UA flights originate in the U.S.A., the provisions of this Rule apply to a Passenger who has a Ticket and a confirmed reservation on a flight that incurs a Schedule Change, Force Majeure Event or Irregular Operations.
     2. Non-U.S.A. Origin Flights - Where the UA flight originates outside the U.S.A., the following provisions apply to a Passenger who has a Ticket and a confirmed reservation on a flight:
        1. If local or international laws regulate a Schedule Change, Force Majeure or Irregular Operations, then the procedures in Rule 24 will not be applied.
        2. If no local law otherwise regulates a Schedule Change, Force Majeure or Irregular Operations, then the procedures in Rule 24 will be applied.

-----------------------
Definitions - For the purpose of this Rule, the following terms have the meanings below:

1. 
   
   
   • Schedule Change – an advance change in UA’s schedule (including a change in operating carrier or itinerary) that is not a unique event such as Irregular Operations or Force Majeure Event as defined below.
   • Connecting Point – a point to which a Passenger holds or held confirmed space on a flight of one carrier and out of which the Passenger holds or held confirmed space on a flight of the same or another carrier. All airports through which a city is served by any carrier will be deemed to be a single Connecting Point when the receiving carrier has confirmed reservations to the Delivering Carrier.
   • Delivering Carrier – a carrier on whose flight a Passenger holds or held confirmed space to a Connecting Point.
   • Force Majeure Event – any of the following situations:
     1. Any condition beyond UA’s control including, but not limited to, meteorological or geological conditions, acts of God, riots, terrorist activities, civil commotions, embargoes, wars, hostilities, disturbances, or unsettled international conditions, either actual, anticipated, threatened or reported, or any delay, demand, circumstances, or requirement due directly or indirectly to such condition;
     2. Any strike, work stoppage, slowdown, lockout, or any other labor-related dispute involving or affecting UA’s services;
     3. Any governmental regulation, demand or requirement;
     4. Any shortage of labor, fuel, or facilities of UA or others;
     5. Damage to UA’s Aircraft or equipment caused by another party;
     6. Any emergency situation requiring immediate care or protection for a person or property; or
     7. Any event not reasonably foreseen, anticipated or predicted by UA.

Great, none of those apply to Dao. Thanks for playing.

Indirectly, they do. You said Force Majeure doesn't apply here. I just proved to you it does. When it did, the airline was right to deplane an appropriate number of passengers to fix the problem. Dao was one of them. Dao's problems came up when he thought he as sitting at Burger King instead of an airliner covered by multiple Federal and State laws.

You proved no such thing.

You posted a list of reasons where force majeure could potentially apply -- but none of them actually apply in Dao's case. Let's review them...

• Failure by Passenger to comply with the Rules of the Contract of Carriage.
  
  
  This would require Dao to have been in non-compliance leading up to the point he was asked to deplane. Up to that point, he was apparently in complete compliance. He apparently had a legally purchased ticket, was welcomed by the airline to board their plane, took a seat, and was not being belligerent, abusive, or threatening to any of the other passengers or crew.
  
  This reason does not apply to Dao
  ​
• 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.
  
  
  The decision to remove Dao from that flight was not based on any governmental request, regulation, or directive. It was made by the airline itself for convenience purposes. There was no emergency. There was no threat to national defense.
  
  This reason does not apply to Dao
  ​
• 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.
  
  
  Weather played no part in seeking to remove Dao from the flight. There was no strike, no civil commotion (as the reason for him to lose his seat), no embargo, war, hostility or terrorist activity.
  
  This reason does not apply to Dao​
  
  U.S.A. Origin Flights - Where the UA flights originate in the U.S.A., the provisions of this Rule apply to a Passenger who has a Ticket and a confirmed reservation on a flight that incurs a Schedule Change, Force Majeure Event or Irregular Operations.

• If local or international laws regulate a Schedule Change, Force Majeure or Irregular Operations, then the procedures in Rule 24 will not be applied.
  
  
  There was no schedule change due to international regulations.
  
  This reason does not apply to Dao
  ​
• If no local law otherwise regulates a Schedule Change, Force Majeure or Irregular Operations, then the procedures in Rule 24 will be applied.
  
  
  There was no schedule change for any other reasons.
  
  This reason does not apply to Dao​
  
  RULE 24 FLIGHT DELAYS/CANCELLATIONS/AIRCRAFT CHANGES

• Any condition beyond UA’s control including, but not limited to, meteorological or geological conditions, acts of God, riots, terrorist activities, civil commotions, embargoes, wars, hostilities, disturbances, or unsettled international conditions, either actual, anticipated, threatened or reported, or any delay, demand, circumstances, or requirement due directly or indirectly to such condition;
  
  
  There were no acts of G-d. There were no riots. There were no international conditions affecting that flight. UA simply wanted Dao's seat to transport someone else of their choosing.
  
  This reason does not apply to Dao
  ​
• Any strike, work stoppage, slowdown, lockout, or any other labor-related dispute involving or affecting UA’s services;
  
  
  There was no strike, work stoppage, lockout, or any other labor-related dispute.
  
  This reason does not apply to Dao
  ​
• Any governmental regulation, demand or requirement; any level of government.
  
  This reason does not apply to Dao[/indent]
  
  
  This was solely UA's decision and had nothing to do with any level of government.
  
  This reason does not apply to Dao
  ​
• Any shortage of labor, fuel, or facilities of UA or others;
  
  
  There was no shortage of labor affecting that flight. No issues of fuel or facilities affecting that flight.
  
  This reason does not apply to Dao
  ​
• Damage to UA’s Aircraft or equipment caused by another party;
  
  
  There was no reported damage to the plane.
  
  This reason does not apply to Dao
  ​
• Any emergency situation requiring immediate care or protection for a person or property; or
  
  There was no emergency situation requiring immediate care or protection. The reason cited by UA was simply to transfer several employees.
  
  
  This reason does not apply to Dao​

• Any event not reasonably foreseen, anticipated or predicted by UA.
  
  
  There were no events not reasonably foreseen requiring the delay, cancellation, or change of plane
  
  This reason does not apply to Dao​
  
  So no, force majeure, which by definition is an major enforceable event beyond the control of United Airlines; does not apply to Dao.
  
  UA was not only in control of that situation, it was their choice to give away Dao's seat, which he already occupied, to another person of their choice. You know, the polar opposite of force majeure.

 

[rightwinger]

There should be no recourse, to Force Majeure for the private sector, but for actual emergencies.

Capital should work fine in the private sector in public accommodation.

There should be no limits on compensation due to airlines routinely overbooking, simply for the bottom line.

So if you're flying to Miami and there's a hurricane there, you expect the airline to continue to fly as scheduled or pay 1000% compensation? Interesting.

The next time you fly, pay the extra $15 or so for an exit row seat for the extra legroom. When the flight attendant briefs you and asks if you are willing to operate the exit in an emergency and assist others, say "No, I won't". When you asks you to move say "No, I won't. I paid for this seat and the customer is always right". Let me know how that works out for you.

Agreed. No overbooking ever. I'm good with that. That's not the problem on this flight, but I'm still good with it.

There was no hurricane last Sunday

Only a United management screw up

 

[rightwinger]

Why couldn't they have made other arrangements. Why is this the passengers' problem?

Force Majeure.

What other arrangements? It was an E170 with 71 passengers paying about $220 for their ORD-SDF ticket. Total gross revenue ~$15,620. Losing the morning flight would have cost them about the same plus misconnections.

If it was my call, I'd have depland everyone first, then reboarded minus 4 passengers. If that didn't work, then cancel the flight, refund the $15K+ and ferry the aircraft to SDF with the second crew onboard.

Force majeure belongs to Government, not the private sector. Capital is what the private sector should always be about; especially in public accommodations.

Awesome that you actually believe this. Fine, let's see how it plays out between the lawyers.

Contract of Carriage Document | United Airlines
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.

--------------------
RULE 24 FLIGHT DELAYS/CANCELLATIONS/AIRCRAFT CHANGES

1. 
   
   
   • General
     1. S.A. Origin Flights - Where the UA flights originate in the U.S.A., the provisions of this Rule apply to a Passenger who has a Ticket and a confirmed reservation on a flight that incurs a Schedule Change, Force Majeure Event or Irregular Operations.
     2. Non-U.S.A. Origin Flights - Where the UA flight originates outside the U.S.A., the following provisions apply to a Passenger who has a Ticket and a confirmed reservation on a flight:
        1. If local or international laws regulate a Schedule Change, Force Majeure or Irregular Operations, then the procedures in Rule 24 will not be applied.
        2. If no local law otherwise regulates a Schedule Change, Force Majeure or Irregular Operations, then the procedures in Rule 24 will be applied.

-----------------------
Definitions - For the purpose of this Rule, the following terms have the meanings below:

1. 
   
   
   • Schedule Change – an advance change in UA’s schedule (including a change in operating carrier or itinerary) that is not a unique event such as Irregular Operations or Force Majeure Event as defined below.
   • Connecting Point – a point to which a Passenger holds or held confirmed space on a flight of one carrier and out of which the Passenger holds or held confirmed space on a flight of the same or another carrier. All airports through which a city is served by any carrier will be deemed to be a single Connecting Point when the receiving carrier has confirmed reservations to the Delivering Carrier.
   • Delivering Carrier – a carrier on whose flight a Passenger holds or held confirmed space to a Connecting Point.
   • Force Majeure Event – any of the following situations:
     1. Any condition beyond UA’s control including, but not limited to, meteorological or geological conditions, acts of God, riots, terrorist activities, civil commotions, embargoes, wars, hostilities, disturbances, or unsettled international conditions, either actual, anticipated, threatened or reported, or any delay, demand, circumstances, or requirement due directly or indirectly to such condition;
     2. Any strike, work stoppage, slowdown, lockout, or any other labor-related dispute involving or affecting UA’s services;
     3. Any governmental regulation, demand or requirement;
     4. Any shortage of labor, fuel, or facilities of UA or others;
     5. Damage to UA’s Aircraft or equipment caused by another party;
     6. Any emergency situation requiring immediate care or protection for a person or property; or
     7. Any event not reasonably foreseen, anticipated or predicted by UA.

Great, none of those apply to Dao. Thanks for playing.

Indirectly, they do. You said Force Majeure doesn't apply here. I just proved to you it does. When it did, the airline was right to deplane an appropriate number of passengers to fix the problem. Dao was one of them. Dao's problems came up when he thought he as sitting at Burger King instead of an airliner covered by multiple Federal and State laws.

United has to prove the situation was out of their control

It obviously wasn't

 

[rightwinger]

Force Majeure.

What other arrangements? It was an E170 with 71 passengers paying about $220 for their ORD-SDF ticket. Total gross revenue ~$15,620. Losing the morning flight would have cost them about the same plus misconnections.

If it was my call, I'd have depland everyone first, then reboarded minus 4 passengers. If that didn't work, then cancel the flight, refund the $15K+ and ferry the aircraft to SDF with the second crew onboard.

Force majeure belongs to Government, not the private sector. Capital is what the private sector should always be about; especially in public accommodations.

Awesome that you actually believe this. Fine, let's see how it plays out between the lawyers.

Contract of Carriage Document | United Airlines
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.

--------------------
RULE 24 FLIGHT DELAYS/CANCELLATIONS/AIRCRAFT CHANGES

1. 
   
   
   • General
     1. S.A. Origin Flights - Where the UA flights originate in the U.S.A., the provisions of this Rule apply to a Passenger who has a Ticket and a confirmed reservation on a flight that incurs a Schedule Change, Force Majeure Event or Irregular Operations.
     2. Non-U.S.A. Origin Flights - Where the UA flight originates outside the U.S.A., the following provisions apply to a Passenger who has a Ticket and a confirmed reservation on a flight:
        1. If local or international laws regulate a Schedule Change, Force Majeure or Irregular Operations, then the procedures in Rule 24 will not be applied.
        2. If no local law otherwise regulates a Schedule Change, Force Majeure or Irregular Operations, then the procedures in Rule 24 will be applied.

-----------------------
Definitions - For the purpose of this Rule, the following terms have the meanings below:

1. 
   
   
   • Schedule Change – an advance change in UA’s schedule (including a change in operating carrier or itinerary) that is not a unique event such as Irregular Operations or Force Majeure Event as defined below.
   • Connecting Point – a point to which a Passenger holds or held confirmed space on a flight of one carrier and out of which the Passenger holds or held confirmed space on a flight of the same or another carrier. All airports through which a city is served by any carrier will be deemed to be a single Connecting Point when the receiving carrier has confirmed reservations to the Delivering Carrier.
   • Delivering Carrier – a carrier on whose flight a Passenger holds or held confirmed space to a Connecting Point.
   • Force Majeure Event – any of the following situations:
     1. Any condition beyond UA’s control including, but not limited to, meteorological or geological conditions, acts of God, riots, terrorist activities, civil commotions, embargoes, wars, hostilities, disturbances, or unsettled international conditions, either actual, anticipated, threatened or reported, or any delay, demand, circumstances, or requirement due directly or indirectly to such condition;
     2. Any strike, work stoppage, slowdown, lockout, or any other labor-related dispute involving or affecting UA’s services;
     3. Any governmental regulation, demand or requirement;
     4. Any shortage of labor, fuel, or facilities of UA or others;
     5. Damage to UA’s Aircraft or equipment caused by another party;
     6. Any emergency situation requiring immediate care or protection for a person or property; or
     7. Any event not reasonably foreseen, anticipated or predicted by UA.

Great, none of those apply to Dao. Thanks for playing.

Any event not reasonably foreseen, anticipated or predicted by UA.

Exactly correct. The crew addition was last minute, not regularly scheduled. Obviously they were trying to fix a problem. The lawsuit will reveal the facts. In the meantime, that doesn't absolve Dao from breaking multiple Federal and State laws.

He broke no laws in explaining why he could not deplane and was in the process of talking to his lawyer

He will not be charged

You owe me $25 million

 

[danielpalos]

There should be no limits on compensation. They overbook for the bottom line.

The flight wasn't overbooked. The four passengers needed to be deplaned when, apparently, a flight crew needed to be moved to SDF. It's simple math: Better to inconvenience 4 passengers rather than inconveniencing up to 75 passengers the next morning.

A Cessna couldn't have done the job? Paying customers are, always right.

United's original response was...We followed the rules and the guy did not accept our request...even though we asked real nice

As of yesterday, their CEO is groveling, throwing money around and claiming the customer is always right

That is how capitalism works; especially when promptness needs to be insured.

 

[Weatherman2020]

 

[rightwinger]

There should be no limits on compensation. They overbook for the bottom line.

The flight wasn't overbooked. The four passengers needed to be deplaned when, apparently, a flight crew needed to be moved to SDF. It's simple math: Better to inconvenience 4 passengers rather than inconveniencing up to 75 passengers the next morning.

A Cessna couldn't have done the job? Paying customers are, always right.

United's original response was...We followed the rules and the guy did not accept our request...even though we asked real nice

As of yesterday, their CEO is groveling, throwing money around and claiming the customer is always right

That is how capitalism works; especially when promptness needs to be insured.

Yes

United has shown us the underside of capitalism

 

[danielpalos]

There should be no limits on compensation. They overbook for the bottom line.

The flight wasn't overbooked. The four passengers needed to be deplaned when, apparently, a flight crew needed to be moved to SDF. It's simple math: Better to inconvenience 4 passengers rather than inconveniencing up to 75 passengers the next morning.

A Cessna couldn't have done the job? Paying customers are, always right.

United's original response was...We followed the rules and the guy did not accept our request...even though we asked real nice

As of yesterday, their CEO is groveling, throwing money around and claiming the customer is always right

That is how capitalism works; especially when promptness needs to be insured.

Yes

United has shown us the underside of capitalism

Who's idea was it to put limits on compensation for the poor and not bonuses for the rich?