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

[danielpalos]

....None of this needed to go down. United Airlines crew on the scene created the entire thing. And you want to go all snowflake on 'em. Spineless wimp.

And you know who agrees that United Airlines created this situation?
---- United Airlines. Hence the apologies, and the begging bribes moaning "please don't sue us" to everybody who was on that flight and witnessed what they did.

LOL. Excitable ain'tcha? You are not the person I'd want backing me in a tense situation.

What the ignorant here don't understand is that there are multiple parties/authorities involved here. Those who are trainable will learn, those who are not, won't.

Just more mundane, right wing fantasy, wind? It is about the private sector and Capitalism.

 

[Divine Wind]

Who's comparing guns and cars? Any establishment can evict a hostile customer. The airline took his money in exchange for getting him to his destination at a pre agreed upon time. Just because some fine print exists that gives them the right to knock his teeth out and break his nose for wanting that agreement fulfilled does not make it right, nor civilized.

The "fine print" allows them to deplane Dao, not beat him. Neither United, Republic nor their employees touched Dao. They did as any "establishment" owner should do with a lawbreaker; call the police. Which is exactly what happened.

As stated before, I think the police should have handled this better, but that's on them, not the airline. It also doesn't absolve Dao from violating State and Federal laws.

 

[danielpalos]

I thought I read somewhere that the passenger was already sueing?

He is. Well, at least his well-heeled lawyers are suing. What's interesting is that they say they have two years to bring suit. Not a lawyer, but sounds more like dangling bait than seeking justice. United will probably make an offer just to shut him up.

I'm looking forward to city, state and especially Federal charges against Dao. If the Feds don't press charges for all the crimes Dao committed, then they are ringing the bell for other passengers to do the same thing. It should be interesting. Maybe another passenger will get shot as happened before with nutjobs.

What charges?

 

[Divine Wind]

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.

So you would accept a movie theater tossing you and your family out just as the movie was about to start just because somewhere in some obscure web link that is not given to you it says they can? What about if it was the 7th game of the World Series? Security shows up as the pitcher is warming up and says sorry, we overbooked your seats, you gotta go.

Damn right they would have to carry me out too.

The man fulfilled all of his obligations and was entitled to fly, his schedule was built around that agreement he had with United.

Ever buy a plane ticket? Yeah, those lawyer words may exist, but you never are made aware of them.

Why do liberals always want to compare guns to driving a car? In this case, it's not a movie theater, it's not an Uber and it's not Burger King. It's an airliner and the same international laws of the seas that apply to ships apply to airliners. Don't take my word for it. The next time you fly, call the flight attendant a ****. Then, when they ask you to leave, tell them "Go **** yourselves *****!". Please write down what happens. Take video if you can.

"Since the flight was not actually overbooked, but instead only fully booked, with the exact number of passengers as seats available, United Airlines had no legal right to force any passengers to give up their seats to prioritize others. What United did was give preference to their employees over people who had reserved confirmed seats, in violation of 14 CFR 250.2a. Since Dr. Dao was already seated, it was clear that his seat had already been “reserved” and “confirmed” to accommodate him specifically."

United Airlines Did Not Have the Legal Right to Refuse Service to the Doctor Dragged Off Its Plane

Disagreed, but I'm content to let the state and Federal lawyers play this one out.

 

[Divine Wind]

I thought I read somewhere that the passenger was already sueing?

He is. Well, at least his well-heeled lawyers are suing. What's interesting is that they say they have two years to bring suit. Not a lawyer, but sounds more like dangling bait than seeking justice. United will probably make an offer just to shut him up.

I'm looking forward to city, state and especially Federal charges against Dao. If the Feds don't press charges for all the crimes Dao committed, then they are ringing the bell for other passengers to do the same thing. It should be interesting. Maybe another passenger will get shot as happened before with nutjobs.

What charges?

Scroll up. You've asked that several times before and when I answered, you run off only to reappear asking "What charged?"

 

[danielpalos]

The man is near 70 years old and he suffered a concussion, three lost teeth, a broken nose . . . WTH? Was it necessary to beat the crap out of the man too?

So they say........


Scam artist in progress, I would bet. Acting on lawyer advice. Opportunist. Criminal history reported in this thread. I don't want USA children forced to pay higher so he can scam the legal system. He caused any real injuries on purpose.

Oh, so he planned this whole thing, huh? Come on.

He certainly threw the race card down very quickly even though three other people already as asked.

The entire flight was canceled and all the other 70 passengers were inconvenienced by Dao's actions. Add to this, since the aircraft had to be preserved as "evidence" of a Federal crime, I'm guessing the next day's flight from SDF to ORD was also canceled or delayed for several hours so those 70ish passengers were also inconvenienced plus missed their connections. Why? Because Dao broke his "Contract of Carriage", claimed he was more special than anyone else and violated several State and Federal laws in the process.

As the hot summer travel season literally heats up, I expect a lot more incidents like this resulting on more cancellations. Good time to check out Amtrak!!

Lol. Even the airline admits it did wrong. Everyone except you. How long will you carry on with this charade?

What did the airline do wrong? What does that have to do with Dao's breaking multiple Federal laws?

As it is, I think the interest factor in this summer's airline flying just went up. If, as I suspect they will, more nutjobs "stand up for their rights" thus causing multiple cancellations, the tide of public opinion will turn against "the Rosa Parks of Airlines". LOL.

Rosa Parks' Niece Outraged by Disgraceful Comparison to Dr. David Dao (VIDEO)

What federal laws? There should be no limit on compensation to customers; especially if there is no similar limit on bonuses to CEOs.

 

[danielpalos]

Oh, so he planned this whole thing, huh? Come on.

He certainly threw the race card down very quickly even though three other people already as asked.

The entire flight was canceled and all the other 70 passengers were inconvenienced by Dao's actions. Add to this, since the aircraft had to be preserved as "evidence" of a Federal crime, I'm guessing the next day's flight from SDF to ORD was also canceled or delayed for several hours so those 70ish passengers were also inconvenienced plus missed their connections. Why? Because Dao broke his "Contract of Carriage", claimed he was more special than anyone else and violated several State and Federal laws in the process.

As the hot summer travel season literally heats up, I expect a lot more incidents like this resulting on more cancellations. Good time to check out Amtrak!!

Lol. Even the airline admits it did wrong. Everyone except you. How long will you carry on with this charade?

What did the airline do wrong? What does that have to do with Dao's breaking multiple Federal laws?

As it is, I think the interest factor in this summer's airline flying just went up. If, as I suspect they will, more nutjobs "stand up for their rights" thus causing multiple cancellations, the tide of public opinion will turn against "the Rosa Parks of Airlines". LOL.

Rosa Parks' Niece Outraged by Disgraceful Comparison to Dr. David Dao (VIDEO)

If you have to ask, then you are probably a lost cause, unfortunately.

I feel likewise with all of the people on this forum who don't understand federal law regarding airliners.

How federally, patriotic of you.

Did you know, 10USC311 is also, federal law.

 

[danielpalos]

Lol. Even the airline admits it did wrong. Everyone except you. How long will you carry on with this charade?

What did the airline do wrong? What does that have to do with Dao's breaking multiple Federal laws?

As it is, I think the interest factor in this summer's airline flying just went up. If, as I suspect they will, more nutjobs "stand up for their rights" thus causing multiple cancellations, the tide of public opinion will turn against "the Rosa Parks of Airlines". LOL.

Rosa Parks' Niece Outraged by Disgraceful Comparison to Dr. David Dao (VIDEO)

If you have to ask, then you are probably a lost cause, unfortunately.

I feel likewise with all of the people on this forum who don't understand federal law regarding airliners.

Let me ask you this. WHY do you think the airline is apologizing profusely to this man now?

Because it's a PR nightmare. Public opinion is highly ignorant, but also strong.

In the backroom, I'm guessing all the airline CEO's are pressing the FAA to file maximum charges against Dao.

I am advocating to eliminate limits on compensation to customers if the CEO has no limits on bonuses.

 

[Faun]

Who's comparing guns and cars? Any establishment can evict a hostile customer. The airline took his money in exchange for getting him to his destination at a pre agreed upon time. Just because some fine print exists that gives them the right to knock his teeth out and break his nose for wanting that agreement fulfilled does not make it right, nor civilized.

The "fine print" allows them to deplane Dao, not beat him. Neither United, Republic nor their employees touched Dao. They did as any "establishment" owner should do with a lawbreaker; call the police. Which is exactly what happened.

As stated before, I think the police should have handled this better, but that's on them, not the airline. It also doesn't absolve Dao from violating State and Federal laws.

There is no "fine print" which allowed UA to remove a compliant passenger from his seat. You're delusional to think there is. Certainly, if there was such "fine print," UA's CEO would have presented that instead of the sincere apology he offered.

 

[danielpalos]

I thought I read somewhere that the passenger was already sueing?

He is. Well, at least his well-heeled lawyers are suing. What's interesting is that they say they have two years to bring suit. Not a lawyer, but sounds more like dangling bait than seeking justice. United will probably make an offer just to shut him up.

I'm looking forward to city, state and especially Federal charges against Dao. If the Feds don't press charges for all the crimes Dao committed, then they are ringing the bell for other passengers to do the same thing. It should be interesting. Maybe another passenger will get shot as happened before with nutjobs.

Its five days now for them to consider trespassing charges....not much more evidence to be had
If they were going to charge him, they would have done it by now


Time to pay your debts buddy

Time to consider, lousy customer service, after having paid for it.

I usually complain about lousy customer service for free, when I don't have any money.

 

[Divine Wind]

I am advocating to eliminate limits on compensation to customers if the CEO has no limits on bonuses.

Go for it. Go tell a flight attendant to go **** herself then explain "It's nothing personal you capitalist ****, I'm just protesting the capitalist pigs in charge. Yayyy Socialism!!!"

Please post your term paper on your experiences afterward.

 

[Weatherman2020]

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.

So you would accept a movie theater tossing you and your family out just as the movie was about to start just because somewhere in some obscure web link that is not given to you it says they can? What about if it was the 7th game of the World Series? Security shows up as the pitcher is warming up and says sorry, we overbooked your seats, you gotta go.

Damn right they would have to carry me out too.

The man fulfilled all of his obligations and was entitled to fly, his schedule was built around that agreement he had with United.

Ever buy a plane ticket? Yeah, those lawyer words may exist, but you never are made aware of them.

Why do liberals always want to compare guns to driving a car? In this case, it's not a movie theater, it's not an Uber and it's not Burger King. It's an airliner and the same international laws of the seas that apply to ships apply to airliners. Don't take my word for it. The next time you fly, call the flight attendant a ****. Then, when they ask you to leave, tell them "Go **** yourselves *****!". Please write down what happens. Take video if you can.

"Since the flight was not actually overbooked, but instead only fully booked, with the exact number of passengers as seats available, United Airlines had no legal right to force any passengers to give up their seats to prioritize others. What United did was give preference to their employees over people who had reserved confirmed seats, in violation of 14 CFR 250.2a. Since Dr. Dao was already seated, it was clear that his seat had already been “reserved” and “confirmed” to accommodate him specifically."

United Airlines Did Not Have the Legal Right to Refuse Service to the Doctor Dragged Off Its Plane

Disagreed, but I'm content to let the state and Federal lawyers play this one out.

The plane was not overbooked per United.

§250.2a Policy regarding denied boarding. In the event of an oversold flight, every carrier shall ensure that the smallest practicable number of persons holding confirmed reserved space on that flight are denied boarding involuntarily.

Dr Dao had already boarded.

(b) If an insufficient number of volunteers come forward, the carrier may deny boarding to other passengers in accordance with its boarding priority rules. However, the carrier may not deny boarding to any passenger involuntarily who was earlier asked to volunteer without having been informed about the danger of being denied boarding involuntarily and the amount of Board-mandated compensation.

United should have offered more incentives for people to volunteer. If you booked that flight at the last minute you were paying over a thousand dollars.

§250.5 Amount of denied boarding compensation for passengers denied boarding involuntarily. (a) Subject to the exceptions provided in §250.6, a carrier as defined in §250.1, shall pay compensation to passengers denied boarding involuntarily from an oversold flight at the rate of 200 percent of the sum of the values of the passenger’s remaining flight coupons up to the passenger’s next stopover, or if none, to the passenger’s final destination, with a maximum of $400.

United could have also booked it's employees on another airline, but they just tried to save a buck.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

lousy reading comprehension or do you have to plead so specially, because you have Only mundane wind at your disposal?

 

[danielpalos]

I am advocating to eliminate limits on compensation to customers if the CEO has no limits on bonuses.

Go for it. Go tell a flight attendant to go **** herself then explain "It's nothing personal you capitalist ****, I'm just protesting the capitalist pigs in charge. Yayyy Socialism!!!"

Please post your term paper on your experiences afterward.

just your right wing fantasy?

as a CEO you routinely order your personnel to overbook for the bottom line, for performance goal metrics, for a no legal limit bonus.

 

[Divine Wind]

We'll see. I'm still hoping all the Liberals here will make a scene on airliners.

 

[danielpalos]

just more right wing soothsay and hearsay?

 

[rightwinger]

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.

So you would accept a movie theater tossing you and your family out just as the movie was about to start just because somewhere in some obscure web link that is not given to you it says they can? What about if it was the 7th game of the World Series? Security shows up as the pitcher is warming up and says sorry, we overbooked your seats, you gotta go.

Damn right they would have to carry me out too.

The man fulfilled all of his obligations and was entitled to fly, his schedule was built around that agreement he had with United.

Ever buy a plane ticket? Yeah, those lawyer words may exist, but you never are made aware of them.

Why do liberals always want to compare guns to driving a car? In this case, it's not a movie theater, it's not an Uber and it's not Burger King. It's an airliner and the same international laws of the seas that apply to ships apply to airliners. Don't take my word for it. The next time you fly, call the flight attendant a ****. Then, when they ask you to leave, tell them "Go **** yourselves *****!". Please write down what happens. Take video if you can.

"Since the flight was not actually overbooked, but instead only fully booked, with the exact number of passengers as seats available, United Airlines had no legal right to force any passengers to give up their seats to prioritize others. What United did was give preference to their employees over people who had reserved confirmed seats, in violation of 14 CFR 250.2a. Since Dr. Dao was already seated, it was clear that his seat had already been “reserved” and “confirmed” to accommodate him specifically."

United Airlines Did Not Have the Legal Right to Refuse Service to the Doctor Dragged Off Its Plane

Disagreed, but I'm content to let the state and Federal lawyers play this one out.

The plane was not overbooked per United.

§250.2a Policy regarding denied boarding. In the event of an oversold flight, every carrier shall ensure that the smallest practicable number of persons holding confirmed reserved space on that flight are denied boarding involuntarily.

Dr Dao had already boarded.

(b) If an insufficient number of volunteers come forward, the carrier may deny boarding to other passengers in accordance with its boarding priority rules. However, the carrier may not deny boarding to any passenger involuntarily who was earlier asked to volunteer without having been informed about the danger of being denied boarding involuntarily and the amount of Board-mandated compensation.

United should have offered more incentives for people to volunteer. If you booked that flight at the last minute you were paying over a thousand dollars.

§250.5 Amount of denied boarding compensation for passengers denied boarding involuntarily. (a) Subject to the exceptions provided in §250.6, a carrier as defined in §250.1, shall pay compensation to passengers denied boarding involuntarily from an oversold flight at the rate of 200 percent of the sum of the values of the passenger’s remaining flight coupons up to the passenger’s next stopover, or if none, to the passenger’s final destination, with a maximum of $400.

United could have also booked it's employees on another airline, but they just tried to save a buck.

I have flown many times on flights that were overbooked

Typically, they would inform you at check in and tell you they would give you a $200 voucher and a seat on a flight two hours later. They would announce at the gate who was getting the voucher....it was like winning the lottery

In this case, it was the last available flight of the day. Rather than say, we will get you on the first flight out in the morning, they offered a flight at 3PM. That is a MAJOR inconvenience and it is obvious from the lack of volunteers that an $800 voucher was not adequate compensation.
United made the choice to go to mandatory ejection of seated passengers. How could they not have anticipated trouble?

 

[Weatherman2020]

So you would accept a movie theater tossing you and your family out just as the movie was about to start just because somewhere in some obscure web link that is not given to you it says they can? What about if it was the 7th game of the World Series? Security shows up as the pitcher is warming up and says sorry, we overbooked your seats, you gotta go.

Damn right they would have to carry me out too.

The man fulfilled all of his obligations and was entitled to fly, his schedule was built around that agreement he had with United.

Ever buy a plane ticket? Yeah, those lawyer words may exist, but you never are made aware of them.

Why do liberals always want to compare guns to driving a car? In this case, it's not a movie theater, it's not an Uber and it's not Burger King. It's an airliner and the same international laws of the seas that apply to ships apply to airliners. Don't take my word for it. The next time you fly, call the flight attendant a ****. Then, when they ask you to leave, tell them "Go **** yourselves *****!". Please write down what happens. Take video if you can.

"Since the flight was not actually overbooked, but instead only fully booked, with the exact number of passengers as seats available, United Airlines had no legal right to force any passengers to give up their seats to prioritize others. What United did was give preference to their employees over people who had reserved confirmed seats, in violation of 14 CFR 250.2a. Since Dr. Dao was already seated, it was clear that his seat had already been “reserved” and “confirmed” to accommodate him specifically."

United Airlines Did Not Have the Legal Right to Refuse Service to the Doctor Dragged Off Its Plane

Disagreed, but I'm content to let the state and Federal lawyers play this one out.

The plane was not overbooked per United.

§250.2a Policy regarding denied boarding. In the event of an oversold flight, every carrier shall ensure that the smallest practicable number of persons holding confirmed reserved space on that flight are denied boarding involuntarily.

Dr Dao had already boarded.

(b) If an insufficient number of volunteers come forward, the carrier may deny boarding to other passengers in accordance with its boarding priority rules. However, the carrier may not deny boarding to any passenger involuntarily who was earlier asked to volunteer without having been informed about the danger of being denied boarding involuntarily and the amount of Board-mandated compensation.

United should have offered more incentives for people to volunteer. If you booked that flight at the last minute you were paying over a thousand dollars.

§250.5 Amount of denied boarding compensation for passengers denied boarding involuntarily. (a) Subject to the exceptions provided in §250.6, a carrier as defined in §250.1, shall pay compensation to passengers denied boarding involuntarily from an oversold flight at the rate of 200 percent of the sum of the values of the passenger’s remaining flight coupons up to the passenger’s next stopover, or if none, to the passenger’s final destination, with a maximum of $400.

United could have also booked it's employees on another airline, but they just tried to save a buck.

I have flown many times on flights that were overbooked

Typically, they would inform you at check in and tell you they would give you a $200 voucher and a seat on a flight two hours later. They would announce at the gate who was getting the voucher....it was like winning the lottery

In this case, it was the last available flight of the day. Rather than say, we will get you on the first flight out in the morning, they offered a flight at 3PM. That is a MAJOR inconvenience and it is obvious from the lack of volunteers that an $800 voucher was not adequate compensation.
United made the choice to go to mandatory ejection of seated passengers. How could they not have anticipated trouble?

And as if United did not know 20 minutes before they needed to get 4 employees on.

 

[rightwinger]

Why do liberals always want to compare guns to driving a car? In this case, it's not a movie theater, it's not an Uber and it's not Burger King. It's an airliner and the same international laws of the seas that apply to ships apply to airliners. Don't take my word for it. The next time you fly, call the flight attendant a ****. Then, when they ask you to leave, tell them "Go **** yourselves *****!". Please write down what happens. Take video if you can.

"Since the flight was not actually overbooked, but instead only fully booked, with the exact number of passengers as seats available, United Airlines had no legal right to force any passengers to give up their seats to prioritize others. What United did was give preference to their employees over people who had reserved confirmed seats, in violation of 14 CFR 250.2a. Since Dr. Dao was already seated, it was clear that his seat had already been “reserved” and “confirmed” to accommodate him specifically."

United Airlines Did Not Have the Legal Right to Refuse Service to the Doctor Dragged Off Its Plane

Disagreed, but I'm content to let the state and Federal lawyers play this one out.

The plane was not overbooked per United.

§250.2a Policy regarding denied boarding. In the event of an oversold flight, every carrier shall ensure that the smallest practicable number of persons holding confirmed reserved space on that flight are denied boarding involuntarily.

Dr Dao had already boarded.

(b) If an insufficient number of volunteers come forward, the carrier may deny boarding to other passengers in accordance with its boarding priority rules. However, the carrier may not deny boarding to any passenger involuntarily who was earlier asked to volunteer without having been informed about the danger of being denied boarding involuntarily and the amount of Board-mandated compensation.

United should have offered more incentives for people to volunteer. If you booked that flight at the last minute you were paying over a thousand dollars.

§250.5 Amount of denied boarding compensation for passengers denied boarding involuntarily. (a) Subject to the exceptions provided in §250.6, a carrier as defined in §250.1, shall pay compensation to passengers denied boarding involuntarily from an oversold flight at the rate of 200 percent of the sum of the values of the passenger’s remaining flight coupons up to the passenger’s next stopover, or if none, to the passenger’s final destination, with a maximum of $400.

United could have also booked it's employees on another airline, but they just tried to save a buck.

I have flown many times on flights that were overbooked

Typically, they would inform you at check in and tell you they would give you a $200 voucher and a seat on a flight two hours later. They would announce at the gate who was getting the voucher....it was like winning the lottery

In this case, it was the last available flight of the day. Rather than say, we will get you on the first flight out in the morning, they offered a flight at 3PM. That is a MAJOR inconvenience and it is obvious from the lack of volunteers that an $800 voucher was not adequate compensation.
United made the choice to go to mandatory ejection of seated passengers. How could they not have anticipated trouble?

And as if United did not know 20 minutes before they needed to get 4 employees on.

The employees obviously knew

How they can just show up at the gate and say....Board us
Is beyond belief

 

[Divine Wind]

And as if United did not know 20 minutes before they needed to get 4 employees on.

It appears they didn't. I'm sure we'll know more at the trial(s).