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

[leftwinger]

Yea ...yea
Heard it all before

If you don't let us abuse you it will cost you more money

You should thank us for kicking you off the flight

Maybe you can open up SnowFlake Airlines. Where you can do anything you want to do except go into the cockpit. Wanna demand to open up the Exit doors? Go ahead. This is SnowFlake where you make the rules.

Want to stay on during a stop? OK we will clean around you. This is SnowFlake, where the inmates are King. Don't want to sit in your assigned seat? OK we will move you anywhere you want. Just ask us.

Decide you Don't want to stop? OK we will just make it a straight-thru for you SnowyFlake #1. Hope we have enough fuel.

Normal folks will choose United.

 

[Pogo]

True and every passenger that flies in the US from now on will eventually pay for it.

In true Liberal fashion they are very quick to spend everyone else's money. They don't think someday their nephew will now have to pay the new "Dao fee" to fly to their smelly funeral in Jackson MS. Of course that is assuming anyone would wish to attend.

Every one is special. No one has to follow any rules. Make a scene, maybe you can scam a big payday.

In true authoritarian-passive fashion y'all corporation sycophants are very quick to ignore the company's own contract, if it means an opportunity to assault the lower life form of We the People:

>> Like all airlines, United has a very specific (and lengthy!) contract for carriage outlining the contractual relationship between the airline and the passenger. It includes a familiar set of provisions for when a passenger may be denied boarding (Rule 25: “Denied Boarding Compensation”).

When a flight is oversold, UA can deny boarding to some passengers, who then receive compensation under specific guidelines. However, Dao was not denied boarding. He was granted boarding and then involuntarily removed from the airplane. What does the contract say about that?

It turns out that the contract has a specific rule regarding “Refusal of Transport” (Rule 21), which lays out the conditions under which a passenger can be removed and refused transport on the aircraft. This includes situations where passengers act in a “disorderly, offensive, abusive, or violent” manner, refuse to comply with the smoking policy, are barefoot or “not properly clothed,” as well as many other situations.

There is absolutely no provision for deplaning a seated passenger because the flight is oversold.

An added complication here is that the flight wasn’t even oversold. The contract defines an oversold flight as “a flight where there are more Passengers holding valid confirmed Tickets that check-in for the flight within the prescribed check-in time than there are available seats.”

In this case, the airline attempted to remove seated passengers to make room for airline staff requiring transport to another airport, not because it had sold more tickets than there were seats available.

In any event, this point is largely moot, because neither employee transportation nor oversold situations is listed as among the reasons that a passenger may be refused transport.

.... Bottom line is that if the airline wants to bump you from the aircraft, it must deny you boarding. After the crew grant you boarding, the number of conditions under which they may deplane you substantially decreases.

... All of this means that the airline may not have had the right to remove Dao from the aircraft.

What are the consequences of this breach? Rule 21 on Refusal of Transport states that “UA is not liable for its refusal to transport any passenger or for its removal of any passenger in accordance with this Rule” and that the sole remedy is a refund of the ticket.

In this case, however, United Airlines did not deplane the passenger “in accordance with this Rule” but probably acted contrary to the rule. So, the liability exclusion by its terms does not apply. << --- Why United was Legally Wrong​

Their own contract, Quisling.

 

[rightwinger]

He was right

In the world of a child yes he was right, in the real world of adults he was wrong and got what he asked for...

What was being done to him was grossly unfair and he refused to cooperate

So why don't you get all of the millions and millions of passengers who have been the "grossly unfair" poor victims of over booked flights and march on Washington or better yet start a Class Action Lawsuit?

It is the nature of nonviolent protest

Don't fight unjust laws with violence but by refusing to comply. Worked for Gahndi, worked for MLK

Unjust laws are changed

Watch what happens to the next paying customer who is ordered to give up their seat

Snowflakes Unite!

Nice. So what is going to be your theme song? Kummbya seems dated.

That's the way it works

Compliance with unjust laws does not bring about change

Otherwise Rosa Parks would still be riding on the back of the bus

 

[Pogo]

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.

 

[Faun]

The horrendous treatment of Dr. Dao resulted in every passenger on that flight being compensated.

True and every passenger that flies in the US from now on will eventually pay for it.

Does this mean when some corporation is treating you unfairly and like shit, you cower to them because in the back of your mind you're thinking, if I don't do as they ask, even though I'm right and they're wrong -- I'd better acquiesce because otherwise, others will end up paying higher prices?

No. What it means it that if a person perceives they are being treated unjustly, that does not give them the right to treat others unjustly much less break both federal and state laws.

Sadly, you can't see beyond your dementia. The officers should not have gotten on that plane and were put on administrative leave for their actions; and Dao has not been charged with any crimes.

 

[Faun]

Yea ...yea
Heard it all before

If you don't let us abuse you it will cost you more money

You should thank us for kicking you off the flight

Maybe you can open up SnowFlake Airlines. Where you can do anything you want to do except go into the cockpit. Wanna demand to open up the Exit doors? Go ahead. This is SnowFlake where you make the rules.

Want to stay on during a stop? OK we will clean around you. This is SnowFlake, where the inmates are King. Don't want to sit in your assigned seat? OK we will move you anywhere you want. Just ask us.

Decide you Don't want to stop? OK we will just make it a straight-thru for you SnowyFlake #1. Hope we have enough fuel.

Normal folks will choose United.

So normal folks prefer an airline that can kick you out of your seat for no good reason??

Thanks for proving yet again that conservatives are not normal folks.

 

[paperview]

ch-ch-changes...
United Airlines issues a new policy requiring crews to be booked sooner

 

[GWV5903]

Seems like the conservative position on this is to not stand up for yourself.

This is a over reach by an individual who could careless about anyone other than himself, he clearly violated the law enforcement officers request to leave the plane. When he is sitting there saying just kill me? The Conservative Position is get your ass off the plane as you have been requested to do, instead we have the Liberal Position which would have been, let's ground the flight and not service any of our customers?

Seems like the conservative position on this is to not stand up for yourself.

The Conservative Position would be to adhere to the law enforcement officers request and get off the plane and then and only then raise hell about it. Instead, you want to defend the immature actions of a child who throws a tantrum and threatens the other passengers on the plane because all he cares about is himself. The mature way to handle this was to get off the plane, demand they get me on the next flight and get over it, period!

To not stand up for your rights.

If acting like a child is standing up for your rights, then it's no wonder you think he acted appropriately...

To bow down to the corporation making unwarranted demands of you.

Unwarranted demands? When do you recognize it's not always about you!

What a bunch of limp-wristed pussies.

So your a male with Faun as a username?

 

[paperview]

Seems like the conservative position on this is to not stand up for yourself.

This is a over reach by an individual who could careless about anyone other than himself, he clearly violated the law enforcement officers request to leave the plane. When he is sitting there saying just kill me? The Conservative Position is get your ass off the plane as you have been requested to do, instead we have the Liberal Position which would have been, let's ground the flight and not service any of our customers?

Seems like the conservative position on this is to not stand up for yourself.

The Conservative Position would be to adhere to the law enforcement officers request and get off the plane and then and only then raise hell about it. Instead, you want to defend the immature actions of child who throws a tantrum and threatens the other passengers on the plane because all he cares about is himself. The mature way to handle this was to get off the plane, demand they get me on the next flight and get over it, period!

To not stand up for your rights.

If acting like a child is standing up for your rights, then it's no wonder you think he acted appropriately...

To bow down to the corporation making unwarranted demands of you.

Unwarranted demands? When do you recognize it's not always about you!

What a bunch of limp-wristed pussies.

So your a male with Faun as a username?

Good lord. What a tragic heap of a mess this post is/

I can't even ...

 

[GWV5903]

Seems like the conservative position on this is to not stand up for yourself.

This is a over reach by an individual who could careless about anyone other than himself, he clearly violated the law enforcement officers request to leave the plane. When he is sitting there saying just kill me? The Conservative Position is get your ass off the plane as you have been requested to do, instead we have the Liberal Position which would have been, let's ground the flight and not service any of our customers?

Seems like the conservative position on this is to not stand up for yourself.

The Conservative Position would be to adhere to the law enforcement officers request and get off the plane and then and only then raise hell about it. Instead, you want to defend the immature actions of child who throws a tantrum and threatens the other passengers on the plane because all he cares about is himself. The mature way to handle this was to get off the plane, demand they get me on the next flight and get over it, period!

To not stand up for your rights.

If acting like a child is standing up for your rights, then it's no wonder you think he acted appropriately...

To bow down to the corporation making unwarranted demands of you.

Unwarranted demands? When do you recognize it's not always about you!

What a bunch of limp-wristed pussies.

So your a male with Faun as a username?

Good lord. What a tragic heap of a mess this post is/

I can't even ...

No you can't, it's too much for you...

 

[Faun]

Seems like the conservative position on this is to not stand up for yourself.

This is a over reach by an individual who could careless about anyone other than himself, he clearly violated the law enforcement officers request to leave the plane. When he is sitting there saying just kill me? The Conservative Position is get your ass off the plane as you have been requested to do, instead we have the Liberal Position which would have been, let's ground the flight and not service any of our customers?

Sorry, conservative, but Dao standing up for his own rights was not overreach. That is evidenced by the stark reality that EVERY indication is that he was in the right to stand up for himself.

Seems like the conservative position on this is to not stand up for yourself.

The Conservative Position would be to adhere to the law enforcement officers request and get off the plane and then and only then raise hell about it.

Like conservatives believe the Branch Davidians should have just "adhered" to law enforcement, left their compound, and then raise hell about it?

Sell your bullshit elsewhere.

To not stand up for your rights.

If acting like a child is standing up for your rights, then it's no wonder you think he acted appropriately...

LOL

Dao did not act like a child. You're demented to think he did. He sat calmly in his seat and refused to give up what was rightfully his. Not that you can grasp that since you believe in cowering to corporations.

To bow down to the corporation making unwarranted demands of you.

Unwarranted demands? When do you recognize it's not always about you!

Yes, unwarranted demands. The chief of security said his officers should not have boarded that plane. The CEO of United said Dao should not have been removed from that plane. United's own guidelines don't allow for such passengers to be removed from their flight. What more evidence do you need to comprehend that the demands being forced on Dao were indeed, unwarranted?

What a bunch of limp-wristed pussies.

So your a male with Faun as a username?

Yes. What about it?

 

[Faun]

Seems like the conservative position on this is to not stand up for yourself.

This is a over reach by an individual who could careless about anyone other than himself, he clearly violated the law enforcement officers request to leave the plane. When he is sitting there saying just kill me? The Conservative Position is get your ass off the plane as you have been requested to do, instead we have the Liberal Position which would have been, let's ground the flight and not service any of our customers?

Seems like the conservative position on this is to not stand up for yourself.

The Conservative Position would be to adhere to the law enforcement officers request and get off the plane and then and only then raise hell about it. Instead, you want to defend the immature actions of child who throws a tantrum and threatens the other passengers on the plane because all he cares about is himself. The mature way to handle this was to get off the plane, demand they get me on the next flight and get over it, period!

To not stand up for your rights.

If acting like a child is standing up for your rights, then it's no wonder you think he acted appropriately...

To bow down to the corporation making unwarranted demands of you.

Unwarranted demands? When do you recognize it's not always about you!

What a bunch of limp-wristed pussies.

So your a male with Faun as a username?

Good lord. What a tragic heap of a mess this post is/

I can't even ...

LMAO

That's ok, I did...

 

[GWV5903]

Yes. What about it?

 

[Faun]

Yes. What about it?

LOL

What is that supposed to even mean??

And I note, you failed to respond to anything else in my post.

 

[GWV5903]

Sorry, conservative, but Dao standing up for his own rights was not overreach. That is evidenced by the stark reality that EVERY indication is that he was in the right to stand up for himself.

Then the other 3 passengers are idiots, they walked off the plane while this moron was dragged?

Like conservatives believe the Branch Davidians should have just "adhered" to law enforcement,

Being dragged off the plane versus being burned to death? Wow, you are challenged...

Sell your bullshit elsewhere.

See above ^^^^^^^

Yes, unwarranted demands. The chief of security said his officers should not have boarded that plane. The CEO of United said Dao should not have been removed from that plane.

Hindsight is always 20/20 when issues get out of control, just remember, 2 wrongs don't make it right...

Next time you're pulled over and you think it's wrong and the cop tells you to get out of the car, just tell them no, Dr. Dao is my hero...

 

[GWV5903]

What is that supposed to even mean??

I know it's difficult for you, "Flammer" ?!

 

[Weatherman2020]

The passenger should have acted like an adult and left the plan as requested. Instead he acted like a child and our society today rewards him, disgusting...

So you think the passenger was wrong and the aviation police were right in the way they handled the situation?

The passenger was asked to leave the plane by law enforcement, he refused and I quote "I am not going", "You can drag me out, but I am not going", "I would rather go to jail", "make a lawsuit against United Airlines" and you want to defend this, really?

This is not the behavior of a adult, it is the behavior of a defiant child...

He got what he asked for, never call the bluff of law enforcement...

He broke no laws. Simply by touching him security was guilty for assault. Knocking his teeth out and breaking his nose is just bonus.

 

[GWV5903]

He broke no laws.

I didn't say he did, now did I?

Common sense tells you to obey law enforcement's request, but that would be difficult for you as well...

 

[Faun]

Sorry, conservative, but Dao standing up for his own rights was not overreach. That is evidenced by the stark reality that EVERY indication is that he was in the right to stand up for himself.

Then the other 3 passengers are idiots, they walked off the plane while this moron was dragged?

I dunno, but they might be kicking themselves in the ass now for getting off so easily now that the see Dao stands to make millions.

Like conservatives believe the Branch Davidians should have just "adhered" to law enforcement,

Being dragged off the plane versus being burned to death? Wow, you are challenged...

Imbecile, they weren't being burned to death when law enforcement showed up at their compound to arrest Koresh. But according to your bullshit, conservatives believe Koresh should have just turned himself in because law enforcement ordered him to, left his compound, and raised hell about it later.

Yes, unwarranted demands. The chief of security said his officers should not have boarded that plane. The CEO of United said Dao should not have been removed from that plane.

Hindsight is always 20/20 when issues get out of control, just remember, 2 wrongs don't make it right...

I can't help you're insane, but again, Dao did nothing wrong. It's the officers who dragged him off the plane who are on administrative leave, not Dao. It's United's CEO who is apologizing profusely, not Dao, promising this will never happen again.

And sadly, conservatives remain pussies who believe in doing whatever a corporation tells them to do.

 

[Faun]

What is that supposed to even mean??

I know it's difficult for you, "Flammer" ?!

Aww, poor conservative snowflakeis now projecting because I pointed out what pussies conservatives are.

That you see something effeminate about my avatar reveals more about you than it does me.