Poll of the Day > united airlines acted like dicks, it's true, ok... but...

(+) Yeah! (+)

ZiggiStardust posted...

Erik_P posted...

Are you gonna say anything of relevance Ziggi?

you're literally the only person who still thinks that's me.

to be honest i think he just says it because he's trying to troll me, or maybe you, or maybe both of us

idk i haven't been around all that long, is erik really that clueless?

"After the flight boarded, staff announced that they needed four people to volunteer to give up seats so that United employees who needed to be in Louisville Monday could take them. The amount was increased to $800, she said, and passengers were told the plane wouldn’t leave until four people volunteered."

Why couldn't the employees get off the plane and take another flight?
---

theres good arguments to both sides of the argument but the final answer is that airlines shouldnt be allowed to overbook.
---

Troll_Police_ posted...

this topic is killing me ziggi


everyone wants SO FUCKING BADLY to believe that you are on united airlines side because this is fucking potd and there is no room for grey area, and one side always has to be right.

wow dude u just have the whole world figured out dontcha
---

In case anyone's still wondering if the officer was within his rights to do what he did, he was just put on leave, pending investigation, by the Chicago Department of Aviation, who issued a statement saying his actions were "not in accordance with our standard operating procedure and (...) not condoned by the Department."
---

---

DirtBasedSoap posted...

Troll_Police_ posted...

this topic is killing me ziggi everyone wants SO FUCKING BADLY to believe that you are on united airlines side because this is fucking potd and there is no room for grey area, and one side always has to be right.

wow dude u just have the whole world figured out dontcha

It's secondhand painful that PotD is your whole world.
---

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2017/04/11/united-ceo-employees-followed-procedures-flier-belligerent/100317166/

CEO isn't wrong at all. guy was belligerent and non-compliant. CEO also forgets to mention how badly it was handled, and how his employees fucked up, ok?
---

berniepanders posted...

dragon504 posted...

I hope he sues and makes a pretty penny off of united.

if what troll police said is correct about the contract one agrees to when buying a ticket, the traveler in question has absolutely no case and won't make a dime.

As much as I hate to agree, I'm pretty sure this is the case. It would not surprise me if they had some fine print bullshit in the terms and conditions that nobody reads anymore where it says they're allowed to cancel your flight with no notice at anytime.

It's a shitty CYA maneuver used by all companies that require you to agree to T&C, but I would be shocked if this won't the sole reason that the passenger has no case.

Sidenote: CEO's response:

https://twitter.com/RyanRuggiero/status/851577150117425154
---

Muffinz0rz posted...

As much as I hate to agree, I'm pretty sure this is the case. It would not surprise me if they had some fine print bullshit in the terms and conditions that nobody reads anymore where it says they're allowed to cancel your flight with no notice at anytime.

It's a shitty CYA maneuver used by all companies that require you to agree to T&C, but I would be shocked if this won't the sole reason that the passenger has no case.

the issue that you are failing to see is that failure to follow a contract is not a valid reason to assault someone.

here's what his attorney will argue: is it reasonable to expect the average person to read the fine print on their ticket, especially if they are not prompted to sign to verify they have read it? AND even if that contract is in place, does it define that you can be forcibly removed by airport security if you refuse to give up your seat? AND even if it does say you can be forcibly removed is it reasonable to expect that you will receive bodily injury from airport security?

keep in mind airport security are not actual police officers. their scope of what is within their right to do is much more legally limited.

obviously when you purchase a ticket if there is fine print there is implied consent but just because it's written down doesn't make it a valid contract. there are a lot of times where waivers of liability do not hold up in court because they are not reasonable contracts so their validity gets decided by a judge once the litigation starts and they begin their arguments after the litigation process. whether or not that is actually a valid contract may end up being decided by a judge or jury.
---

If that's what you took from this incident, then you're fucked in the head.

Airline should have offered more $ to find a volunteer.

Instead they will now have a much larger cost to pay with the inevitable lawsuit, and drop in stock price.
---

Jen0125 posted...

the issue that you are failing to see is that failure to follow a contract is not a valid reason to assault someone.

Oh I agree wholeheartedly. The passenger may (should) have a case against the airport security people. I'm talking about the airline itself.

Jen0125 posted...

here's what his attorney will argue: is it reasonable to expect the average person to read the fine print on their ticket, especially if they are not prompted to sign to verify they have read it? AND even if that contract is in place, does it define that you can be forcibly removed by airport security if you refuse to give up your seat? AND even if it does say you can be forcibly removed is it reasonable to expect that you will receive bodily injury from airport security?

I'm with you on the bolded part, but I think technicalities will favor the airline on everything not bolded. You know how you go to a baseball game? When you get a ticket and enter a ballpark, you assume all responsibility of risk of damage by bats, balls, or whatever else. But you don't have to sign anything to verify you read it. The contract is in place via the purchase of your ticket. It's a similar setup here - your contract with the airline is in place when you purchase the ticket. Now, I don't know what the fine print/contract/terms and conditions say about the potential for being asked to deplane. Those details will likely come to light as the events unfold.

The airline attorney can say yes, it is absolutely reasonable to expect people to read what they're signing up for. I personally don't agree that everyone should read every word of those massive documents just because I want to sign up for a freaking itunes account. But legally, the technicality favors them if it's written somewhere (baseball, it's on ticket stubs, for example - I would be shocked if it wasn't somewhere on the airline's website, even in 2 point font at the bottom of the page).

And again, as far as airport security removing you is concerned, I don't know what the T&C says about potential removal.

Jen0125 posted...

keep in mind airport security are not actual police officers. their scope of what is within their right to do is much more legally limited.

I'm with you on this bit. The security should absolutely be held accountable.

Peterass posted...

Airline should have offered more $ to find a volunteer.

I agree wholeheartedly. You just keep raising the bar until someone bites. I think they have some limit of like $800 or $1000, but they should have called corporate and gotten them involved.

I bet $2k looks pretty cheap now in comparison to this debacle
---

Muffinz0rz posted...

As much as I hate to agree, I'm pretty sure this is the case. It would not surprise me if they had some fine print bullshit in the terms and conditions that nobody reads anymore where it says they're allowed to cancel your flight with no notice at anytime.

Yes, in the fine print, the airline claims it has the right to reschedule or cancel your ticket with no notice, for any reason. To what extent those claims have been tested in court I have no idea, but they're there.

You know what isn't there, though? A clause that says "We can knock your ass out if you argue with us." And if they ever tried to put it in there, it would last about three seconds in court before being tossed out. The response of the security officers was very much disproportionate to the situation, given that they escalated what was, at that point, a non-violent encounter into a violent one, and the guy absolutely has a case here.

It's pretty telling that the Chicago Department of Aviation's response was to put the officer on leave due to proper procedure not being followed.
---

Muffinz0rz posted...

When you get a ticket and enter a ballpark, you assume all responsibility of risk of damage by bats, balls, or whatever else

this is a reasonable risk of harm though. you know going in there are going to be foul balls and potentially flying bats. that's an assumption of risk.

assumption of risk on a plane is you could crash or maybe suffer turbulence based injury. you don't assume going on to a plane you'll be assaulted by airport staff.

Muffinz0rz posted...

But you don't have to sign anything to verify you read it. The contract is in place via the purchase of your ticket. It's a similar setup here - your contract with the airline is in place when you purchase the ticket. Now, I don't know what the fine print/contract/terms and conditions say about the potential for being asked to deplane. Those details will likely come to light as the events unfold.

this is where the attorney will argue whether that's actually a reasonable practice. and that will be up to a judge or jury.

Muffinz0rz posted...

The airline attorney can say yes, it is absolutely reasonable to expect people to read what they're signing up for. I personally don't agree that everyone should read every word of those massive documents just because I want to sign up for a freaking itunes account. But legally, the technicality favors them if it's written somewhere (baseball, it's on ticket stubs, for example - I would be shocked if it wasn't somewhere on the airline's website, even in 2 point font at the bottom of the page).

the airline attorney will, yes. but the plaintiff attorney will argue it isn't. that's where whatever case law or documentation they provide will be considered and analyzed.

this case may actually provide some pretty interesting case law if it were to get tried, tbh. it could change something. but in all likelihood they will just settle in pre-litigation mediation.
---

Another interesting facet that will get brought up here is that United may have been operating outside the bounds of its own Contract of Carriage.

They define "overbooked" as having not enough seats for confirmed passengers at the time of Check-in, which is completed well in advance of boarding, and say they have the right to deny boarding as a result.

Two problems with that: the first is that the man was removed AFTER boarding. He wasn't, by definition, "denied boarding" in that case; he was removed after already having boarded. The second issue is that the "overbooking" appears to have occurred AFTER check-in (in all likelihood after boarding had already started, given that no airline would willingly begin boarding a plane if they knew they had to bump passengers with valid boarding passes); that would not meet the standard United sets out in their own contract for a valid "overbooking" situation.
---

The "doctor" David Dao had his license revoked in 2005 for selling prescriptions for sex. and was illegally prescribing and trafficking pain killers. In 2015, the medical board allowed him to practice internal medicine in an outpatient facility one day a week.
---

darkknight109 posted...

You know what isn't there, though? A clause that says "We can knock your ass out if you argue with us." And if they ever tried to put it in there, it would last about three seconds in court before being tossed out. The response of the security officers was very much disproportionate to the situation, given that they escalated what was, at that point, a non-violent encounter into a violent one, and the guy absolutely has a case here.

I know. I said above that the security guy was way over the top and there should definitely be a case against that. I'm not arguing that one bit, and I don't think any sane person would either.

Jen0125 posted...

this is a reasonable risk of harm though. you know going in there are going to be foul balls and potentially flying bats. that's an assumption of risk.

assumption of risk on a plane is you could crash or maybe suffer turbulence based injury. you don't assume going on to a plane you'll be assaulted by airport staff.

I'm not talking about the harm part. I'm talking about the "contract" that you "sign" by purchasing a ticket and entering a ballpark. The same could be said about airlines and delays/issues/forced deplaning (apparently).

Jen0125 posted...

this is where the attorney will argue whether that's actually a reasonable practice. and that will be up to a judge or jury.

Fair enough. I could see people arguing that either way (even though average joes like you and I wouldn't read those things in a million years). However, again, it does depend on where said "fine print" was located. If it was on the website in plain text, right by the "submit order" button, then yeah, it might hold up. But if it's not there anywhere, or buried in some dozens and dozens of pages of T&Cs, then yeah I doubt it counts as a reasonable practice. It might come down to semantics. Either way, it will become an interesting case to monitor. I hope they release details as they unfold.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unrelated note - Why didn't they just choose the last 4 people to board? I mean, I can't speak on behalf of all people, but I'd imagine a person who just plopped their butts down 30 seconds ago would be more likely to leave, rather than someone who's been seated for 20 minutes and is already settled and set to go.

RFC22 posted...

The "doctor" David Dao had his license revoked in 2005 for selling prescriptions for sex. and was illegally prescribing and trafficking pain killers. In 2015, the medical board allowed him to practice internal medicine in an outpatient facility one day a week.

Interesting backstory. Maybe he needed to get back for his one day of work. That actually might help his case, if you consider how he only gets to work once a week (despite the vilification of his prior illicit activities).
---

RFC22 posted...

The "doctor" David Dao had his license revoked in 2005 for selling prescriptions for sex. and was illegally prescribing and trafficking pain killers. In 2015, the medical board allowed him to practice internal medicine in an outpatient facility one day a week.

if that's true, i don't feel bad at all for calling him a flailing baby. turns out he's a piece of shit on top of that!
---

RFC22 posted...

The "doctor" David Dao had his license revoked in 2005 for selling prescriptions for sex. and was illegally prescribing and trafficking pain killers. In 2015, the medical board allowed him to practice internal medicine in an outpatient facility one day a week.

He deserved to have his head smashed in if this is true
---

RFC22 posted...

The "doctor" David Dao had his license revoked in 2005 for selling prescriptions for sex. and was illegally prescribing and trafficking pain killers. In 2015, the medical board allowed him to practice internal medicine in an outpatient facility one day a week.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with anything.
---

deoxxys posted...

theres good arguments to both sides of the argument but the final answer is that airlines shouldnt be allowed to overbook.

fuck that shit. let them overbook, and let them lose business. what we SHOULDNT do is over regulate and then bail them out when they fuck up.
---

PotD should start an airline
---

Troll_Police_ posted...

deoxxys posted...

theres good arguments to both sides of the argument but the final answer is that airlines shouldnt be allowed to overbook.

fuck that shit. let them overbook, and let them lose business. what we SHOULDNT do is over regulate and then bail them out when they fuck up.

Overbooking is technically fraud.
---

RFC22 posted...

The "doctor" David Dao had his license revoked in 2005 for selling prescriptions for sex. and was illegally prescribing and trafficking pain killers. In 2015, the medical board allowed him to practice internal medicine in an outpatient facility one day a week.

His license was temporarily revoked, and doesn't suddenly mean it's ok to assault him for not giving up his seat.
---

Troll_Police_ posted...

deoxxys posted...

theres good arguments to both sides of the argument but the final answer is that airlines shouldnt be allowed to overbook.

fuck that shit. let them overbook, and let them lose business. what we SHOULDNT do is over regulate and then bail them out when they fuck up.

We shouldn't bail them out regardless, but we also shouldn't let them fuck up people's days on their path to self-destruction.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

We shouldn't bail them out regardless, but we also shouldn't let them f*** up people's days on their path to self-destruction.

Want cake and eat it too.
---

Veedrock- posted...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

We shouldn't bail them out regardless, but we also shouldn't let them f*** up people's days on their path to self-destruction.

Want cake and eat it too.

Are you implying if they can't overbook then they'll just magic up the extra money? The airlines that are disorganised will turn away customers and the ones that know what they're doing (by running enough flights to the right places) will pick up the slack. Capitalism at work right there.
---

Those security guards had no place in physically removing a person over a civil dispute

He purchased a ticket and had committed no crime, yet he was treated like a criminal
---

The security guards were heroes who dragged this childish and embarrassing fool out of the poor carpet of the plane. I hope he never gets to board a plane again.
His acting was decent, affecting a lot of easily manipulated passengers who went oh gaaawd oh gaaawd (poor stewardesses who had to deal with these low iq justice warriors who probably went all dramatic)

Go American Airlines!
---

I am going to start using these tactics in my restaurant if it gets too busy. The second we go on a wait I will choose a table at random and drag them out

Erik_P posted...

Troll_Police_ posted...

deoxxys posted...

theres good arguments to both sides of the argument but the final answer is that airlines shouldnt be allowed to overbook.

fuck that shit. let them overbook, and let them lose business. what we SHOULDNT do is over regulate and then bail them out when they fuck up.

Overbooking is technically fraud.

bro, again, read the contract that you are agreeing to when you purchase a ticket from united airlines

actually read it.

it doesnt have a left or right wing skew, so you dont get to claim "oh its just standard conservative lies!"

by buying a ticket from united, you agree to let them bump you if needed.
---

This is like telling an employee that they or you can terminate the employment at any time with or without cause. Fire an employee without cause and you'll still be paying unemployment.

nurlen posted...

This is like telling an employee that they or you can terminate the employment at any time with or without cause. Fire an employee without cause and you'll still be paying unemployment.

looks like someone's never heard of at-will employment

I don't understand why anyone would even be defending the airline. Like "legally, they're allowed to be assholes." OK, even if that's true, why are you taking the asshole's side? "They're legally allowed to do that" doesn't mean they should be doing that.
---

berniepanders posted...

nurlen posted...

This is like telling an employee that they or you can terminate the employment at any time with or without cause. Fire an employee without cause and you'll still be paying unemployment.

looks like someone's never heard of at-will employment

Good god you're being dense.

Troll_Police_ posted...

deoxxys posted...

theres good arguments to both sides of the argument but the final answer is that airlines shouldnt be allowed to overbook.

fuck that shit. let them overbook, and let them lose business. what we SHOULDNT do is over regulate and then bail them out when they fuck up.

Somehow I don't think "Don't sell more tickets than you have seats" is an unreasonable requirement to have. Literally every other industry that handles tickets has managed to grasp this concept; it's only airlines that seem to have trouble. As such, since the free market has failed to correct this flaw, perhaps it's time for regulation to do so instead.

Also worth noting: United is one of the largest airlines in the US, so telling people to "just use another airline" and hope that United changes its tune in response to the loss of business isn't always practical or even possible. If you're on a domestic flight travelling through, say, Houston, there's a >50% chance you're flying United.

Troll_Police_ posted...

bro, again, read the contract that you are agreeing to when you purchase a ticket from united airlines

actually read it.

it doesnt have a left or right wing skew, so you dont get to claim "oh its just standard conservative lies!"

by buying a ticket from united, you agree to let them bump you if needed.

I think you might want to give that contract a read yourself. It's available here:
https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriage.aspx

They're allowed to bump you if they're "overbooked", but they have legally laid out what that term means: "Oversold Flight means 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." If a flight is overbooked by that definition, United is allowed to deny you boarding.

Problem is, that doesn't appear to be what happened here. They didn't deny this guy boarding; they boarded him - well after Check-in - then tried to retroactively tell him to leave. Moreover, the "overbooking" occurred after "the prescribed check-in time" (no airline would willingly begin boarding if they knew the flight was oversold and they would have to ask someone to leave). A strict reading of the relevant clauses suggests that what United did was against their own Contract of Carriage.

I don't pretend to be a legal expert here, but I think there's definitely room for a lawsuit if the guy wants to pursue it.
---

RFC22 posted...

The "doctor" David Dao had his license revoked in 2005 for selling prescriptions for sex. and was illegally prescribing and trafficking pain killers. In 2015, the medical board allowed him to practice internal medicine in an outpatient facility one day a week.

Apparently this was a different doctor. They have very similar names.
https://mobile.twitter.com/search?q=David%20Thanh%20Duc%20Dao%20David%20Anh%20Duy%20Dao&s=09

Even if it were true, it's irrelevant and it doesn't mean it's suddenly okay for him to be assaulted like this.
---

Funny how @Troll_Police_ ain't got shit to say after someone threw his "read the contract" back in his face and proving United broke their own fucking contract.
---