Fly the Friendly Skies of United

[Renegade]

Nope, at that point he was "Interfering With a Flight Crew", which is a criminal offense.

That has nothing to do with whether United violated the Terms Of Carriage.

Under the TOC, a lawfully seated passenger can only be evicted for a set number of reasons. The gate agent wanting to give seat to someone else is not one of them.

 

[AustinN4]

Under the TOC, a lawfully seated passenger can only be evicted for a set number of reasons. The gate agent wanting to give seat to someone else is not one of them.

Link?

 

[Coiled]

To all,


Always obey every word PoPo says cuz he (OR she) is right, ALWAYS. After all, that IS the mindset this country was founded on.

Furthermore and addictionally, THIS thread should have been titled °Fun topic° haha.


Yours,
ole futzenburger

 

[Renegade]

Link?

https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriage.aspx#sec21

This is just one of many aviation attorneys sounding off in this respect. The key thing is he was already lawfully seated as directed by the gate agent. Had he still been in the departure lounge, different rules.

“I want to assure United Airlines they had absolutely no right to remove that man from the airplane. Absolutely no right to forcibly remove him from an airplane. They’re in trouble.” According to Wolk, airlines can deny you a seat, but once you’re on board that’s a different story.
http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2017/04/11/aviation-attorney-on-united/

 

[zincwarrior]

but can they then sick the PoPo on you?

 

[Renegade]

but can they then sick the PoPo on you?

And we can devalue their stock by half a billion dollars in one morning. Wonder if they want to keep playing this game, who will cry uncle first?

 

[AustinN4]

https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriage.aspx#sec21

Sorry, I already had that link. I should have asked the appropriate citation within that long winded Contract of Carriage.

 

[majormadmax]

A good read...

http://lifehacker.com/if-your-flight-is-overbooked-dont-volunteer-to-get-bum-1722036179

Inasmuch as this is a PR disaster for United, anyone understanding the facts behind this incident knows the passenger was in the wrong. But Americans don't like to make decisions on facts, they'd rather do so on emotions; so I suspect this guy will settle for a nice tidy sum before this ever reaches civil court!

Of course, if United really wanted to, they could press criminal charges against him. Despite some people's opinion, the airline had every right to remove him from the flight and when he failed to leave, the police had every right to forcibly remove him. Ask. Tell. Make.

 

[Renegade]

Despite some people's opinion, the airline had every right to remove him from the flight and when he failed to leave, the police had every right to forcibly remove him. Ask. Tell. Make.

No the airline does not have every right to remove him. Airline travel is subject to Terms of Carriage, as well as many other laws. This is not like kicking a trespasser of your backyard. It is actually quite complicated, hence why they started with offers of a voucher for future travel.

Pressing charges against him is doubling down on stupid. UAL needs to make this go away ASAP.

 

[Renegade]

A good read...

http://lifehacker.com/if-your-flight-is-overbooked-dont-volunteer-to-get-bum-1722036179

Link is irrelevant as this was not an overbook.

 

[BRD@66]

.... UAL needs to make this go away ASAP.

Probably too late. An offer of $8000 (instead of $800) plus hotel is gonna seem cheap by the time they're done.

 

[zincwarrior]

A good read...

http://lifehacker.com/if-your-flight-is-overbooked-dont-volunteer-to-get-bum-1722036179

Inasmuch as this is a PR disaster for United, anyone understanding the facts behind this incident knows the passenger was in the wrong. But Americans don't like to make decisions on facts, they'd rather do so on emotions; so I suspect this guy will settle for a nice tidy sum before this ever reaches civil court!

Of course, if United really wanted to, they could press criminal charges against him. Despite some people's opinion, the airline had every right to remove him from the flight and when he failed to leave, the police had every right to forcibly remove him. Ask. Tell. Make.

How on earth is the passenger in the wrong? The passenger was legally minding his business and fulfilled the terms of his contract. Per the contract once boarded he couldn't be pulled.

Everything that happened is a direct results of United intentional actions. The passenger should have gotten up with the PoPo, but everything leading to that and resulting from that came from United's intentional acts.

 

[AustinN4]

Per the contract once boarded he couldn't be pulled.

Please, someone, show the the actual language that proves this to be true. I can't find it.

 

[Renegade]

Please, someone, show the the actual language that proves this to be true. I can't find it.

I did. Here it is quoted, so you do not have to follow the link. They are 8 reasons UAL can deny you transport. Denial because we want to give your seat to someone else, is not one of them. This is not that hard. They screwed up. I am shocked they have not already updated the TOC/21 with rules for "must-ride".

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:

• Breach of Contract of Carriage – Failure by Passenger to comply with the Rules of the Contract of Carriage.
• 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.
• 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.
• Search of Passenger or Property – Whenever a Passenger refuses to submit to electronic surveillance or to permit search of his/her person or property.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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).

 

[zincwarrior]

#21 terms of service. Its already in the thread. Even if that wasn't there, the passenger didn't do anything wrong. He had completed the terms of his contract and was adding by proper behavior when United F&^%d with him, and then thought it would be a good idea to sick the PoPo on their own customer.

Now once the PoPo showed, sure he should have complied. But there wouldn't have been anything at issue if United hadn't consistently acted epically bad.

 

[AustinN4]

Deleted, saw zinc's first, then Renegade's later.

 

[Renegade]

UA CEO is now going for 3rd try at apology:

http://money.cnn.com/2017/04/11/news/companies/united-munoz-apology/

United Airlines CEO Oscar Munoz apologized for the forcible removal of a paying passenger from one of its flights and called the episode "truly horrific."

Munoz pledged a full review by April 30 "to fix what's broken so this never happens again."
"I want you to know that we take full responsibility and we will work to make it right," Munoz said in a statement on Tuesday. "I promise you we will do better."
It was his third attempt to quell growing outrage after a passenger was removed, bloodied and screaming, from a flight that was to take off from Chicago for Louisville, Kentucky. United(UAL) wanted to give seats to commuting crew members.

In his first statement, Munoz apologized for "having to re-accommodate these customers." In his second statement, he described the passenger as "disruptive and belligerent."

 

[Darkpriest667]

Dammit I wish I was a lawyer some days, I wonder how many are lining up to represent this guy.


What do y'all think the over/under is on the settlement? I'm guessing 20 million.

 

[AustinN4]

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:

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.

**********************************************************************

I can see United using the Force Majeure and Other Unforeseeable Conditions defense:

force ma·jeure
fôrs mäˈZHər/
noun
1. unforeseeable circumstances that prevent someone from fulfilling a contract.

UAL will claim they did not plan to have to move that flight crew to Louisville and it was an unforeseen circumstance that day.

That said, I am not sure they will prevail if there were other reasonable ways to get that crew there within the necessary timeframe, which I don't believe any of us know the answer to and may never.

And it may not even matter as long as the need was unforeseen by UAL. But they surely could have handled it better.

 

[Renegade]

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:

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.

**********************************************************************

I can see United using the Force Majeure and Other Unforeseeable Conditions defense:

force ma·jeure
fôrs mäˈZHər/
noun
1. unforeseeable circumstances that prevent someone from fulfilling a contract.

UAL will claim they did not plan to have to move that flight crew to Louisville and it was an unforeseen circumstance that day.

That said, I am not sure they will prevail if there were other reasonable ways to get that crew there within the necessary timeframe, which I don't believe any of us know the answer to and may never.

And it may not even matter as long as the need was unforeseen by UAL. But they surely could have handled it better.

I do not think they are going to defend their actions anymore. They seem to be realizing that is a losing battle.

But I agree that is the section they would cite. but when it is point out that NO acts of God, force majeure, strikes, civil commotions, embargoes, wars, hostilities, terrorist activities, or disturbances, whether actual, threatened, or reported took place, they would only look stupid again.