Man Dragged off United Airlines/Flight Overbooked, April 2017

[drjones]

The flight was not overbooked. I don't know why UA keeps saying that. It was full. They needed 4 crew members in the destination city at the last minute so they were kicking off paying passengers for crew/employees.

this was something else i wondered about and the CEO of United seemed to confirm in his most recent statement. this should not even have been handled under the overbooking involuntary removal policies, legally i do not think those rules would protect them in this situation.

 

[drjones]

So the definition of the word maximum is now in question??

Wow. Forget contracts and legal rights of the business to hold customers to their contracted agreement. We're all too good to abide by contracts that we enter into now because we might be inconvenienced[emoji849]


I agreed that yes, CAP used excessive force, but the passenger was 100% in the wrong.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

no, not the definition of the word - the context. there is evidence on this thread of airlines offering more, and it doesnt make any sense as a concept that they would be legally forbidden from offering more compensation to a customer. unless you can provide some proof that it is meant that way?

did you read gitana's excellent post about why it was actually United who broke their contract with the customer?

did you hear the United CEO's own admission that what they did was not what they should do and it will not be allowed to happen again?

 

[JanetElaine]

[respectfully snipped by me]
I wonder if this incident here will be the tipping point for us where we demand to be treated humanely regardless of the expense that would cause to corporate airline profits.

RSBM

I sure hope so, but I have my doubts. My family depends on plane travel for a good part (it's just not feasible to cross the Atlantic on any kind of ship every time) and I'm so fed up with it. My anxiety about safety is already greatly exacerbated by all the crap you get put through at airports and on board these days. They really could add a couple of notches of humane treatment.

We had our own situation with United two years ago when my then 16 year old was traveling by herself. Due to weather her plane was diverted and they ended up stuck at an unplanned airport for the night.
She went up to the desk and politely asked for assistance on what to do. The clerk barely looked at her and told her she could get herself a hotel room or sleep somewhere in the airport in a seat. She asked if they could assist her in getting a room and the clerk was very rude and told her she was on her own.

Now in tears, she called me on her cell phone and explained what was going on. She went back in line and when it was her turn again I had her hand over the phone to the clerk. I asked him how he thought a 16 year old was going to rent a hotel room and if he felt comfortable being the one to be responsible for a minor spending the night 'somewhere' in an airport.

He immediately backtracked and said he didn't know she was a minor (he knew, she told him her age) and contacted someone who took her to a special room for minors. Once there, she was fine. She slept on a couch in a supervised, closed off and mostly hidden room, was given food and drink, and was awakened by the people there in time for her flight in the morning.

Probably not the most horrific experience, but I was appalled by the behavior of the United clerk (or whatever the official function was).

A year later, the same darn thing happened and she ended up stuck overnight again. But this time she was flying a different airline (and I can't remember which one, I want to say Delta) and they approached her during deplaning and offered her a stay in the minors' room. Without her having said or done anything.
She gladly accepted (she is a great traveler with a good head on her shoulders, but just did not feel comfortable sleeping in a waiting room).

This year, she's flying by herself again - two transatlantic flights v.v. (so four total) and a domestic round trip. She's now 18. We were about to book the tickets and due to this whole mess have decided to steer clear of United. Any airline can mess up. But when you have such a track record and then descend even further into assault - no thank you.

 

[human]

The flight was not overbooked. I don't know why UA keeps saying that. It was full. They needed 4 crew members in the destination city at the last minute so they were kicking off paying passengers for crew/employees.

But why did they not know that they boarded too many passengers which did not allow for four seats for the crew members?

Why did they not ask for volunteers in the waiting area since they knew they needed four seats?

Makes no sense.

I have been on flights where people are on standby and they are called to get seats while in the waiting area. It is known that seats are available.

Why did they NOT KNOW that the plane was boarded with not enough seats for the crew members!!!

 

[drjones]

Exactly. A few pages back I linked an article of a family of 3 that got 11k from Delta.

i had not seen that, thank you!

 

[LaneGirl]

But why did they not know that they boarded too many passengers which did not allow for four seats for the crew members?

Why did they not ask for volunteers in the waiting area since they knew they needed four seats?

Makes no sense.

I have been on flights where people are on standby and they are called to get seats while in the waiting area. It is known that seats are available.

Why did they NOT KNOW that the plane was boarded with not enough seats for the crew members!!!

So my understanding is the crew came up last minute BUT before the boarding of the plane started. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

That to me is the million dollar question, why board at all until 4 people volunteer to stay back. Im thinking making people sit on a plane without moving would force more to volunteer to get off? idk

 

[KaaBoom]

being on or off the plane is irrelevant....you are technically not "boarded" until the plane is flying

:facepalm: That is your definition only.

v. board·ed, board·ing, boards
v.tr.
1. To cover or close with boards: board up a broken window.
2.
a. To furnish with meals in return for pay.
b. To house where board is furnished: board a horse at a stable.
3.
a. To enter or go aboard (a vehicle or ship).
b. To allow (passengers) on board.

He was allowed to board the plane. He bought a ticket, he boarded (entered) the plane, and took his assigned seat. That is the definition of being boarded. Boarding is completed when all the passengers are on board, not when the plane takes off.

 

[LaneGirl]

http://money.cnn.com/2017/04/11/news/companies/how-much-to-give-up-an-airline-seat/

Delta paying a family 11k after 3 flight delays.

 

[JerseyGirl]

"We're not going to put a law enforcement official ... to remove a booked, paid, seated passenger," said Oscar Munoz. "We can't do that." Munoz said United would be examining its incentive program for volunteers on overbooked flights and that once a passenger is already seated, "your incentive model needs to change."

On Capitol Hill, lawmakers denounced how Dao was treated and called for United to explain the situation.

U.S. Senator Chris Van Hollen announced plans for the Customers Not Cargo Act, which would prohibit the forcible removal of passengers already aboard an aircraft "due to overbooking or airline staff seeking to fly as passengers."

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-ual-passenger-idUSKBN17E1GN

 

[flourish]

This is not just a matter of being inconvenienced. This is a matter of assaulting and battering a paying customer for having the reasonable expectation of traveling on a flight which he had not only paid for, but already been seated upon.

What are we buying when we purchase an airline ticket if not a seat on our flight?

This situation is completely unacceptable. No contract may allow for illegal behavior, such as assault. I'm really just incensed by the amount of defense people are showing for this airline! They are a business who relies on its customers to stay in business. This action was reprehensible and absolutely not part of any contract.

Why does anyone think this is okay to assault a non-violent customer?!?! It's absurd.

If my purchasing an airline ticket doesn't guarantee me a seat, what is the point of buying the ticket exactly? It's totally unreasonable to purchase a ticket and not have it reserve your seat.

And again, they could have offered more incentives and someone would have volunteered eventually.

Ugh.

 

[Elley Mae]

I vote that David Dao get first class seating on all his flights in the futher. Jmo

Free of course.

Sad what happened to him.

 

[KaaBoom]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/united-ceo-oscar-munoz-felt-sham-passenger-dragged/story?id=46746594

3:19 "there was a system fail"
5:00 "to send law enforcement to remove a booked, paid, seated passenger? We can't do that"
5:36 Question: "Do you think he [Dr.] is at fault in any way?"
5:40 "No, He can't be. He was a paying passenger. He was sitting on a seat in our aircraft and no one should be treated that way. Period"

First he commented the actions of the crew and said his employees had "followed established procedures. Now he flip-flops and says it was "It was a system failure," and that they have not provided their employees with the proper procedures. United needs a new CEO.

 

[chlban]

again, i think you are misinterpreting that. it is stating that they are not legally required to compensate more than that, it does not mean that they cannot compensate more than that. many civil penalties are limited in this way, that does not mean it would be illegal for someone to offer more of their own free will.

Exactly. Federal regulation is not going to dictate the amount a company can voluntarily pay for the sake of their reputation.

 

[chlban]

First he commented the actions of the crew and said his employees had "followed established procedures. Now he flip-flops and says it was "It was a system failure," and that they have not provided their employees with the proper procedures. United needs a new CEO.

I expect they will get one but it may be too little too late. They really need to go out of business.

When you have a business assaulting an innocent person for refusing to give up the seat he legally bought and paid for, that should be the final straw. Hopefully, it will also send a message to the rest of the industry.

 

[KaaBoom]

It wasn't a meeting. They were to crew another flight. There are regulations on how flight crews can be transported, how long they can work, etc.. it was a case of bump 4 passengers and compensate them (only legally allowed 400% of ticket cost) or delay or cancel a domino effect of flights for the next few days if crew didn't arrive. So then even more people would be screwed. It's in the contract of carriage that is stipulated when you purchase tickets. Why is this particular guy so above the law? A contract is a contact and binding even if you are ignorant of what it says because you didn't read it. You go to a restaurant where your friends have a reservation, sit down at the table where they're waiting and are asked to leave because you aren't in compliance with their dress code. You leave or are removed. By LE if you were asked and don't comply.

It was United that violated their contractual obligation. They sold him a ticket for a flight, they assigned him a seat and seated him. Then they assaulted him and threw him off the plane. There was no dress code violation. The man did absolutely nothing to justify them throwing him off the plane. United will pay him millions of dollars for their wrongdoing.

 

[human]

They did not know that they had four crew members that needed seats ahead of time!?

I postulate those crew members were for another flight that had problems and United did not want to compensate ALL of those passengers.

We had issues with a different airline where we were to go on a plane that had broken down. I will skip the details, but we got to our next stop a couple days late which made us miss our connecting flights.

It was not with a partner airline. Our cheap airline that we were now going on but could not only flew to our destination one day a week. I had purchased trip onsurance, but because I did not let the cheap airline know within 24 hours, the insurance was void. Now I know.

When I mentioned to the airline that broke down that I would like if they could purchase tickets on their partner airline so I could go on with my trip, they said they could not. I said that I missed my connecting flights because of their breakdown, They said their only obligation was to get me to the city I had booked to.

I said I would pay the tivket price, but I figured they could get a better deal than the thousands I would have to pay for a nirmal few hundred dollar ticket.

Nope!

And that is how it works

 

[LietKynes]

Many years ago now.... I had to get a flight for my friend's wedding. ( I was IN the wedding)
At the airport terminal BEFORE boarding-- an airline employee asked for a volunteer to take a flight later that day or early the next . Not sure who they were bumping for-- but she upped the price a bit and someone accepted.
This was before anyone was even on the plane.

That's how I assumed it was handled.
Until this incident.

This is a s___t storm for United and they need to take measures to see that it doesn't happen again.

Yes, Mr. Dao could've been a compliant, quiet "sheeple" ; and just got up and left.
But he had a right to stay there ; and stuck to his guns.

I'm embarrassed to say I'd have given up and left -- since I dislike confrontation.

No disrespect to Mr. Dao -- but this is somewhat humorous at the expense of United ; " Gee.... you airline employees 'ephed' up , and really chose the wrong person to bully !"

:moo:

 

[KaaBoom]

Except that legally they couldn't. Airlines are only allowed to compensate bumped passengers up to and not exceeding 400% of the ticket price.

Do you have a link for your information? I just Googled it and can't find any such rule.

 

[Hraefn]

being on or off the plane is irrelevant....you are technically not "boarded" until the plane is flying



also another couple of terms the passenger agreed to....



Each United Carrier reserves the right to change or modify any of its conditions of contract with or without notice to ticketed passengers.


how do you get out of that one?


also..........


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.

he is breaking the terms he agreed to by not giving up his seat when told to do so, so they have the right to remove him from the plane


.

In response to this policy language:
Each United Carrier reserves the right to change or modify any of its conditions of contract with or without notice to ticketed passengers.

These are often included in consumer contracts and are almost NEVER upheld by a court when its a business versus consumer situation. There are so many doctrines, common law principles, and UCC provisions that apply here it's difficult to get into it too much.

First is unconscionability. This is from the Restatement (second) of Contracts and is virtually identical to UCC section 2-302 if you are in a UCC state.

§208. UNCONSCIONABLE CONTRACT OR TERM

If a contract or term thereof is unconscionable at the time the contract is made a court may refuse to enforce the contract, or may enforce the remainder of the contract without the unconscionable term, or may so limit the application of any unconscionable term as to avoid any unconscionable result.

There are two types:
Procedural Unconscionability - examples: inconspicuous print, complex legal language, disparity of sophistication, lack of time, imbalance in bargaining power, non-negotiable terms
Substantive Unconscionability - grossly one-sided terms, large disparity between parties rights under the contract

IMO both of these exist in this situation. A contract of adhesion (take it or leave it) can not just say one party has all the rights and the other party agrees by purchasing our product. I know they often DO say that, but legally, they CANNOT be enforced that way.

Not to mention all the other legal contract issues that arise by this clause...one side can not modify a contract without new consideration between the parties; there are notice requirements that cannot be contracted around; the pre-existing duty rule; and even more equitable remedies to prevent injustice.

I know contract language often states broad terms, but that's not how contract law works in reality. Companies try to (and do) bully the little man all the time, but legal remedies are available.

More information on contracts of adhesion and the doctrine of unconscionabily: http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/...law/unconscionability-and-adhesion-contracts/

More on sales contract modification https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/2-209 http://contracts.lawyers.com/contracts-basics/contract-modification.html

More on pre-existing duty rule

a common-law rule of contracts: a party's offer of a performance already required under an existing contract is insufficient consideration for modification of the contract

http://dictionary.findlaw.com/definition/preexisting-duty-rule.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-existing_duty_rule

TLDR: A judge will not uphold a contractual clause that allows one-sided changes or modifications to the contract just because they say they can in the contract and a consumer made a purchase.

And now I remember why I despised taking contract law classes for a year LOL.

 

[Hraefn]

Also, it's kind of hilarious/interesting for me to see everyone's statements here. I have seen actual contract cases come down to defining simple words. I even saw a case where the definition of "it" was debated for months because it was unclear what "it" was referring to. I've seen a contract case come down to use of a comma before. Actually, a comma case was in the news last month http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/15/health/oxford-comma-maine-court-case-trnd/
It's a very very nuanced area of the law.