I'm embarrassed that people can be distracted from the matter at hand by non-sequitur attacks. I'm embarrassed that as a nation customer service is becoming a thing of the past. I will never be embarrassed that people want to see the good in people... even in people who don't deserve it. Then again, I think the guy is probably an ******* (just like you do), I just don't think that's relevant or worth noting passed this point.
That and trumpeting that the story is "over"... when the only reason the debate has perpetuated was the lunacy of those still defending the airlines, after the airlines themselves had long given up the fight. I actually think they'll continue to be bits/pieces till they either announce a monetary settlement, or Munoz' April 30th deadline for "change" comes/goes. Story has already gone well beyond what "they" said it would.
Report: United threatened first-class passenger with handcuffs to leave overbooked flight http://thehill.com/policy/transport...tened-first-class-passenger-with-handcuffs-to
You think it settles? I would think it gets dragged out and goes to a jury trial, then decades later his grandkids become millionaires.
I don't get it either man. Either these guys hate old people. Hate asians. Or just hail corporate with their soul and their firstborn.
On the contrary I think people's past actions dictate the kind of person they are. If this guy has a documented history of breaking federal law, repeatedly, then his actions should come under scrutiny. I'd like to see the good in the person who's job it was, unfortunately, to physically have to remove someone from an airplane who was asked repeatedly to leave.
So which party shoulders the greatest portion of the blame - United or the airport security guards that actually harmed the man?
The biggest name on the ticket will always get the blame ... even if there wasnt 1 United employee on that flight.
But honestly, if the media has incorrectly given the background of the wrong Dr. Dao and falsly been accusing him of being beligerent, they need to correct themselves. That's unfair representation of facts
Imagine a woman falsely telling a cop you stole her purse and then having said cop (we'll call him social media) tackle you.
OK, I imagined, and it had nothing to do with your point. Again, why do you think it matters that the United flight was operated by Republic Airlines?
/http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/united-cites-wrong-rule-for-illegally-de-boarding-passenger/ United Airlines Cites Wrong Rule For Illegally De-Boarding Passenger by John Banzhaf | 7:55 am, April 11th, 2017 In my belief, United Airlines is citing the wrong federal rule to justify its illegal request to force a passenger already boarded and seated to disembark so they could make room for crew members being flown to a new assignment. Under a federal rule [14 CFR 253], commercial airlines are governed by a document known as a “Contract of Carriage” [COC], a legally binding contract which, among other things, protects the legal rights of passengers, and imposes legal duties upon carriers. United’s COC contains two distinct sections: Rule 21 entitled “Refusal of Transport,” and Rule 25 entitled “Denied Boarding Compensation.” In my belief, United Airlines is citing the wrong federal rule to justify its illegal request to force a passenger already boarded and seated to disembark so they could make room for crew members being flown to a new assignment. Under a federal rule [14 CFR 253], commercial airlines are governed by a document known as a “Contract of Carriage” [COC], a legally binding contract which, among other things, protects the legal rights of passengers, and imposes legal duties upon carriers. United’s COC contains two distinct sections: Rule 21 entitled “Refusal of Transport,” and Rule 25 entitled “Denied Boarding Compensation.” United is incorrectly citing the denied boarding compensation rule in its COC, and the federal rule upon which it is based [14 CFR 250.5], to justify requiring a passenger who has already been permitted to board and taken a seat to involuntarily disembark. But that rule, as its title and history clearly establish, applies only if an airline wishes to deny boarding to a passenger, not to remove a passenger who has already boarded an airplane. The current federal rule grew out of a situation in which Ralph Nader was denied the opportunity to board a flight, even though he had a valid ticket. He sued, in a case which went to the U.S. Supreme Court, and it was eventually held that he was entitled to compensation if he was denied boarding. As a direct result, the government adopted a rule which permits a carrier to deny boarding to a ticketed passenger, but only after going through a process of seeking other passengers to give up their seats. United’s Rule 25, as its title clearly implies, applies only to denied boarding. Thus, it uses the word “denied boarding,” and variants such as “deny boarding,” but says nothing about requiring passengers who have already boarded to give up their seats. Indeed, it states in part, using the word “boarding” twice, that: “other passengers may be denied boarding involuntarily in accordance with UA’s boarding priority. Clearly, a “boarding priority” does not include or imply an involuntary removal or refusal of transport. Moreover, under well accepted contract law, any ambiguous term in a contract must be construed against – and in the way least favorable to – the party which drafted it. So, even if United argued that there was some ambiguity in “denied boarding” based upon “boarding priority” – and that it could possibly mean removal based upon a removal priority – a court would be forced to rule against this interpretation because United drafted the contract. This denied boarding rule, and similar rules applying to Great Britain and the European Union, only permit denying boarding, not removing a passenger who has already boarded. The situations under which airlines are permitted to have a passenger who has already been boarded disembark are contained in a completely separate section the United’s COC entitled “Refusal of Transport.” Rule 21, entitled “Refusal of Transport,” is very different because it clearly and expressly covers situations in which a passenger who has already boarded the plane can be removed. It states clearly: “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.” [emphasis added] The rule, which unlike the denied boarding rule does provide for removal “from the aircraft at any point,” lists some two dozen justifications including: unruly behavior, intoxication, inability to fit into one seat, medical problems or concerns, etc. But nowhere in the list of some two dozen reasons is there anything about over booking, the need to free up seats, the need for seats to accommodate crew members to be used on a different flight etc. This is very important because, under accepted legal principles, a law or rule which lists in detail several different factors must be read not to include other factors which were deliberately not included or listed. So, for example, if a rule provides that a license to drive a car may be forfeited by violations of laws governing speeding, intoxication, reckless driving, or driving without a license, it cannot be read to also permit license revocation for parking violations, or for having a burned out license plate illumination light. In this case, the failure to include over booking, or the need for additional seats, in a long list of justifications for removing a passenger “from the aircraft at any point” means that passengers may not be removed for these non-listed reasons. The conclusion is further reinforced by the fact that there is a completely separate section of United’s COC which does deal expressly with the need for additional seats, but it provides that the concern must be dealt with by preventing passengers from boarding, not ejecting them once they have boarded. United also seems to suggest not only that the denied boarding justification applies to ordering an already boarded passenger to give up its seat, but that the carrier did all that it could under the rule to deal with its need to accommodate additional crew members as passengers. But in asking other passengers, as required by law, to give up their seats for monetary compensation, United offered far less than the minimum specified by the federal rule. It also, although it clearly and legally could have done so, refused to offer more – although the Washington Post recently explained how airlines will sometimes offer passengers thousands of dollars to give up their seats. Finally, it appears that United is seeking to blame the passenger, claiming that when asked to give up his seat, he acted belligerently – and citing a rule which requires that passengers obey the orders of the flight crew. But, such a requirement applies only to orders which are lawful. If, for example, the flight crew had ordered two passengers to fight each other for the amusement of the other passengers, or to take off all their clothing, the passengers would not be required to comply, and their forceful removal could not be based upon refusing to follow unlawful orders. Once someone in possession of a valid ticket has been seated – whether on an airplane, a train or bus, or at the symphony – he cannot be ordered to give up that which he has a valid contractual right to enjoy, simply because his seat is needed for someone else. While it is of course permissible to remove a seated person is such a situation for unruly behavior, drunkenness, to deal with a medical emergency, etc. – as spelled out here in United’s Rule 21 – simple over booking can only be dealt with by denying boarding originally, pursuant to United’s Rule 25. John F. Banzhaf III is a professor of public interest law at the George Washington University Law School. This is an opinion piece. The views expressed in this article are those of just the author.
United had nothing to do with the situation...it was a republic airways plane owned by united leased to republic airways flown by a republic airways crew dba united express, with a republic airways crew scheduler trying to deadhead another republic airways crew to louisville to man another republic airways plane. Why no republic airways hate? The answer: theyre not a mega corp like United. Everyone wants to watch the world burn and the mighty fall. The vitriol on social media is overboard. I cant possibly advocate for the destruction of a company who is solely responsible for 100k+ jobs worldwide when an overzealous rental cop loses his cool.
