I am sorry, repeating a falsehood doesn't make it any more true than the first time you posted it. The passenger did not give "consent" to be physically assaulted (causing injuries to the head). And it is likely to be proven that the CDA didn't have the right to physically assault him. Its not even clear whether the airline had the right to remove him (physically or otherwise). This will all be proven out in court unless United agrees to settle out of court.
I agree 100% with you. The old 1980's era of managing airlines has got to go. Its a new generation of people, technology, passengers...everything. Some companies still just don't get it. They're stuck in 1988 it seems still and they fail to realize these old practices are what put them into multiple bankruptcies in the first place. Only now, they are essentially too big to fail (as a result of consolidation)
Clear enough to make me very confused by his behavior. Don't put words in my mouth, k thnx. Like I said, we're in the Jackie Chiles stage of this whole thing now. We'll never really know the truth about the extent of his injuries, so it's a pointless exercise.
Why on earth would the attorney get into the specifics of cognitive issues at a press conference? Is it that far fetched that this guy didn't suffer these injuries? You've seen the videos plenty of times I'm sure. Let's not forget this guy is 69 years old. As a PI attorney yourself, would you ever advise your clients to claim injuries that weren't sustained in the accident? Don't have to answer that but as an attorney myself, although not currently practicing, the last thing I would do in this particular case is lie, regardless of how likelihood of it being challenged.
That entirely depends on what you choose to believe. If the hospital physician came out and said he didn't have a broken nose or concussion when he came in, I'd wholeheartedly eat crow. Would you do the same if he came out and said the opposite?
He didn't give his consent to being removed, because they didn't *ask him* if he wanted to be removed. They told him what would happen if he did not comply. To which he responded in kind by telling them what would happen if they tried to remove him. "Let them try to use force. I will (sue) American Airlines." So either this jsingles guy is an enormous simpleton and can't parse this out, or he's trolling.
I'm not insisting or stating that he didn't have these injuries (at least the ones which can be proven -- e.g. busted teeth, concussion), I'm just pointing out that we don't have proof they do exist yet. So, I don't think someone should have to "eat crow" for waiting for evidence of something. Beyond that -- since this is, once again, in the Jackie Chiles stages, I'm going to be skeptical about most anything coming from the doctor's camp now. All the more reason for nobody to get wrapped up in it and play gotcha. It's a fruitless waste of time. I'd encourage everyone to give just as few f***s about the damage control/spin coming out of United, too.
Then why didn't they want to pay a volunteer that had asked for a mere $1600? Cost thousands or cost millions? It's not that hard.
Probably because the person who accepted that $1600 bid would have got their *** chewed out, and maybe even fired, for doing so. The great thing about this incident is that you'll see airlines scared out of their minds about upsetting passengers now for fear of a catastrophic social media firestorm and plummeting stock prices.
One last thing and I'll drop it, what evidence or proof would you like to see? Medical records? Statement from the doctor? You've already insinuated that any medical diagnosis could be from a quack.
Because if they could have predicted it would have turned out this way, they would be doing something completely different. Its one thing to criticize the incident and suggest ways to handle the situation better the next time. Its different to reflect back and pretend the whole scenarios was predictable.
It's not that it's necessarily from a quack (a bad doc), it's just that at this point Dr. Dao has a reason to be injured, and if the injury is falsifiable, you damn well bet that most people would be doing just that. Millions of dollars at stake and so forth. If I'm a lawyer, I call up a dentist who needs/wants some money and tell him there's a very handsome payday in it if he recommends and performs a tooth replacement on my client. Hell, I may just knock the damned teeth out on my own if that's what it takes. As for the head injury, I tell my client exactly what to say/do to be diagnosed with a concussion. Voila, my case is made. Of course that isn't anywhere near necessary, since you just have to tell your client to not show his teeth to anyone or go out and do "i'm totally not concussed" things in public whilst the settlement negotiations are going on. To that end, it would be hard to erase all doubt at this point. A good example might be that if there was some testimony or records from a medical professional (perhaps an EMT on the scene at the airport, or even a police officer) who could attest to Dr. Dao's injuries from that moment forward. Maybe Dr. Dao played this all above board and went straight to the hospital and there are clear records of all of this we can point to. Maybe not. Dr. Dao was on his phone with his lawyer while all of this was going on, so I don't know what type of advice he was giving him after and during this incident. Food for thought.
Maybe you are right that United could legally, involuntarily bump a passenger to fly their partners'/alliances employees', however the National Law Review seems to disagree. You can read their reasoning here from National Law Review : http://www.natlawreview.com/article/united-airlines-dr-dao-and-contract-carriage However, it seems that regardless of whether it was legal, United was just cheap:
It's a customer's right vs corporation's right situation. Some folks on here believe in the power of big business....
Regardless, United went cheap. Maybe evidence will come about that says otherwise, but they didn't offer the maximum compensation allowed by law and apparently no one on that plane knew what the maximum compensation by law was. This is how some big companies play it, maybe you are fine with companies playing it this way but I'm glad this happened so passengers know their maximum right to compensation under the law because of this incident.
Thanks... that article answers a number of questions from the legal point of view. Seems to confirm that the passenger's case is almost airtight. It also illustrates the larger good that will come from this... changes in the policies and contract between airlines and passengers.
But what if he doesn't look like my parents and I hate him and figure he had it coming? YOU CAN'T LET THESE PEOPLE OFF THE HOOK.
Forgot to mention he's a felon... hence deserved it. This thread sure brought out the worst in people. Ugliness.
