This United thing becomes even more bizarre

[PSPS]

The guy they beat and dragged off was removed to make room for a United employee who paid nothing for the seat.

From: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-ual-passenger-shares-idUSKBN17D1L7

United Airlines and its chief executive faced mounting pressure on Tuesday from a worldwide backlash over its treatment of a passenger who was dragged from his seat on a plane on Sunday to make room for four employees on the overbooked flight.

And this from http://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/united-airlines-promised-federal-regulators-all-ticketed-passengers-are-guaranteed

Less than three years before a passenger was forcibly removed from one of its aircrafts, United Airlines assured federal regulators that all ticketed passengers are guaranteed seats on flights. The promise was delivered in federal filings reviewed by International Business Times.

[Warpy]

1. First, the flight was not overbooked.

The four employees showed up late and weren't needed immediately, they needed to be there the next day.

The plane had already been boarded, meaning everybody on board had a reasonable expectation to keep the seat. Having somebody voluntold and then muscled off the plane after it has been boarded in the absence of gross misbehavior by said passenger is unheard of. Their own rules say they need to voluntell passengers to wait for the next flight before the plane is boarded.

There is going to be a lawsuit over this one and it will be a doozy. It should cost them enough that putting employees on another carrier's flight if the United flight has been boarded will look like a bargain.

And the doctor is still in the hospital. Beating the crap out of a 69 year old Asian man is going to get very expensive.

[Dem2]

2. Good summary

I do hope this is a very expensive learning experience for them.

[C Moon]

5. It's a corporation, they'll just off the losses onto their loyal customers.

[rpannier]

4. Backlash in China and Vietnam

It's a big deal on Weibo and they are not happy

[Warpy]

23. Tell them it hasn't exactly pleased any of us, either

[athena]

20. Wow. I didn't know the employees had until the next day to get there.

We've had authoritative types here state authoritatively that the reason the employees couldn't be driven there was that they wouldn't get the required number of rest hours ... or something like that.

Just goes to show how easily some people make things up, and how convincing they can be when they state their lies with absolute conviction and authority.

[PoiBoy]

3. I suspect that this case will go straight to settlement...

I can't see United even trying to challenge this situation in court.

Here's a very comprehensive opinion explaining the case using United's own COC, or Contract of Carriage.

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/united-cites-wrong-rule-for-illegally-de-boarding-passenger/

Rule 25: “Denied Boarding Compensation”
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: “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.

To summarize... Rule 25 states that once the passenger's butt hits the seat, the contract is in place and cannot be violated by the carrier... If they are going to bump, it has to be at the gate, not on the plane...

Rule 21 lists very specific reasons for removal from the aircraft.. non-compliance or not obeying an illegal order is no good reason for removing anyone from the flight...

The gate crew messed up big time, and the CEO made it worse... United's stock has tanked, if even for a day is reflecting a loss in the ballpark of $1 billion dollars, not including the loss of potential investors from China, and the horrific PR blowout... I'd be surprised if this CEO keeps his job, IMO...

More at the link... this is only an opinion but a good read nonetheless...

[meadowlander]

6. If they have any brains at all,

they'll throw money at him until he goes away.

Dragging it through the courts is only going to keep the video in the news for months.

On the other hand, they were stupid enough to beat the living shit out of a paying customer for no reason, so I don't think we can rely on common sense to predict their course of action.

[oberliner]

8. He's won hundreds of thousands of dollars playing poker

He isn't going away.

[former9thward]

15. Now that his past has come out I wonder how that will play out.

[oberliner]

17. I predict he will get paid handsomely

And I think he has every right to sue.

[JTFrog]

21. It's fucking irrelevant is how that will play out. nt

[former9thward]

25. Irrelevant to you, not to a U.S. court.

Having said that it will never be in court. It is a PR mess for United so they will settle it out of court.

[tazkcmo]

27. Not his past.

But thanks anyway.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/united-airlines-doctor-david-dao-drugs-gay-sex-court-documents-oscar-munoz-a7680221.html

[Warpy]

24. Their own rules specify bumping passengers before boarding

You're right, they're going to do everything they can to settle, preferably with a gag order attached.

[Hortensis]

7. Authoritarianism amok, acting out against their own clients

is the big issue here for me. Authoritarianism has been on the rise in business of course, as well as politics, but most obvious in oppression of employees, exploitation legal and illegal ("because we can they deserve it" attitude), and a full range of abuses.

[AngryAmish]

9. It was not a United flight and it was a Chicago cop beat the hell out of the doc

Republic Airline, United code share. Not a single United employee involved.

[DrDan]

10. yet the UA CEO apologizes - go figure

[dalton99a]

13. +1

[jberryhill]

26. It would have been much better for UA to express their shock at what their non-employees did

For example, if I saw someone out in my yard and called the police out of concern, and then the police come and beat the crap out of my neighbor's kid who was strolling around at night, I wouldn't take responsibility for what the police did by apologizing for it.

They had the opportunity to distance themselves from what someone else did. Why they took the course they did is really, really weird.

[LisaL]

11. What are you talking about?

"United Express Flight 3411 hadn't left O'Hare International Airport in Chicago on its way to Louisville when the incident occurred."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/04/11/teacher-aboard-united-flight-removed-students/100327772/

[AngryAmish]

12. United Express ≠ United

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Express

Republic Air flies the Chicago to Louisville leg. Think about it like Blue Cross, a brand that sells the use of it's trademarks to 37 regional insurance companies. Some of those companies have non blue Cross health insurance business as well.

So CEO of UAL also is CEO of United Express, which only exists on paper. He tried, badly, to protect the United Express brand. That is why his email to United employees was so discordant. The United employees had nothing to do with this.

But oh the stupid outrage.

[eShirl]

14. "United Express is the brand name for the regional branch of United Airlines, "

United Express is the brand name for the regional branch of United Airlines, under which nine individually owned regional airlines operate short and medium haul feeder flights.

Hm.

[LisaL]

16. Well, exactly.

[JTFrog]

22. HERP, DERP! nt

[tazkcmo]

28. Not a single one!!!

Except the CEO for United Airlines.

[mainer]

18. "all ticketed passengers guaranteed seats on flights."

UAL's probable response? "But not on the same day, the same week, or the same year! It's just a seat! SOMETIME!"

[randome]

19. "guaranteed seats on flights" does not mean one specific airplane.

What if there was a mechanical malfunction? What if a tornado showed up to cancel the flight? Obviously "guaranteed seats on flights" means "a" flight is guaranteed, not one specific airplane at one specific time.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A 90% chance of rain means the same as a 10% chance:
It might rain and it might not.[/center][/font][hr]