Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
4 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
"United passenger lawyers up, will likely re-accommodate airline..." (Original Post) madaboutharry Apr 2017 OP
Dao has all the points in his favor. United? Not so much. This should be interesting. n/t CaliforniaPeggy Apr 2017 #1
I also think everyone on the flight Sculpin Beauregard Apr 2017 #2
Can not even imagine the Wellstone ruled Apr 2017 #3
"Corporate jackboots and Internet lawyers" need to read that article. Renew Deal Apr 2017 #4

Sculpin Beauregard

(1,046 posts)
2. I also think everyone on the flight
Wed Apr 12, 2017, 08:21 PM
Apr 2017

should pursue a class-action for trauma from being forced to witness a fellow citizen being savaged and being helpless to intervene.

Renew Deal

(81,866 posts)
4. "Corporate jackboots and Internet lawyers" need to read that article.
Wed Apr 12, 2017, 09:04 PM
Apr 2017
George Washington law professor John Banzhaf has a pretty neat argument about United’s liability. Defenders of corporate jackboots and internet lawyers everywhere have been quick to refer to the Contract of Carriage. Technically, you agree to this every time you buy an airline ticket. United’s defenders say that rule 25, “Denied Boarding Compensation,” allowed United to refuse to honor Dao’s ticket in an overbooking situation.

Which it does.

But Professor Banzhaf points out that Dao wasn’t “denied boarding.” As George Carlin might say, he wasn’t on the plane, he was “in” the plane. At that point, rule 21, “Refusal of Transport,” should apply to Dao, not rule 25. Banzhaf writes:

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…

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.
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»"United passenger lawyers...