United Airlines

[Jay Bee]

Would it be less bad if he were a married man w multiple kids who fondles patients, commits felonies to bang women, etc.?

Methinks you're trying way too hard to convince everyone you have a distaste for homosexuality.

Methinks you're dreaming up stuff. The media wants to portray the felon as a family man, married with successful kids.

So if we're going there, let's be accurate.

He's an incredibly aggressive, man hungry, drug dealing felon. 

[real chili 83]

Methinks you're dreaming up stuff. The media wants to portray the felon as a family man, married with successful kids.

So if we're going there, let's be accurate.

He's an incredibly aggressive, man hungry, drug dealing felon.

And he has no respect for police.

[GooooMarquette]

Clearly you know nothing about being a plaintiff's attorney

Ok, so some multiply the estimate by 20....

[rocket surgeon]

 "You still get the yellow pages?"

  just keep a few around so the little ones can sit at the table with the big people and hear our sex, politics and religious arguments.  you know, the stuf we ain't supposed to talk about at family dinners

[rocket surgeon]

So you're taking the under, too.   I get it.   You are a doctor.  (ish )   Malpractice and big jury awards create a Pavlovian response in you.    But the man is going to get paid.    And I honestly think it will be low 8 figures.

what i'd take or what do i think he'll get?  he should get the under, but i can imagine the jury is going to be going thru a few boxes of kleenex here and while they're at it,  might as well milk the free room in downtown city of big shoulders and all the gibson's ya care to eat, ein'ner?  and then hand mr.or is it dr d a winner winner chicken dinner

[#UnleashSean]

Methinks you're dreaming up stuff. The media wants to portray the felon as a family man, married with successful kids.

So if we're going there, let's be accurate.

He's an incredibly aggressive, man hungry, drug dealing felon.

I don't understand your obsession with him being a felon. He served his sentence got his medical license back and has been clean since.

Why do you care about this so much?

[Tugg Speedman]

United is just one screw up after another.  According to this story, they had another one.

The reason this happens is United natural state is to do what is in their best interest without regard for the customer.  Customer are nothing but cattle to be herded up and slaughtered .... and beaten if they get in the way of profits.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/04/13/news/companies/united-airlines-passenger-vouchers/index.html?sr=twcnni041417united-airlines-passenger-vouchers0450AMVODtopLink&linkId=36504923

A United spokesperson says that "all customers" on the flight will get compensation for "the cost of their tickets."

A United (UAL) email provided to CNN by a passenger on the flight says customers are eligible for vouchers toward future flights if they "release" the airline from lawsuits. The email offered a voucher worth $500.

A United spokesperson later told CNN that it did not mean to send passengers emails with the "release" language in them and said no Flight 3411 passenger would have to agree to such terms.

[4everwarriors]

Doc, please give us your estimate and factor in Chicagoland pricing, if you think there's a significant geographic difference from your practice.

Assumin' he's a suitable candidate utterwise, I'd opt to place a couple of dental implants. Between da oral surgeon's fee and mine, probably lookin' at $10-12k minimum. If ya can hook me up wit dis gig, I'd be much obliged, hey?

[Dr. Blackheart]

The hits just keep on coming for United...this time by a scorpion.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/united-passenger-stung-by-scorpion-while-eating-dinner-on-flight/

[GooooMarquette]

The hits just keep on coming for United...this time by a scorpion.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/united-passenger-stung-by-scorpion-while-eating-dinner-on-flight/

Wonder if they made room for the scorpion by "re-accommodating" a paying passenger.

[#UnleashSean]

United is just one screw up after another.  According to this story, they had another one.

The reason this happens is United natural state is to do what is in their best interest without regard for the customer.  Customer are nothing but cattle to be herded up and slaughtered .... and beaten if they get in the way of profits.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/04/13/news/companies/united-airlines-passenger-vouchers/index.html?sr=twcnni041417united-airlines-passenger-vouchers0450AMVODtopLink&linkId=36504923

A United spokesperson says that "all customers" on the flight will get compensation for "the cost of their tickets."

A United (UAL) email provided to CNN by a passenger on the flight says customers are eligible for vouchers toward future flights if they "release" the airline from lawsuits. The email offered a voucher worth $500.

A United spokesperson later told CNN that it did not mean to send passengers emails with the "release" language in them and said no Flight 3411 passenger would have to agree to such terms.

You think they couldn't possibly dig themselves a deeper hole. But then they continue to do so.... IF they would just shut up, give out a CASH refund this would all just go away in a few days...

[rocket surgeon]

Assumin' he's a suitable candidate utterwise, I'd opt to place a couple of dental implants. Between da oral surgeon's fee and mine, probably lookin' at $10-12k minimum. If ya can hook me up wit dis gig, I'd be much obliged, hey?

what??  no seasoned citizen discount?  i kinda think cash won't be much of a problem for dr. d, but just hold off on prescribing him any pain meds post surgery, eeeen'a?

[reinko]

And he has no respect for police.

Those weren't police officers.

[B. McBannerson]

Dish, I'm no apologist for the airlines. God knows, I've been sh*t on enough by all of the major carriers to write a book. I travel a lot and I see the best and worst of them.

You have the airline system you want. Once upon a time, airlines provided customer service. Coach seats were more comfortable and had more leg room. Food was at least edible and it came with the ticket in both first class and coach. Flight attendants were, well, attentive and there was open seats more often than not so that incidents like Sunday's didn't happen.

But you want cheap airfare. You want the $99 round-trip from ORD to LGA. Your corporate travel department would strap you to a wing if they thought they could save $5.00. You get your airfare but with it comes the end of the personal service. You pay for baggage, bad food, preferable seats and God knows what else because it is a cat and mouse game to the bottom between the airline that has to serve shareholders and customers who think Spirit Airlines is the next great thing.

Amid all this comes margin squeeze. It means there are far fewer people who are equipped to make decisions. It means lines are long, people are short and training sucks. But the fact remains that the three legacy carriers move between 400,000 and 500,000 persons a day globally. And they have to do so on razor thin margins that are sensitive to everything from a small change in oil prices to slight upticks in interest rates. Oh, and don't forget some of the toughest and most important safety regulations in the world affect the airline industry. For despite it all, this is a pretty heavily regulated industry and with good reason. We've haven't had a serious airline accident in the United States in several years. The last one I recall was when a Korean Airlines jet missed the runway at SFO because of an inexperienced pilot.

I'm sure some dunderhead at Uber, Lyft or even Amtrak thinks they can do a better job. And I'm sure things will evolve in time. But the operation of a modern airline is a just a bit more sophisticated than putting a couple of cars driven by housewives on the streets of Monterrey, CA.

Could not have said it better.

[Tugg Speedman]

https://www.brandwatch.com/blog/react-united-airlines-overbooked/

On 26th March, when “LeggingsGate” saw United Airlines hitting the headlines, we tracked around 135k mentions of the brand in one day across Facebook, Twitter and Instagram. On the 10th of April, as the footage circulated around the internet, the brand was mentioned over 1.5 million times. Comparing the two peaks (#leggingsgate on 26th March and April 10th’s spike), there were around 1000% more mentions.



United had enjoyed a couple of days with an overwhelmingly positive sentiment – April 8th and 9th saw more than 91% of all sentiment-categorized mentions register as positive. The positivity stemmed from a tweet where United offered a free flight to the individual currently seeking 18 million retweets to get Wendy’s chicken nuggets free for a year.

However, the 10th April saw 69% of mentions categorized as negative, driven by the story surrounding the passenger being removed from the plane.

[Tugg Speedman]

http://www.natlawreview.com/article/united-airlines-dr-dao-and-contract-carriage

Pundits have by and large argued that United was within its legal right to forcibly remove Dr. Dao from flight 3411 under the terms and conditions of United Airlines contract of carriage.  A closer look at the contract for carriage itself, leads me to conclude that this is not the case.  Two rules in the contract for carriage are particularly relevant to this discussion - Rule 21 and Rule 25.  United Airlines Contract of Carriage Rule 21 deals with “Refusal of Transport”[ii] and Rule 25 addresses “Denied Boarding Compensation”. [iii] 

...

The problem that United faces is that, it appears, they breached their own Carriage Contract.  Dr. Dao was not denied boarding.  United should have, as most carriers do, taken care of the oversold situation before boarding passengers.  Once boarded, UA’s own contract controls with respect to why a passenger can be removed from a plane and being oversold is not a stated reason.

It has been argued that ‘boarding’ includes being seated on the plane while the plane is still at the gate.  As boarding is not defined in the contract, and when read in conjunction with Rule 21 which uses the language ‘remove from the aircraft’, there is at best ambiguity and as anyone who has studied contracts knows – ambiguity is construed against the drafter.

It would appear after analyzing the Contract of Carriage that United was not within their right to have Dr. Dao forcibly removed.   

This ultimately leads to an analysis of the limitation of liability clause.  This too should fail.  The limitation of liability should be restricted to instances where there was a denial of boarding.   Nothing in United’s limitation of liability should apply to Dr. Dao’s inevitable myriad of claims associated with his forcible removal from the plane.

[Babybluejeans]

Could not have said it better.

Surely one of your 22 aliases could have said it better.

[Tugg Speedman]

http://www.dorfonlaw.org/2017/04/united-airlines-own-contract-denied-it.html

However, Dao was not denied boarding. Dao was granted boarding, and then subsequently involuntarily deplaned, which is not the same thing.

To understand the difference, it is important to review the facts of the case. This summary is drawn from press reports in major newspapers. It appears that Dao had a valid ticket. He presented his ticket to the gate agent, who accepted the ticket, scanned it, and granted him access to the causeway and the airplane. Because he was granted boarding, Dao walked onto the aircraft and took his seat. Only later, after he and the other passengers were in their seats, did a representative come onto the plane and explain that four seats would need to be surrendered to make room for four United Airlines employees who needed to get to Louisville. After no passengers accepted financial incentives to voluntarily relinquish seats, four seated passengers—including Dao—were told to leave. Dao refused.

Like all airlines, United has a very specific (and lengthy!) contract for carriage outlining the contractual relationship between the airline and the passenger. It includes a familiar set of provisions for when a passenger may be denied boarding (Rule 25 “Denied Boarding Compensation”). When a flight is oversold, UA can deny boarding to some passengers, who then receive compensation under specific guidelines. However, Dao was not denied boarding. He was granted boarding and then involuntarily removed from the airplane. What does the contract say about that?

It turns out that the contract has a specific rule regarding “Refusal of Transport” (Rule 21), which lays out the conditions under which a passenger can be removed and refused transport on the aircraft. This includes situations where passengers act in a “disorderly, offensive, abusive, or violent” manner, refuse to comply with the smoking policy, are barefoot or “not properly clothed,” as well as many other situations. There is absolutely no provision for deplaning a seated passenger because the flight is oversold.

An added complication here is that the flight wasn’t even oversold. The contract defines an oversold flight as “a flight where there are more Passengers holding valid confirmed Tickets that check-in for the flight within the prescribed check-in time than there are available seats.” In this case, the airline attempted to remove seated passengers to make room for airline staff requiring transport to another airport, not because it had sold more tickets than there were seats available. In any event, this point is largely moot, because neither employee transportation nor oversold situations is listed as among the reasons that a passenger may be refused transport.

One might argue that Dao had not completed “boarding” until the cabin door was closed. This argument would be wrong. The term “boarding” is not defined in the definition section of the contract, and absent an explicit definition in the contract, terms are to be afforded their plain meaning. “Boarding” means that the passenger presents a boarding pass to the gate agent who accepts or scans the pass and permits entry through the gate to the airplane, allowing the passenger to enter the aircraft and take a seat.

It is possible in this regard to distinguish between the collective completion of the plane’s boarding process, which is not complete until all passengers have boarded and the cabin door is closed. But that is different from each passenger’s boarding, which is complete for each individual once he or she has been accepted for transportation by the gate agent and proceeded to the aircraft and taken his or her assigned seat.

Bottom line is that if the airline wants to bump you from the aircraft, it must deny you boarding. After the crew grant you boarding, the number of conditions under which they may deplane you substantially decreases. In this case, United Airlines made the mistake of boarding all passengers and then trying to find space for additional crew. The airline should bear the burden of this mistake, not the passengers who successfully boarded the plane.  If the airline doesn’t like this, it should have written a different contract.

Might the airline argue that it had the right to refuse transport because Dao was “disorderly, offensive, abusive, or violent” (Rule 21H1) or causing a “disturbance” (Rule 21H4)?  Although this depends on the facts, news reports suggest that Dao was not upset, and was minding his own business, until he was told that he was being involuntarily removed and he was dragged kicking and screaming from the aircraft. His being upset was caused by United Airline’s breach of its contractual duties towards him as a passenger, rather than the reverse.

The last aspect of this case – the most disturbing one – is the level of force used by the police officers. Based on the videos, most observers have concluded that the force was excessive and unnecessary given the circumstances. A deeper issue is whether the police had the authority to remove Dao in the first instance once United Airlines declared him persona non grata and asked the police to treat him as a trespasser. Presumably the police had the authority to remove him (but only with an appropriate level of force), but even so, there is a plausible argument that Dao’s injuries and damages suffered during that process were caused by the airline’s breach of contract, which specifically defines the circumstances when it can refuse transport, none of which applied in this case.
In some situations, a contractual dispute and a trespassing dispute should be kept separate. Say you hire a painter to paint the inside of your house. You refuse to pay and so the painter says, “I’m not leaving until you pay me.” When the painter refuses to leave, you call the police and ask them to remove him because he is trespassing. The proper resolution is that the painter must leave but can sue you for breach of contract.

That may be so, but in that case, the painter’s refusal to leave is incidental to the object and purpose of the contract, which is to paint the house, not stay in your house. In contrast, the object and purpose of the contract of carriage is, among other things, to require the airline to transport the passenger from location A to location B aboard aircraft C. Being on the aircraft is the whole point of the contract, and it specifically lists the situations when the airline may deny transport to a ticketed customer. Since the airline did not comply with those requirements, it should be liable for the damages associated with their breach.

[Herman Cain]

http://www.dorfonlaw.org/2017/04/united-airlines-own-contract-denied-it.html

However, Dao was not denied boarding. Dao was granted boarding, and then subsequently involuntarily deplaned, which is not the same thing.

To understand the difference, it is important to review the facts of the case. This summary is drawn from press reports in major newspapers. It appears that Dao had a valid ticket. He presented his ticket to the gate agent, who accepted the ticket, scanned it, and granted him access to the causeway and the airplane. Because he was granted boarding, Dao walked onto the aircraft and took his seat. Only later, after he and the other passengers were in their seats, did a representative come onto the plane and explain that four seats would need to be surrendered to make room for four United Airlines employees who needed to get to Louisville. After no passengers accepted financial incentives to voluntarily relinquish seats, four seated passengers—including Dao—were told to leave. Dao refused.

Like all airlines, United has a very specific (and lengthy!) contract for carriage outlining the contractual relationship between the airline and the passenger. It includes a familiar set of provisions for when a passenger may be denied boarding (Rule 25 “Denied Boarding Compensation”). When a flight is oversold, UA can deny boarding to some passengers, who then receive compensation under specific guidelines. However, Dao was not denied boarding. He was granted boarding and then involuntarily removed from the airplane. What does the contract say about that?

It turns out that the contract has a specific rule regarding “Refusal of Transport” (Rule 21), which lays out the conditions under which a passenger can be removed and refused transport on the aircraft. This includes situations where passengers act in a “disorderly, offensive, abusive, or violent” manner, refuse to comply with the smoking policy, are barefoot or “not properly clothed,” as well as many other situations. There is absolutely no provision for deplaning a seated passenger because the flight is oversold.

An added complication here is that the flight wasn’t even oversold. The contract defines an oversold flight as “a flight where there are more Passengers holding valid confirmed Tickets that check-in for the flight within the prescribed check-in time than there are available seats.” In this case, the airline attempted to remove seated passengers to make room for airline staff requiring transport to another airport, not because it had sold more tickets than there were seats available. In any event, this point is largely moot, because neither employee transportation nor oversold situations is listed as among the reasons that a passenger may be refused transport.

One might argue that Dao had not completed “boarding” until the cabin door was closed. This argument would be wrong. The term “boarding” is not defined in the definition section of the contract, and absent an explicit definition in the contract, terms are to be afforded their plain meaning. “Boarding” means that the passenger presents a boarding pass to the gate agent who accepts or scans the pass and permits entry through the gate to the airplane, allowing the passenger to enter the aircraft and take a seat.

It is possible in this regard to distinguish between the collective completion of the plane’s boarding process, which is not complete until all passengers have boarded and the cabin door is closed. But that is different from each passenger’s boarding, which is complete for each individual once he or she has been accepted for transportation by the gate agent and proceeded to the aircraft and taken his or her assigned seat.

Bottom line is that if the airline wants to bump you from the aircraft, it must deny you boarding. After the crew grant you boarding, the number of conditions under which they may deplane you substantially decreases. In this case, United Airlines made the mistake of boarding all passengers and then trying to find space for additional crew. The airline should bear the burden of this mistake, not the passengers who successfully boarded the plane.  If the airline doesn’t like this, it should have written a different contract.

Might the airline argue that it had the right to refuse transport because Dao was “disorderly, offensive, abusive, or violent” (Rule 21H1) or causing a “disturbance” (Rule 21H4)?  Although this depends on the facts, news reports suggest that Dao was not upset, and was minding his own business, until he was told that he was being involuntarily removed and he was dragged kicking and screaming from the aircraft. His being upset was caused by United Airline’s breach of its contractual duties towards him as a passenger, rather than the reverse.

The last aspect of this case – the most disturbing one – is the level of force used by the police officers. Based on the videos, most observers have concluded that the force was excessive and unnecessary given the circumstances. A deeper issue is whether the police had the authority to remove Dao in the first instance once United Airlines declared him persona non grata and asked the police to treat him as a trespasser. Presumably the police had the authority to remove him (but only with an appropriate level of force), but even so, there is a plausible argument that Dao’s injuries and damages suffered during that process were caused by the airline’s breach of contract, which specifically defines the circumstances when it can refuse transport, none of which applied in this case.
In some situations, a contractual dispute and a trespassing dispute should be kept separate. Say you hire a painter to paint the inside of your house. You refuse to pay and so the painter says, “I’m not leaving until you pay me.” When the painter refuses to leave, you call the police and ask them to remove him because he is trespassing. The proper resolution is that the painter must leave but can sue you for breach of contract.

That may be so, but in that case, the painter’s refusal to leave is incidental to the object and purpose of the contract, which is to paint the house, not stay in your house. In contrast, the object and purpose of the contract of carriage is, among other things, to require the airline to transport the passenger from location A to location B aboard aircraft C. Being on the aircraft is the whole point of the contract, and it specifically lists the situations when the airline may deny transport to a ticketed customer. Since the airline did not comply with those requirements, it should be liable for the damages associated with their breach.

You should have been on the Law Review.

[Dr. Blackheart]

Another United incident where a bride and groom got bounced on the way to their wedding...

http://www.khou.com/news/local/bride-and-groom-booted-off-united-flight-in-houston/431644313

[#UnleashSean]

Another United incident where a bride and groom got bounced on the way to their wedding...

http://www.khou.com/news/local/bride-and-groom-booted-off-united-flight-in-houston/431644313

Tough one, maybe they were being douchey and not listening and constantly going against the rules.

[mu_hilltopper]

Tough one, maybe they were being douchey and not listening and constantly going against the rules.

Agree.  I'm guessing it wasn't even a tough one. 

It takes some pretty bad behavior to have the flight crew decide to delay the flight takeoff, call a federal marshall and have customers removed from the flight. 

I'll bet a donut this couple whipped out their cell phones and recorded the whole thing too, but realized it didn't paint them in the light they wanted.   

[Tugg Speedman]

Tough one, maybe they were being douchey and not listening and constantly going against the rules.

That could be, or it could be what the WSJ wrote about today. 

The company has a toxic Soviet-like culture of following the rules/manual or get fired. 

No thinking or customer service is allowed.  Open the rulebook and follow the procedure, end of story.

This even means to call the cops to remove anyone that will not immediately exit the plane even on the first request even if the plane has plenty of empty seats (which this story said they did).  The problem is the newlyweds had "economy" seats but they were kicked off because United only had extra "economy plus" seats.  Again, the manual said they cannot sit in the upgraded seat, so call the cops.  (maybe that is why they were uncooperative.  They were sitting on a plane with tons of empty seats and told they had to get off).


And again, some are arguing that United again violated it carriage contract with this incident.



Behind United Airlines’ Fateful Decision to Call Police
Airline’s rules-based culture in spotlight after man was dragged off flight by law enforcement
By Susan Carey
Updated April 16, 2017 8:56 p.m. ET

https://www.wsj.com/articles/behind-united-airlines-fateful-decision-to-call-police-1492384610

The recipe for the disastrous decision by United Airlines’ employees to call for police to remove a passenger from a fully booked flight was years in the making.

Like most other airlines, United Continental Holdings Inc. follows strict rules on every aspect of handling its passengers, from how to care for unaccompanied minors to whether someone gets a whole can of Coke.

Deviating from the rules is frowned upon; employees can face termination for a foul-up, according to people familiar with the matter.

At United, this has helped create a rules-based culture where its 85,000 employees are reluctant to make choices not in the “book,” according to former airline executives, current employees and people close to United.

The company “follows manuals,” said a longtime United pilot at the nation’s third-largest carrier by traffic, where he said the rule-based culture was reinforced by the merger with Continental Airlines seven years ago.

People close to the company said it could have been avoided. At least some decisions that led to the crisis were fueled by employees following rules, which are endemic to big, long-lived airlines and amount to giant manuals.

[MU82]

I don't understand your obsession with him being a felon. He served his sentence got his medical license back and has been clean since.

I'm with you on this.

This is what we have a justice system for. The idea is to punish criminals and rehabilitate them. When they have served their time and demonstrated their ability to return to society, they should not be considered "lesser."

The fact that most DO consider them "lesser" is one of the main reasons for the incredibly high recidivism rate.

Yes, some felons are just bad guys (and women); when they get out of prison, they can't wait to return to their former bad ways and they end up back in prison again.

Some truly want to be "changed men" (and changed women). But then they found out nobody will hire them (or will only give them the most menial, low-wage jobs, regardless of their qualifications), and they end up turning back to crime because it's the only way they can pay their rent.

This guy served his time and been clean ever since. What else is he supposed to do? He played by the rules - even, in this case, United's rules. And yet some can't help themselves but hold his former "felon" status against him to paint him as "bad."

[rocket surgeon]

Another United incident where a bride and groom got bounced on the way to their wedding...

http://www.khou.com/news/local/bride-and-groom-booted-off-united-flight-in-houston/431644313

Maybe punchin the "mile high" card a little early?