7 ms·

The subtext here is that customers don't have any actual rights when dealing with a large corporation. The terms of service have become so lengthy and obscure t

• heisenbit 10y ago
  Yes, passengers don't know their rights but pilots and other administrators should. So United personal should have known they are in a legal grey area when removing a passenger who had boarded. I found the argument interesting that United should have lied and just invented a plane swap with a smaller body. Would have left the affected passengers is a weak position. There is so much wrong on all levels including the reaction of the CEO. This will be a case study for long time.
  • eridius 10y ago
    > So United personal should have known they are in a legal grey area when removing a passenger who had boarded. From what I've read, they weren't in a grey area, they were doing something that was specifically illegal. A grey area is when it may or may not be illegal. This wasn't grey.
    • maxerickson 10y ago
      Any of those explain why force majeure would not apply? (I'm not implying it would, I'm curious to read an analysis that covers it)
      • eridius 10y ago
        I am not even remotely a lawyer or qualified to actually answer this, but my guess is the situation here didn't actually prevent United from fulfilling their contracts. They just chose to ignore their contracts because they thought they could get away with it.
      • The_Magistrate 10y ago
        Force majeure doesn't apply in this circumstance because it requires an external force or event that is unforeseeable. In this case, United didn't plan correctly for the transport of its 4 employees, something well within its capability to predict.
        • maxerickson 10y ago
          There were massive storms in the few days prior to the incident. That could disrupt their planning.
        • notacoward 10y ago
          It's possible that United did plan correctly for the transport of those employees, but the employees themselves failed to follow the plan. How was it that the 3411 crew didn't even know the other crew was coming, until the very last minute? That's extremely unlikely if the other crew had been scheduled for 3411. It's more likely that they had originally been scheduled for another flight, missed it, and got to 3411 before word did (possibly because of poor communication between United and Republic). At the very best, they were later than they should have been. Why? And did they (or someone else) pressure the 3411 crew into doing what they did? United still screwed up in a lot of ways. So did Republic. So most of all did the aviation "police" - an organization that seems to consist largely of people thrown out of CPD for exactly the kind of misconduct visible on the video. But somewhere in there I think there's a fourth group that screwed up - the people whose sudden appearance triggered the whole mess.
  • kevin_b_er 10y ago
    Their "rights" were replaced by a contract. You have no rights not enumerated in the contract of carriage. Rights are for government actions against you. In the United States, "rights" are discarded in favor of profit.
• Animats 10y ago
  The subtext here is that customers don't have any actual rights when dealing with a large corporation. The problem is that people now believe that. In fact, lawsuits against big companies often are settled on very favorable terms for the customer. As the article points out, United violated their own contract of carriage and FAA regulations. This is going to cost them.
  • cmurf 10y ago
    Only because the passenger peacefully resisted, and did not comply with the airline's request he depart the plane on his own volition. He didn't give into threats, and risked and received an assault, in order to arrive at the point where this is going to cost the airline.
    • devoply 10y ago
      He should totally bring a multi-million dollar lawsuit, it's a total cake walk as it'd be hard to find a jury that wouldn't sympathize and he and his grandkids would be millions of dollars richer. Not to mention all the dirt you can drag United through during the lawsuit in the media. Love to see some testimony from the dick CEO as well who tried even character assignation of the poor doctor they needlessly assaulted.
      • theandrewbailey 10y ago
        And like all corporate dick moves, it will probably be topped off with United not admitting that they did anything wrong.
      • ThrowawayR2 10y ago
        > He should totally bring a multi-million dollar lawsuit, it's a total cake walk as it'd be hard to find a jury that wouldn't sympathize and he and his grandkids would be millions of dollars richer. Not to mention all the dirt you can drag United through during the lawsuit in the media. Love to see some testimony from the dick CEO as well who tried even character assignation of the poor doctor they needlessly assaulted. It'd be a cake walk alright ... for the airline. Pilots have similar powers to the captain of a civilian naval vessel, and can legally refuse to carry passengers or order them off the aircraft: https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-extra-ordinary-powers-that-an-airline-pilot-has-while-in-flight-and-how-are-they-different-from-those-of-a-captain-of-a-ship https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-extra-ordinary-powers-tha... Moreover, refusing to leave the premises when requested or to comply with the police when they arrived, is unquestionably against the law. Even a jury has to operates within the constraints of the law or be overturned on appeal. Remember, the airline would be the defendant and has the right to appeal. Sure, being bumped is lousy behavior by the airline but the doctor doesn't have a legal leg to stand on for his tantrum. If anything, the airline could probably sue him for delaying the flight and win.
• kafkaesq 10y ago
  The subtext here is that customers don't have any actual rights when dealing with a large corporation. Well, no -- they just don't have much bargaining power. Which is different.
  • Analemma_ 10y ago
    No, the GP has it right: for all practical purposes, customers have no rights, especially when their contracts include binding arbitration clauses, since arbitration rules against the company essentially never.
    • thanksgiving 10y ago
      > No, the GP has it right: for all practical purposes, customers have no rights, especially when their contracts include binding arbitration clauses, since arbitration rules against the company essentially never. I don't want to make it partisan but with all due respect TOS is not the law (oh btw, please keep pushing to repeal the CFAA in the US). We don't live in a libertarian "paradise". I've heard of anecdotes where a judge throws a pre-nuptial agreement because it was too one-sided? I think the same should apply to terms of service and arbitration clauses. They cannot supersede the law or become the law. Something people are not talking about is why isn't there a lawsuit against the police department? They're the ones who did the actual assaulting?
      • techsupporter 10y ago
        It doesn't matter what you think because the Supreme Court has ruled that the Federal Arbitration Act, and the arbitration clauses enabled by it, is sacrosanct and denies all but the most egregious (and that bar is very high) of court challenges. Virtually all actions in court are barred by those clauses. See, for just one example, AT&T v Concepcion.
      • kevin_b_er 10y ago
        They replace the law. Supreme court decided can and does permit a total severance of your connection to courts of law against a corporation. Your rights are replaced with a contract you didn't quite realize you agreed to. As such, you have no rights against a corporation. The arbitration kangaroo court is not required to observe the law. A meeting of the minds is not required where a contract with a corporation is concerned, as a human doesn't have to realize their rights were stripped by the contract. When everything is privatized, you will have no rights remaining.
• dwyerm 10y ago
  This is exactly why I'm fighting against Mandatory Binding Arbitration and Class Action Waivers. The system is slow, creaky, and arguably broken, but that's a _feature_ if it means that companies are afraid of it. I'm not having a whole lot of success in my fight, it seems.
  • techsupporter 10y ago
    What hurts even more is that the supposedly enlightened companies that come out of Y Combinator also put in these clauses. When I asked one why, the reasoning was "our lawyers made us." Yet there seems to be no consideration that the business owner hates to be on the other side of that kind of clause all the while imposing it on his or her own customers.
    • dwyerm 10y ago
      I empathize with them, though. It is completely rational to limit the impact of lawsuits on your organization. If someone hands you a Get Out Of Jail Free card, you take it, no matter how good of a person you think you are.
      • techsupporter 10y ago
        I don't. I consider it to be morally objectionable to say "man, I really hate arbitration clauses as a customer" and to then turn around and say "well, I should impose arbitration clauses on my customers." Besides, limitation of risk is already possible in a variety of ways: insurance, company formation structure, and being reasonable with your customers. It is atrocious that a core feature of our constitution is so quick to be contracted away by people who are in the position to effect change. This goes double for Y Combinator-enabled companies because they operate under the guise of being better for their people, their customers, and their industry than others.
• revelation 10y ago
  Hence why in the EU, most terms of service are essentially meaningless. If a judge finds your clauses surprising or an undue burden on the customer, they are null and void.
  • sjg007 10y ago
    It's the same in the US if you go to court. There are expected warranties and consumer laws. Corporations try to take it away and use many levels of policy and obfuscation to wear you down but once you get to court you have the ball.
    • techsupporter 10y ago
      Very often you can't get to court because of mandatory arbitration clauses that the Supreme Court has ruled are all but inviolable.
• helthanatos 10y ago
  But what will happen is exactly what happens with overbroad patents. It is not possible to make an agreement with someone that requires soul-bonds. This could count as unlawful eviction and assault.
• logicallee 10y ago
  >The terms of service have become so lengthy and obscure I don't think it's fair of you to criticize either the length or the obscurity of terms of service. After all, you could replace nearly all of them with: " 1. We have every right of every kind and can do anything, without being liable for anything. 2. you have no rights of any kind and may do nothing, except those afforded by law, which you hereby waive as far as legally possible. " More forward-thinking startups might add something to the effect of "Of course this does not mean we are Satan! We will naturally make an effort to provide roughly the service you have paid for. However, nothing in this section should be construed as a statement that we shall not act like Satan in any particular instance. We reserve the right to be Satan at any time and our sole discretion without providing any prior written warning. You've been warned." Did I miss anything?
  • notacoward 10y ago
    Two important points raised by a lawyer about how to interpret the Contract of Carriage (or any other). (1) When the meaning of a term (e.g. "boarding") is ambiguous or undefined, courts are required to interpret it in the way less favorable to the drafter of the contract. (2) If the conditions under which one party may do something are enumerated, they may not do it for reasons other than those on the list. Both principles of legal interpretation go against United in this case. Remember, this is civil law - not criminal. The burden of proof is very different. While many such contracts are too one-sided, rules such as these exist to ensure that they can't be entirely so. A completely one-sided contract might even violate the requirement that it involve mutual consideration, making it a legal non-entity.
• deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
• t0mbstone 10y ago
  An interesting comment I ran across... not sure if it's valid or not, though: "Lawyer here. This myth that passengers don't have rights needs to go away, ASAP. Here is how United illegally kicked him off the plane: 1. First of all, it's airline spin to call this an overbooking. The statutory provision granting them the ability to deny boarding is about "OVERSALES", specifically defines as booking more reserved confirmed seats than there are available. This is not what happened. They did not overbook the flight; they had a fully booked flight, and not only did everyone already have a reserved confirmed seat, they were all sitting in them. The law allowing them to denying boarding in the event of an oversale does not apply. 2. Even if it did apply, the law is unambiguously clear that airlines have to give preference to everyone with reserved confirmed seats when choosing to involuntarily deny boarding. They have to always choose the solution that will affect the least amount of reserved confirmed seats. This rule is straightforward, and United makes very clear in their own contract of carriage that employees of their own or of other carriers may be denied boarding without compensation because they do not have reserved confirmed seats. On its face, it's clear that what they did was illegal-- they gave preference to their employees over people who had reserved confirmed seats, in violation of 14 CFR 250.2a. 3. Furthermore, even if you try and twist this into a legal application of 250.2a and say that United had the right to deny him boarding in the event of an overbooking; they did NOT have the right to kick him off the plane. Their contract of carriage highlights there is a complete difference in rights after you've boarded and sat on the plane, and Rule 21 goes over the specific scenarios where you could get kicked off. NONE of them apply here. He did absolutely nothing wrong and shouldn't have been targeted. He's going to leave with a hefty settlement after this fiasco."
  • tanderson92 10y ago
    That comment is quoted in TFA, no?
    • deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]