6 ms·

United acted illegally from the very get-go. Via https://np.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/64m8lg/why_is_rvideos_just_filled_with_united_related/dg3xvja/ h

United acted illegally from the very get-go. Via https://np.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/64m8lg/why_is_rvideos_just_filled_with_united_related/dg3xvja/ https://np.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/64m8lg/why_is_... and more: > Lawyer here. This myth that passengers don't have rights needs to go away, ASAP. You are dead wrong when saying that United legally 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.

ams6110 10y ago
IANAL but pretty sure there are some specific exceptions for employees en route to another location to staff a flight (deadheading). If airlines could not do this they would have to possibly cancel flights that they could not otherwise staff, inconveniencing dozens or hundreds of passengers instead of just a few. That said, United utterly botched this in the way they handled it. And I don't let the PD off the hook either. That police can use violence to settle what is essentially a business dispute is just wrong.
- Mithaldu 10y ago
  > IANAL but pretty sure That means you are, even if confidently so, guessing? Or can you provide concrete details?
- nathanvanfleet 10y ago
  So laws evaporate for the sake of corporate efficiency? This kind of deference to authority and lack of empathy is alarming me.
  - kelnos 10y ago
    How is that for the sake of corporate efficiency? If you can't get a crew to a plane they're supposed to work on in time, you have to cancel the flight, and then instead of inconveniencing (in this case) the four passengers they chose to bump, you inconvenience an entire plane of passengers.
    - frobozz 10y ago
      That is exactly corporate efficiency. Less efficient solutions that don't inconvenience passengers include: * maintaining extra crew on standby at each airport, in case of no-shows by the scheduled crew. * reserving (i.e. not selling) space on flights specifically for such crew transport. * buying seats for them on other airlines, chartering a small aircraft, or other means of transport. * offering enough cash to persuade volunteers to debark. Considering that the alternative is to compensate an entire planeful, the budget for this is a lot higher than 4*$800.
- evilDagmar 10y ago
  You are simply mistaken. United should have handled this before boarding the passengers--when they would have had a legal right to arbitrarily deny boarding. United screwed up by failing to follow the correct procedures, and the compounded that failure by sending security personnel onto the plane to manhandle their customers.
  - ams6110 10y ago
parent5446 10y ago
You're really citing a Reddit comment that links to an article comment on ThePointsGuy as a serious source of legal opinion?
- colmvp 10y ago
  Skeptics should read the NakedCapitalism post (http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2017/04/united-passenger-removal-reporting-management-fail.html http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2017/04/united-passenger-remo...) which not only brings up the Reddit post but also includes references from the FAA, CFR, and United's Contract of Carriage.
  - Nition 10y ago
    I just want to note that the Reddit post itself is originally from here: http://disq.us/p/1hqpe1x http://disq.us/p/1hqpe1x
- Mithaldu 10y ago
  It has been checked by others ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14099630 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14099630 ) and looks alright. If the information contains factual errors, please point at least one of these out, instead of posting character assassination.
  - kelnos 10y ago
    I object to the parent's question as being a form of character assassination. There's a lot of garbage written on the internet, and claims of being a lawyer or in any way an authority on a particular subject should be questioned. It's great that others have checked out the guy's statements, but I think the downvotes on the parent and easy dismissal of his/her IMO reasonable question is a bit much.
    - kinkrtyavimoodh 10y ago
      >> 'easy dismissal of his/her IMO reasonable question' Except their tone / style was far from reasonable. It was arrogant and elitist. If they have concerns about the authenticity of reddit posts, there are far better ways of wording it, instead of going lulzzz reddit hurr durr.
psyc 10y ago
I'm glad to see this. The meme about private property rights giving owners the absolute right to kick anybody out of anywhere for any reason gets repeated 1000 times a day on internet forums, as if it's a profound insight into both law and the philosophy of rights.
perseusprime11 10y ago
This is probably the reason United is going after the passenger's personal life. Their PR team is overworking on creating a different narrative instead of feeling remorseful.
- macintux 10y ago
  Didn't news come out that the initial wave of personal muckraking was actually background information about a different doctor with a similar name?
  - PhasmaFelis 10y ago
    That seems to be false, i.e. he is in fact who United claims he is--his hometown paper discusses it here. http://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/2017/04/12/yes-kentucky-doctor-david-dao-who-dragged-off-united-plane/100380420/ http://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/2017/04/12/yes-ken... I can also confirm it personally because I have family in that area and it turns out they were treated by him. o_O He doesn't have the best reputation, apparently. Not that that's at all relevant to United's behavior, of course--it's like those cases where a cop shoots an unarmed man for no reason and they try to defend it because it turns out he'd robbed a liquor store the previous week. Was pretty surprising to me, though.
Nition 10y ago
Original source for that comment is user NegativeFeedback here: http://disq.us/p/1hqpe1x http://disq.us/p/1hqpe1x

ams6110 10y ago

IANAL but pretty sure there are some specific exceptions for employees en route to another location to staff a flight (deadheading). If airlines could not do this they would have to possibly cancel flights that they could not otherwise staff, inconveniencing dozens or hundreds of passengers instead of just a few. That said, United utterly botched this in the way they handled it. And I don't let the PD off the hook either. That police can use violence to settle what is essentially a business dispute is just wrong.

Mithaldu 10y ago
> IANAL but pretty sure That means you are, even if confidently so, guessing? Or can you provide concrete details?
nathanvanfleet 10y ago
So laws evaporate for the sake of corporate efficiency? This kind of deference to authority and lack of empathy is alarming me.
- kelnos 10y ago
  How is that for the sake of corporate efficiency? If you can't get a crew to a plane they're supposed to work on in time, you have to cancel the flight, and then instead of inconveniencing (in this case) the four passengers they chose to bump, you inconvenience an entire plane of passengers.
  - frobozz 10y ago
    That is exactly corporate efficiency. Less efficient solutions that don't inconvenience passengers include: * maintaining extra crew on standby at each airport, in case of no-shows by the scheduled crew. * reserving (i.e. not selling) space on flights specifically for such crew transport. * buying seats for them on other airlines, chartering a small aircraft, or other means of transport. * offering enough cash to persuade volunteers to debark. Considering that the alternative is to compensate an entire planeful, the budget for this is a lot higher than 4*$800.
evilDagmar 10y ago
You are simply mistaken. United should have handled this before boarding the passengers--when they would have had a legal right to arbitrarily deny boarding. United screwed up by failing to follow the correct procedures, and the compounded that failure by sending security personnel onto the plane to manhandle their customers.
- ams6110 10y ago

parent5446 10y ago

You're really citing a Reddit comment that links to an article comment on ThePointsGuy as a serious source of legal opinion?

colmvp 10y ago
Skeptics should read the NakedCapitalism post (http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2017/04/united-passenger-removal-reporting-management-fail.html http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2017/04/united-passenger-remo...) which not only brings up the Reddit post but also includes references from the FAA, CFR, and United's Contract of Carriage.
- Nition 10y ago
  I just want to note that the Reddit post itself is originally from here: http://disq.us/p/1hqpe1x http://disq.us/p/1hqpe1x
Mithaldu 10y ago
It has been checked by others ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14099630 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14099630 ) and looks alright. If the information contains factual errors, please point at least one of these out, instead of posting character assassination.
- kelnos 10y ago
  I object to the parent's question as being a form of character assassination. There's a lot of garbage written on the internet, and claims of being a lawyer or in any way an authority on a particular subject should be questioned. It's great that others have checked out the guy's statements, but I think the downvotes on the parent and easy dismissal of his/her IMO reasonable question is a bit much.
  - kinkrtyavimoodh 10y ago
    >> 'easy dismissal of his/her IMO reasonable question' Except their tone / style was far from reasonable. It was arrogant and elitist. If they have concerns about the authenticity of reddit posts, there are far better ways of wording it, instead of going lulzzz reddit hurr durr.

psyc 10y ago

I'm glad to see this. The meme about private property rights giving owners the absolute right to kick anybody out of anywhere for any reason gets repeated 1000 times a day on internet forums, as if it's a profound insight into both law and the philosophy of rights.

perseusprime11 10y ago

This is probably the reason United is going after the passenger's personal life. Their PR team is overworking on creating a different narrative instead of feeling remorseful.

macintux 10y ago
Didn't news come out that the initial wave of personal muckraking was actually background information about a different doctor with a similar name?
- PhasmaFelis 10y ago
  That seems to be false, i.e. he is in fact who United claims he is--his hometown paper discusses it here. http://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/2017/04/12/yes-kentucky-doctor-david-dao-who-dragged-off-united-plane/100380420/ http://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/2017/04/12/yes-ken... I can also confirm it personally because I have family in that area and it turns out they were treated by him. o_O He doesn't have the best reputation, apparently. Not that that's at all relevant to United's behavior, of course--it's like those cases where a cop shoots an unarmed man for no reason and they try to defend it because it turns out he'd robbed a liquor store the previous week. Was pretty surprising to me, though.

Nition 10y ago

Original source for that comment is user NegativeFeedback here: http://disq.us/p/1hqpe1x http://disq.us/p/1hqpe1x