- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: United's dragged passenger hires high-powered Chicago personal injury lawyer
Posted on 4/12/17 at 9:53 am to Tiger Prawn
Posted on 4/12/17 at 9:53 am to Tiger Prawn
quote:Where do you draw the line on what they're allowed to force you to do?
"The minute you become non-compliant with cabin crew and the pilot, the pilot is authorized by FAA law to take you off the flight. They are in full control over the safety on that flight," Kelly said.
That is the question, because they can't literally make you do whatever they want, no.
1
Posted on 4/12/17 at 9:53 am to stendulkar
He will probably get a huge settlement from United. They do not want this to blow up and go into the court room.
The dept over security at the airport will probably also pay since their employees went outside the regulations dragging this guy off the plane. Their is better ways probably within dept policy to get this guy off the plane.
These guys let their frustrations get the best of them and basically went outside guidelines causing injury to this person.
The security officers could also be held personably liable since the tactics they used were not approved by the dept. They will probably face both both civil and criminal action. Just like an officer asking you to leave private property. He can arrest you to remove you off the property. He does not have the right to drag you down the street when his life is not in danger.
This will be a huge PR nightmare for United and I can see the CEO and possibly mgmt changes at their Chicago location over this.
The dept over security at the airport will probably also pay since their employees went outside the regulations dragging this guy off the plane. Their is better ways probably within dept policy to get this guy off the plane.
These guys let their frustrations get the best of them and basically went outside guidelines causing injury to this person.
The security officers could also be held personably liable since the tactics they used were not approved by the dept. They will probably face both both civil and criminal action. Just like an officer asking you to leave private property. He can arrest you to remove you off the property. He does not have the right to drag you down the street when his life is not in danger.
This will be a huge PR nightmare for United and I can see the CEO and possibly mgmt changes at their Chicago location over this.
Posted on 4/12/17 at 9:54 am to 1MileTiger
quote:
Why exactly is this United's problem? They followed protocol and called terminal security. Terminal security is the one who slammed this guys face into the seat, not United. Are Americans really this fricking retarded? Yes
All of this. Did United oversell the plane by selling all 70 seats when only 66 would be available due to 4 employees needing seats? Yes
Did United follow their protocol in their contract of carriage for oversold tickets? Yes
Did the passenger agree to these terms? Yes
Was the manifest finalized and boarding complete taking away United's ability to perform the above? No
Did terminal security and police have the right to remove a passenger who at this point was in violation of the terms he agreed to? Yes
Did the passenger not following direction lead to security having to forcibly remove him? Yes
Did the passenger's attempts to not be removed cause him to hit his head? Yes
I don't like the way United went about enforcing their oversold procedure as the 70 seats had already been booked and boarding had already begun when they noticed the problem. I think there should have been some wherewithal to see the possible PR hit of carrying out involuntary boarding denial this late in boarding. They deserve all the bad PR for this. Blaming anything beyond that on United is asinine. There has to be personal responsibility on some level by the passenger. It sucks, get pissed off, but don't be a fricking idiot and put yourself in a situation where legally everything that occurred is your fault for being an idiot thinking your temper tantrum would get you somewhere.
Posted on 4/12/17 at 9:54 am to shel311
quote:
Follow policy/law would be a good start. Maybe they did, but it's plausible that they did not.
Like the decision (and how they underwent overbooking) or not, once they made the decision to do it, I see no problem with the manner in which they removed him.
It kind of looks bad, but that's mainly due to the fact that that dipshit is literally kicking and screaming like a 4 year old.
Posted on 4/12/17 at 9:54 am to Tiger Prawn
So "non-compliant" trumps "United tries to force man off for reason of dubious legality"?
They wouldn't have gotten into this situation if they had planned better. Another passenger on the flight had told the United manager they would get off for $1500 and they laughed in his face.
$1500 is a deep discount over what they will eventually pay for this incident.
They wouldn't have gotten into this situation if they had planned better. Another passenger on the flight had told the United manager they would get off for $1500 and they laughed in his face.
$1500 is a deep discount over what they will eventually pay for this incident.
Posted on 4/12/17 at 9:54 am to baldona
quote:
He then fell over and hit his face on the arm rail on the seat across the aisle, at which time he was knocked out and got the bloodied face. He was then removed by security by dragging him.
Once off the plane, he escaped security and ran back on the plane bloodied. He got blood all over, then they had to remove everyone from the plane to sanitize the blood. He was truly an idiot for running back on the plane.
Not sayiing you're wrong. I've heard this account too. It just makes ZERO sense to me. Once you've reached this point how do they release the person? Once you've put hands on someone to that point how do they get back on the plane? Most people remain detained or are at least taken to the little room for questioning?
Sounds like a perfect storm of frick up.
Posted on 4/12/17 at 9:55 am to 1MileTiger
quote:
Yes, but United itself did not destroy the man's face on a seat.
That's not how the law or liability works. If United told the police he was breaking the law when in reality he may not of been breaking the law, then United is liable for calling the police to start the entire ordeal.
If they said he was trespassing when in reality he was not trespassing, that is on them.
Posted on 4/12/17 at 9:55 am to NYNolaguy1
As I stated, I know they said it wasn't, but that doesn't take away from the fact that they bump people of full flights all the time to ensure flights down their line are not canceled. No issues with that, no complaints.
And again, boarding wasn't completed, because the manifest wasn't completed. They need to have a list of who is in what seat before they depart.
And again, boarding wasn't completed, because the manifest wasn't completed. They need to have a list of who is in what seat before they depart.
Posted on 4/12/17 at 9:55 am to Tiger Prawn
quote:
The minute you become non-compliant with cabin crew and the pilot, the pilot is authorized by FAA law to take you off the flight. They are in full control over the safety on that flight," Kelly said.
The only reason United booted him off is because it would have cost them a lot of money to do something else. It had nothing to do with passenger or pilot safety. Is that what you think this is about?
Nevermind that it broke their contract with the passenger, and opened themselves up to legal and publicity liabilities. Airlines just can't boot off anyone they want for any reason- that's not how this works.
Honestly I really hope this goes to trial so people can see what happens. We both know it won't happen because of non legal reason- mainly because UAL can't handle any further terrible press.
Posted on 4/12/17 at 9:56 am to AwesomeSauce
quote:
Did United follow their protocol in their contract of carriage for oversold tickets? Yes
This is not true...
Posted on 4/12/17 at 9:58 am to johnnyrocket
quote:
The dept over security at the airport will probably also pay since their employees went outside the regulations dragging this guy off the plane. Their is better ways probably within dept policy to get this guy off the plane.
These guys let their frustrations get the best of them and basically went outside guidelines causing injury to this person.
The security officers could also be held personably liable since the tactics they used were not approved by the dept. They will probably face both both civil and criminal action. Just like an officer asking you to leave private property. He can arrest you to remove you off the property. He does not have the right to drag you down the street when his life is not in danger.
This will be a huge PR nightmare for United and I can see the CEO and possibly mgmt changes at their Chicago location over this.
My thoughts exactly.
Posted on 4/12/17 at 9:58 am to stendulkar
I absolutely abhor frivolous lawsuits. I don't not think he suffered millions in damages, and I can't stand the attorneys who breed our litigious society.
Having said that...United fricked up here. Even worse, they doubled down on the frick up and then decided they'd try publicly smearing the guy.
This is going to be a very expensive but necessary lesson for them about how to handle such situations in the future.
Having said that...United fricked up here. Even worse, they doubled down on the frick up and then decided they'd try publicly smearing the guy.
This is going to be a very expensive but necessary lesson for them about how to handle such situations in the future.
Posted on 4/12/17 at 9:58 am to teke184
quote:
They wouldn't have gotten into this situation if they had planned better. Another passenger on the flight had told the United manager they would get off for $1500 and they laughed in his face.
$1500 is a deep discount over what they will eventually pay for this incident.
I heard (on TMZ, don't judge) that airlines are capped at $1000? Which sort of makes sense. It avoids an escalation and a bidding war taking place at a gate. The passenger essentially holds a plane hostage for and extra hundred bucks. In addition that plane holds another 100-200 people hostage at that aircrafts next departure.
Your point is valid though. It is gonna cost them a lot more, and already has. There will now have to be a new ad campaign just to counter all the meme and fake joke ads. Many of which are damned funny.
Posted on 4/12/17 at 9:59 am to NYNolaguy1
You are right, in that this wasn't an oversold flight.
This was a full flight and they made the last second decision to boot 4 passengers without securing volunteers first.
And there is no cap on what they can give volunteers to get bumped though there are caps on what they can pay to an involuntarily bumped passenger.
As I said upthread, the manager was given an offer by a passenger of taking the bump for $1500 and was laughed at. They had other options than an involuntary bump and didn't fully exhaust them before moving on to it.
This was a full flight and they made the last second decision to boot 4 passengers without securing volunteers first.
And there is no cap on what they can give volunteers to get bumped though there are caps on what they can pay to an involuntarily bumped passenger.
As I said upthread, the manager was given an offer by a passenger of taking the bump for $1500 and was laughed at. They had other options than an involuntary bump and didn't fully exhaust them before moving on to it.
Posted on 4/12/17 at 10:00 am to stendulkar
Outstanding. For all their flaws, trial lawyers really do a service for all of us during times like these.
Posted on 4/12/17 at 10:01 am to LSU alum wannabe
The cap is for an involuntary bump, NOT a volunteer already seated on the plane to debark.
And they weren't even offering cash but United vouchers which would have been in $50 increments with a limit of 1 per flight.
And they weren't even offering cash but United vouchers which would have been in $50 increments with a limit of 1 per flight.
Posted on 4/12/17 at 10:02 am to AwesomeSauce
quote:
All of this. Did United oversell the plane by selling all 70 seats when only 66 would be available due to 4 employees needing seats? Yes Did United follow their protocol in their contract of carriage for oversold tickets? Yes
Not correct. United sold 70 seats, THEN they needed 4 crew members seats. Big difference. All 70 people originally had seats until UNITED decided they didn't because United needed to save money by putting their crew on a flight instead.
The fact is, United doesn't have the Right to put their crew on the flight over paying customers. EVEN if they do, its horrible business. Why trust an airline that will boot you for any reason?
United had other options to get the crew to Louisville, and UNITED chose to physically remove a paying customer.
Posted on 4/12/17 at 10:02 am to NYNolaguy1
I agree with you this will never go to court if United, the dept over the airport security, and the security officers personal attorneys are smart. They want this to blow over asap.
Posted on 4/12/17 at 10:03 am to shel311
quote:
Where do you draw the line on what they're allowed to force you to do?
That is the question, because they can't literally make you do whatever they want, no.
They were asking him to get off the plane. Whether that reason will stand up to a court challenge based on carriage contract language is a different story. I'm not arguing in defense of United's bumping policy or saying the guy doesn't have a valid argument on catching United on a technicality in the contract. My whole point is that the passengers are required to obey instruction from the flight crew and when this guy didn't, it led to security being called and he refused to comply with security and resisted security removing him from the plane. Of all the places in the US, airports/planes are probably the worst place for someone to think they can start causing an issue with security and get away with it.
Posted on 4/12/17 at 10:03 am to LSU alum wannabe
quote:
I THOUGHT I had HEARD that the doctor at first agreed and got up or got off the plane, then ran back into the plane running pass the gate attendant. I thought that was the piece of video of him running around saying "I have to go"? At that point he looked crazy, and while a stretch, could be seen as a threat. At that point he finds a seat and digs in his heels.
I read that he initially agreed to give up a seat until they informed him that he would not fly out until the following afternoon. At that point he said that was not good enough and he refused to give up his seat.
He ran back on the plane after they had foricbly removed him and injured him.
The airlines suck with their overbooking, and here they were trying to bump a paying passenger because they didn't have their employees in the right place. Absolutely ridiculous way to run a company. IMO they are justifiably being roasted in the media and this is going to cost them millions in lost revenue, bad publicity, and settlement for this guy's claims. I also hope the CEO is canned for his terrible first two statements on this incident.
Page 15 of 36
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News