re: United's dragged passenger hires high-powered Chicago personal injury lawyer

quote:

---

IMO, when the decision was made to include the crew (by all indications before check in) the flight was oversold.

---

You keep saying this, but again UNITED themselves have said the flight was not an "oversold" situation so it appears that the "must rides" do not create that situation. Semantics or what, it may all be in a contract.

No one has pointed out a contract that states "must rides" get priority over paying passengers. It is true the airline asks for volunteers for "must rides", but that doesn't mean the airline can legally kick a paying guest off for a "must ride".

Dao Stackedddd
United frickedddd

You're taking "at fault" too literally. You did a bad thing. Whatever wording you prefer, dude.

And anyway, I'm saying that doing something wrong doesn't warrant someone in a position of power going overboard. They're supposed to be trained not to do that. Isn't that what you're also arguing? If not, it should be.

United's done this before.

Baller booted out of first class because OT baller showed up demanding seat

quote:

---

Fearns needed to return early so he paid about $1,000 for a full-fare, first-class ticket to Los Angeles. He boarded the aircraft at Lihue Airport on the island of Kauai, took his seat and enjoyed a complimentary glass of orange juice while awaiting takeoff. Then, as Fearns tells it, a United employee rushed onto the aircraft and informed him that he had to get off the plane. “I asked why,” he told me. “They said the flight was overfull.” Fearns, like the doctor at the center of that viral video from Sunday night, held his ground. He was already on the plane, already seated. He shouldn’t have to disembark. “That’s when they told me they needed the seat for somebody more important who came at the last minute,” Fearns said. “They said they have a priority list and this other person was higher on the list than me.”

---

quote:

---

They said it was not overbooked. Unless they said something else everything I have seen stated overbooked (in which case prove me wrong, I would welcome it). Their word choice both in their releases and in their contract are purposeful and not on accident. Just because you do not know the difference does not mean that upon advisement of their legal council the definitions and their differences are not clearly known and chosen carefully.

---

Ok. And yet if you google, you'll see multiple aviation attorneys, experts in this field, stating this does not apply to this situation. And to be fair I haven't seen any stating the opposite end.

So while none of us know 100%, the little bit of info we do know seems to side with this not fitting that provision.

quote:

---

So while none of us know 100%, the little bit of info we do know seems to side with this not fitting that provision.

---

The argument will be as I stated when is check-in time. Many do cite the advisement in the code of carriage as an implied check-in. However the verbiage is not concise in defining it.

There will also be an argument whether the decision being made assuming it was done prior to check-in would constitute oversold, or whether the notice had to be delivered to the entire staff and entered into the system for it to be complete.

I think from a should they standpoint all are in agreement that they should not. Could they is split because some people are too lazy to know the differences. Some people always side with authority. Some people always side against authority. Then the two or three people remaining are actually looking at the definitions and determining if UA had authority due to undefined times giving them flexibility, or if the implied times supersede that flexibility thereby actually turning their loose verbiage against them.

I would actually enjoy to see this play out in court to see what a judge would decide to give us some sort of precedent. It won't happen though. It will settle out of court and we will just argue semantics and UA and other airlines will have code of carriage updates to CTA in the future.

This guy's lawyer is about to get paid....... The guy will get a little chunk himself.

quote:

---

Do you get your money back in that kind of situation? I wouldn't want a voucher, I would want my money back to go buy another flight at a minimum - maybe throw in a voucher on top so I'm not so pissed off.

---

You get what you negotiate, and the airline's first attempt is going to be a low ball. How much of a low ball is dependent upon the airline, and that's something that all but the most experienced traveler wont factor into the initial purchasing decision.

The precedent that's in the process of being set by this United incident is that it can be far worse for the airline than the customer if these types of things are pushed to far. Hopefully this causes some airlines to loosen the purse strings on those initial offers, and prevent this all from being so much of a game to begin with.

quote:

---

The precedent that's in the process of being set by this United incident is that it can be far worse for the airline than the customer if these types of things are pushed to far. Hopefully this causes some airlines to loosen the purse strings on those initial offers, and prevent this all from being so much of a game to begin with.

---

And here's where the whole industry suffers. Whereas before no one read the actual contract, everyone has now, and will not settle on anything less than the maximum.

Secondly, because this guy has something resembling a case against United, it will encourage others to do the same.

Very foolish move here to bring more attention to a situation that really didn't deserve it.

quote:

---

I would actually enjoy to see this play out in court to see what a judge would decide to give us some sort of precedent.

---

Agreed, the play by play thread would be fantastic!!