Passenger forcibly removed from United Airlines flight

[Big B]

He didn't do anything wrong. UA did not have the right to eject him. The law shouldn't have been involved. Therefore UA is responsibility. He may not have any action against the feds but he does have against UA.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

UA is a business. They have policies like any other businesses. If you don't like it, go elsewhere. Now, there are 2 diff situations there. Yes, one with UA, the other with LE. He had no right to follow his own term with the government. He resisted. Doesn't matter what caused the situation. Simple as that. Point blank.

 

[prime]

UA is a business. They have policies like any other businesses. If you don't like it, go elsewhere. Now, there are 2 diff situations there. Yes, one with UA, the other with LE. He had no right to follow his own term with the government. He resisted. Doesn't matter what caused the situation. Simple as that. Point blank.

UA cannot break the carriage contract they entered into. He was allowed to board. This is the point of contention. He followed all rules of the contract of carriage. UA will lose this. They had no right to eject him. Look at the rules.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

 

[prime]

They did not follow their own policy. To make matters worse they kicked him to put 4 UA employees in his place. They didn't even up the voucher amounts to the legal limit to persuade potential riders to volunteer when they stopped at $1000. Legal limit is $1300 which should be even higher in hindsight. The $300 dollars they tried to save will cost them millions. They called authorities when they had no apparent contractual right which resulted in two busted front teeth and a busted up face. This could have been any one of our relatives. They had all the rights to prevent boarding, but not after. This is the point of contention. After boarding they do not have the right to eject a compliant passenger. Makes no difference if he became uncompliant when asked to leave because they had no right to ask him to leave once boarded.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

 

[kid666]

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1848176075424643&id=1646933652215554

Sent from my SM-J700T using Tapatalk

 

[prime]

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1848176075424643&id=1646933652215554

Sent from my SM-J700T using Tapatalk

I'm not a liberal. Far from it. This isn't emotional. Just look at the contract of carriage of UA. They under performed and over reacted.

 

[kid666]

That wasn't posted in response to anything you said I didn't even read anything you wrote. Just posted it because that's how I feel about it

Sent from my SM-J700T using Tapatalk

 

[prime]

That wasn't posted in response to anything you said I didn't even read anything you wrote. Just posted it because that's how I feel about it

Sent from my SM-J700T using Tapatalk

Yeah.. I rarely get involved with these discussions. My stupid Tapatalk keeps notifying me of the responses. Lol. I'm tapping out.

 

[kid666]

Too funny same here bro...

Sent from my SM-J700T using Tapatalk

 

[Big B]

They did not follow their own policy. To make matters worse they kicked him to put 4 UA employees in his place. They didn't even up the voucher amounts to the legal limit to persuade potential riders to volunteer when they stopped at $1000. Legal limit is $1300 which should be even higher in hindsight. The $300 dollars they tried to save will cost them millions. They called authorities when they had no apparent contractual right which resulted in two busted front teeth and a busted up face. This could have been any one of our relatives. They had all the rights to prevent boarding, but not after. This is the point of contention. After boarding they do not have the right to eject a compliant passenger. Makes no difference if he became uncompliant when asked to leave because they had no right to ask him to leave once boarded.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

Look, bt the passenger and UA, I'm not going to assume anything yet as there seem too be diff stories out there. Whatever happens there doesn't justify what happens bt the passenger and LE...

 

[tommyguns2]

what if the flight attendant had simply gotten onto the loudspeaker and said, "as you all know we are overbooked by 4 seats. according to the rules we have randomly picked 4 people to be removed from the flight. 3 of the 4 people have voluntarily left the plane. The 4th person, in seat 22C, has been asked to leave the plane voluntarily, and he has refused. Consequently, we will all be sitting here and this plane is going nowhere until he leaves. We apologize for the delay. If you wish to get to your destination in a timely manner, please ask the passenger in seat 22C to reconsider..."

I wonder how long it would have lasted when all the passengers sitting around him would have turned on him...

Still, they should have upped the voucher amount, and someone would have left the plane.

 

[prime]

what if the flight attendant had simply gotten onto the loudspeaker and said, "as you all know we are overbooked by 4 seats. according to the rules we have randomly picked 4 people to be removed from the flight. 3 of the 4 people have voluntarily left the plane. The 4th person, in seat 22C, has been asked to leave the plane voluntarily, and he has refused. Consequently, we will all be sitting here and this plane is going nowhere until he leaves. We apologize for the delay. If you wish to get to your destination in a timely manner, please ask the passenger in seat 22C to reconsider..."

I wonder how long it would have lasted when all the passengers sitting around him would have turned on him...

Still, they should have upped the voucher amount, and someone would have left the plane.

Yes. The voucher amount should have been increased to the maximum amount. The problem is once boarded they can only ask for volunteers. Volunters is the key word. They have no recourse to eject once boarded if the passenger is completely compliant. They had no right to call LE. He wasn't doing anything wrong. I looked over the contract of carriage. They have all the power to deny boarding. But once on the plane it appears they do not unless he is being unruly. Becoming unruly when being forced off the plane is irrelevant contractually. That becomes a LE and passenger matter. But the second does not supercede the first because the second should never have happened.

I'm not agreeing with the docs actions but UA is clearly in the wrong for forcibly ejecting a passenger off by their own contract. It clearly states they have the right to overbook and deny boarding. Once boarded however they cannot forcibly eject you unless you are acting a certain way outlined in the contract of carriage if which the doc was in full compliance.

I think the cap for vouchers need to be changed to a higher amount. Our law makers set the cap. Once the cap is set to something more reasonable then it will be no problem to find "volunteers" to deplane. Everybody has their price. It's said UA made billions last year. I can't confirm that as of this writing but if so they maximized said profits through the tactics of overbooking and therefore should reasonbly compensate passengers they deliberately left stranded with some of those proceeds.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

 

[tommyguns2]

I wonder why there is a cap at all? Seems kind of goofy to me. Why does the gov't need to be interfering with how the airlines should provide incentives when overbooked.