Flying United? You may want to give up your seat...

[BmorePat87]

(04-12-2017, 10:40 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: There is a lot of blame to go around including the passenger. His injuries weren't the result of a simple fall. I don't think he deserves a large settlement. But, I don't think Airlines should be allowed to overbook flights creating these types of problems.

The overbooking is a shitty thing that they are legally allowed to do. I agree that it shouldn't be allowed to continue as it does, but it will likely mean slightly higher ticket prices.

[Au165]

(04-12-2017, 11:05 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The overbooking is a shitty thing that they are legally allowed to do. I agree that it shouldn't be allowed to continue as it does, but it will likely mean slightly higher ticket prices.

Never understood that though. They are already paid for the ticket, why would it cost more? Thhey are actually saving on fuel costs by flying planes with less people on them but have been "sold out".

[BmorePat87]

(04-12-2017, 11:02 AM)Au165 Wrote: What does his past offenses have to do with this specific issue? Seems like you think people with past transgressions are free to be assaulted.

Did they provide him with a written explanation for being removed form the flight at time of removal as required under government regulations?

Did they follow their own policy of not seating overbooked flights?

Is their a policy the passenger agreed to upon ticket purchase on, what the airline is now calling, downward line seating for which they remove passengers for flight crew after the boarding process has already begun?

Did he get charged with a crime?

Did he fall horizontally into an arm rest across from him?

Why would the Chicago Transportation Authority publicly state that it was handled wrong and suspend the officer who injured the passenger on leave if he just fell and they were in the right?


See it just doesn't seem so cut and dry like people like to pretend. There is a natural desire to hate the guy acting like an ass, but he still has rights. Also interesting to note he volunteered to give up his seat originally, but when they told him the next flight wasn't until 2:30 the next day he freaked out due to missing his rounds. I'd be pissed to if they didn't tell me the next flight wasn't until the next day, until after they got volunteers.

-Nothing, I'm just kicking the hornet's nest

-I'm sure they are sending him their legally required written explanation. 

-They didn't but that doesn't prevent them from bumping once seated.

-I'm not sure if their policy explicitly spells it out but federal regulations allow it.

-Not that I know of. I doubt he will since the don't want to deal with the headache of a lawsuit. Easier to not charge and not pay the legal costs. Doesn't mean the crime didn't occur.

-Looks like it

-See two bullets above

-His rights are very limited in this situation. They're required to give you a flight within an hour of your original arrival. If they can't, your compensation goes up per regulations. It sucks that he was chosen, but it's either cause one person to be a late or a whole plane to be late because the crew isn't there. For all of the outraged passengers, not one was willing to volunteer in his place.

[Au165]

(04-12-2017, 11:13 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: -Nothing, I'm just kicking the hornet's nest

-I'm sure they are sending him their legally required written explanation. 

-They didn't but that doesn't prevent them from bumping once seated.

-I'm not sure if their policy explicitly spells it out but federal regulations allow it.

-Not that I know of. I doubt he will since the don't want to deal with the headache of a lawsuit. Easier to not charge and not pay the legal costs. Doesn't mean the crime didn't occur.

-Looks like it

-See two bullets above

-His rights are very limited in this situation. They're required to give you a flight within an hour of your original arrival. If they can't, your compensation goes up per regulations. It sucks that he was chosen, but it's either cause one person to be a late or a whole plane to be late because the crew isn't there. For all of the outraged passengers, not one was willing to volunteer in his place.

His rights aren't as limited as people think is what we are learning now. Like you said they may send the notice to him, the issue is that isn't what is legally required it. The notice is to be provided at the time of the deboarding.  The whole point of this notice is to explain what is happening and why in a easy to understand written format. If their failure to provide the notice is believed to have escalated the events that then lead to the following injuries (up to a jury to decide) then they are going to be liable from a civil stand point for the injuries and other issues that came after.

Also his right to not be injured in the process of removal is going to be questioned. Reasonable force is subjective, but the officer already got sold out by the department so it stands to reason that a jury is probably going to question the force if the department is named in a lawsuit.

I agree that he is responsible for the larger issues here, however other's contributed and as a consumer and citizen it is important that those rights are honored or else we get into slippery slopes.

[BmorePat87]

(04-12-2017, 11:08 AM)Au165 Wrote: Never understood that though. They are already paid for the ticket, why would it cost more? Thhey are actually saving on fuel costs by flying planes with less people on them but have been "sold out".

They make more money by flying a full plane despite the increased fuel use.

Interesting enough, United involunatrily bumps less people than Southwest or American. They bumped roughly 1 in every 23,300 passengers last year compared to the industry standard of 1 in every 16,600 or so. The difference is the unfortunate accident that occurred after the police had to get involved.

So if you don't want to be bumped, don't fly Southwest or American over United.

[XenoMorph]

(04-12-2017, 11:08 AM)Au165 Wrote: Never understood that though. They are already paid for the ticket, why would it cost more? Thhey are actually saving on fuel costs by flying planes with less people on them but have been "sold out".

I think he means without the practice of overbooking tickets would cost more.. They do it to prevent sending half full planes  (by sending less planes overbooked) and offer some sort of compensation they don't believe will be redeemed.

If they flew more planes (not full)  overall they would need to raise ticket prices to cover their added expenses..

[BmorePat87]

(04-12-2017, 11:20 AM)Au165 Wrote: His rights aren't as limited as people think is what we are learning now. Like you said they may send the notice to him, the issue is that isn't what is legally required it. The notice is to be provided at the time of the deboarding.  The whole point of this notice is to explain what is happening and why in a easy to understand written format. If their failure to provide the notice is believed to have escalated the events that then lead to the following injuries (up to a jury to decide) then they are going to be liable from a civil stand point for the injuries and other issues that came after.

Also his right to not be injured in the process of removal is going to be questioned. Reasonable force is subjective, but the officer already got sold out by the department so it stands to reason that a jury is probably going to question the force if the department is named in a lawsuit.

I agree that he is responsible for the larger issues here, however other's contributed and as a consumer and citizen it is important that those rights are honored or else we get into slippery slopes.

Who is learning that he has more rights? Everything that is being reported is explaining how the airlines can legally do this.

The only questionable issue becomes will the LEO be found to have used reasonable force?

[Au165]

(04-12-2017, 11:46 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Who is learning that he has more rights? Everything that is being reported is explaining how the airlines can legally do this.

The only questionable issue becomes will the LEO be found to have used reasonable force?

Did you know he had a right to written notice at the time of the attempted removal? If not, then you just learned something about a right he had that was not provided.

[BmorePat87]

(04-12-2017, 12:03 PM)Au165 Wrote: Did you know he had a right to written notice at the time of the attempted removal? If not, then you just learned something about a right he had that was not provided.

I did. 

[Au165]

(04-12-2017, 03:03 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I did. 

Then why did you say you are sure they are sending him the legally required notice, when it has to be presented at the time of removal to meet the legal requirements? You said "everything being reported says the airline can legally do this", except without writing they illegally attempted to remove him. Because they illegally tried to remove him the injuries he sustained after were due to their willful and wanton conduct. Because all of this the guy has a legal leg to stand on in the civil case that will come, and has no worries in any criminal case as charges still have no been brought for anything.

Had they provided written notice he'd have little recourse(not none depending on their own procedures) against the airline, but still a strong case against the officers.

[Bengalzona]

Watch out for the new 'drag and drop' feature on United's website. They take that stuff literally!!

[BenZoo2]

(04-12-2017, 03:39 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Watch out for the new 'drag and drop' feature on United's website. They take that stuff literally!!

I thought it was drop, then drag


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Passepartout]

Wonder if United will lose a lot of customers due to that incident? Hope not.

[JustWinBaby]

LOL, add TMZ to the list of targets. Apparently the doctor in their article shared the same name, but the guy on the flight was never suspended for trading drugs for sex.

Also, someone said this guy tried to re-board and got at least somewhere down the jetway. So on top of everything else, it would seem security left a guy they injured that probably needed treatment for a concussion.

[Au165]

Side note, it is the sex trading guy, the other reports are false.

With that said, more lawyers are coming out saying his case is very strong against all involved parties. Sounds like he is set for a huge payday.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-13-2017, 01:15 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: LOL, add TMZ to the list of targets. Apparently the doctor in their article shared the same name, but the guy on the flight was never suspended for trading drugs for sex.

Also, someone said this guy tried to re-board and got at least somewhere down the jetway. So on top of everything else, it would seem security left a guy they injured that probably needed treatment for a concussion.

He did reboard the plane. Then everyone had to deplane so the airline could clean up his blood.

Probably? They dragged him off the plane with an altered level of conciousness. Another good indicator he needed medical treatment was the blood they had to clean up.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

Heard on the news tonight United Airlines has stated they have learned a valuable lesson. (Don't know if it was the CEO, but someone needs to keep him away from microphones.)

Yes, the guy who lost two teeth, had his nose broken, and sustained a concussion sure taught them a lesson. Don't beat your customers.

[BmorePat87]

(04-12-2017, 03:09 PM)Au165 Wrote: Then why did you say you are sure they are sending him the legally required notice, when it has to be presented at the time of removal to meet the legal requirements? You said "everything being reported says the airline can legally do this", except without writing they illegally attempted to remove him. Because they illegally tried to remove him the injuries he sustained after were due to their willful and wanton conduct. Because all of this the guy has a legal leg to stand on in the civil case that will come, and has no worries in any criminal case as charges still have no been brought for anything.

Had they provided written notice he'd have little recourse(not none depending on their own procedures) against the airline, but still a strong case against the officers.

There's nothing saying they didn't give it to him, but the reality is he never exited the plane not under arrest, so it's tough to say what actually happened. My guess is they likely hand you the writing at the time of exiting, but since the police removed him, it's likely that things did not go the way they normally do.

People are also seeing excessive force in this situation where none exists. The cops were legally removing him and he fell. 

[Au165]

(04-18-2017, 03:12 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: There's nothing saying they didn't give it to him, but the reality is he never exited the plane not under arrest, so it's tough to say what actually happened. My guess is they likely hand you the writing at the time of exiting, but since the police removed him, it's likely that things did not go the way they normally do.

People are also seeing excessive force in this situation where none exists. The cops were legally removing him and he fell. 

Not getting back into it. There appears to be no criminal charges, the cops were suspended for some reason, the civil case will end in a huge settlement with a gag order I am sure. No reason to really talk about it anymore unless something new comes out.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-18-2017, 03:12 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: There's nothing saying they didn't give it to him, but the reality is he never exited the plane not under arrest, so it's tough to say what actually happened. My guess is they likely hand you the writing at the time of exiting, but since the police removed him, it's likely that things did not go the way they normally do.

People are also seeing excessive force in this situation where none exists. The cops were legally removing him and he fell. 

That's not entirely clear.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/politics/ct-united-chicago-city-council-met-2-20170413-story.html

The reason the man "fell" was because at least one of the security personnel forcibly pulled him out of his seat.

Seems like both United Airlines and airport security are distancing themselves from the security officers to hang them out to dry in order to limit their financial responsibility during the lawsuit.