Following And you thought Ryan Air were bad? (United are worse) Page 9

  • Decks Best Forumite, 2016 14 Apr 2017 06:44:54 20,400 posts
    Seen 20 minutes ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    Yeah standing up for your rights is childish. Making sure you get to work in the hospital on Monday is childish.
  • Deleted user 14 April 2017 06:45:47
    Don't be so childish, Decks.
  • Syrette 14 Apr 2017 10:04:49 50,297 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 16 years ago
    Whilst he technically had no right to refuse to disembark, they had no rights to enforce that decision upon on him in the way that they did.
  • Psiloc 14 Apr 2017 10:07:07 5,116 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    ...you don't see how an old man has the right to not get the shit kicked out of him?
  • Jono62 14 Apr 2017 10:14:13 22,599 posts
    Seen 49 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    @Bloobat So you are saying you would have given up your seat and left without a fuss, even though you had to be at work the next day and this was the only flight that was leaving to your destination and you would probably get fired as you didn't show up for work for $800 of American Airlines vouchers and a flight the next day if you were randomly selected?

    Why should his patients, who had an appointment with him for that day, be inconvenienced? If the cabin crew were required somewhere else, they should have charted a private jet.

    Edited by Jono62 at 10:28:54 14-04-2017
  • KRadiation 14 Apr 2017 10:27:31 1,443 posts
    Seen 14 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Cabin crew should have got there earlier too rather than rocking up late like they own the plane and expecting to get a free ride from their mates.
  • Jono62 14 Apr 2017 10:32:45 22,599 posts
    Seen 49 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39580113

    No more forced removals - United Airlines
  • Gunzberg 14 Apr 2017 10:36:02 2,719 posts
    Seen 1 week ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    According to some papers, US Dept. of Transportation rules state if you are bumped the airline should offer you up to $1,350 in CASH.

    So United were already bullshitting customers with their trash vouchers (which can only be used on their airline, when booked directly through them at full price).
  • Derblington 14 Apr 2017 10:55:27 31,801 posts
    Seen 5 minutes ago
    Registered 15 years ago
    That's a cap and dependent on other factors, they don't have to offer that amount.
  • Gunzberg 14 Apr 2017 11:06:40 2,719 posts
    Seen 1 week ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    They could have though ;-)
  • Youthist 14 Apr 2017 11:08:41 13,847 posts
    Seen 14 hours ago
    Registered 14 years ago
    Bloobat wrote:
    twelveways wrote:
    Yeah he should. The airline have admitted they were wrong. Should we just roll over every time we're confronted by a uniform?
    I disagree, this isn't an issue of rolling over. He was selected to give up his seat. Yes you would be annoyed and yes it would have been preferable that there had been enough seats but refusing to budge after being warned and told that the plane would not move until you have complied is
    just childish behaviour in my opinion.
    And leaving this EU is a good move for us to "get our borders back" and Trump has some good policies and can be trusted to do the right thing for the world, right ?
  • Derblington 14 Apr 2017 11:20:50 31,801 posts
    Seen 5 minutes ago
    Registered 15 years ago
    @Gunzberg
    The could have better negotiated, yeah.
  • funkstar 14 Apr 2017 16:42:06 3,280 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 14 years ago
    Now with added risk of being stung by scorpions!
  • Tonka 15 Apr 2017 11:28:56 29,679 posts
    Seen 60 minutes ago
    Registered 16 years ago
    Bloobat wrote:
    To be fair though you have to presume he'd been told that they'd use force if he didn't get off calmly. I'm not saying he deserved what happened to him at all but the guy shouldn't have continued refusing to stand up after airport security were on board.
    WTF is wrong with you. They had no right what so ever to do what they did. None. Thank fuck united and goons encounters someone with a spine. I would have left the plane like the non confrontist that I am but I'm glad this guy took a beating for me.
  • Derblington 15 Apr 2017 13:13:19 31,801 posts
    Seen 5 minutes ago
    Registered 15 years ago
    They were within the law to remove him from the plane, it's just the total farce around the incident - almost every aspect was handled badly - that needs to be analysed.
  • Tonka 15 Apr 2017 13:21:44 29,679 posts
    Seen 60 minutes ago
    Registered 16 years ago
    @Derblington they were? How? From what I read in that post I liked it seemed like they didn't have a leg to stand on.
  • Psiloc 15 Apr 2017 13:31:47 5,116 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Yeah I think the law says they could remove him using reasonable force, probably for any reason, even for something as douchey as making room for staff. That doesn't make it right though or a good PR move. But most importantly there's no way they used reasonable force considering the list of injuries he sustained.
  • Tonka 15 Apr 2017 13:53:46 29,679 posts
    Seen 60 minutes ago
    Registered 16 years ago
    Not according to the article I liked on previous page. I'd love to cot paste some quotes but my connection is crap
  • Tonka 15 Apr 2017 15:04:32 29,679 posts
    Seen 60 minutes ago
    Registered 16 years ago
    Are we reading different articles? Or have you read one that I haven't?

    We seem to be talking past each other. The regulations are pretty clear that they had no right to remove him. None.

    Especially not under the pretences they used as an excuse.

    I think this would be easier if you copy pasted the bits in the article you disagree with and explain why.
  • Derblington 15 Apr 2017 15:24:38 31,801 posts
    Seen 5 minutes ago
    Registered 15 years ago
    I read the article linked and it does go into it a bit but, from my very basic understanding, misses one tiny bit of info regarding the Gov DOT/FAA guidelines on the importance of deadheading emergency reserve flight crew, that would fall under Rule 21, section B of United Airlines Contract of Carriage.

    So, as I said, they can remove him from the plane but the whole things was a bit of a balls-up. They should have been refused boarding at the gate rather than allowed to board, the airport security shouldn't have been so aggressive, etc, etc, etc. It's all a bit of a mess. I'm sure Dr Dao is going to get a large amount of money over the whole thing.

    Edited by Derblington at 15:25:55 15-04-2017
  • twelveways 15 Apr 2017 16:46:51 7,131 posts
    Seen 2 weeks ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Derblington wrote:
    I read the article linked and it does go into it a bit but, from my very basic understanding, misses one tiny bit of info regarding the Gov DOT/FAA guidelines on the importance of deadheading emergency reserve flight crew, that would fall under Rule 21, section B of United Airlines Contract of Carriage.

    So, as I said, they can remove him from the plane but the whole things was a bit of a balls-up. They should have been refused boarding at the gate rather than allowed to board, the airport security shouldn't have been so aggressive, etc, etc, etc. It's all a bit of a mess. I'm sure Dr Dao is going to get a large amount of money over the whole thing.
    Rule 21, section B of United Airlines Contract of Carriage

    Government Request, Regulations or Security Directives – Whenever such action is necessary to comply with any government regulation, Customs and Border Protection, government or airport security directive of any sort, or any governmental request for emergency transportation in connection with the national defense.
    It had absolutely nothing to do with the government, customs or airport security.

    The plane should have sat there and waited for him to leave or for another passenger to volunteer, but of course that would have cost them more money.

    Basically they had his face smashed in to save a few dollars, which is gonna backfire as he is going to win millions from them
  • Derblington 15 Apr 2017 17:02:34 31,801 posts
    Seen 5 minutes ago
    Registered 15 years ago
    Well wherever it sits, I skim read that and though it fit under it. Apparently there's some gov. reg. that enables airlines to send emergency reserve crew as priority in order to prevent flight standstill and subsequent backlog that would massively impact an airport.

    A ton of lawyers have stated that United were fine to remove him from the flight and followed the correct procedure in doing so - they didn't touch the guy and called the security in order to resolve the issue. The problems started with boarding the plane in the first place and then the escalation by airport security dude getting super heavy handed. United didn't have "his face smashed in to save a few dollars", don't be such an idiot - they didn't mandate that he had to lose a few teeth for holding them up.

    Edited by Derblington at 17:03:56 15-04-2017
  • twelveways 15 Apr 2017 17:11:35 7,131 posts
    Seen 2 weeks ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    There are tons of lawyers out there who state that UA shouldn't have removed him. But yeah, your unnamed source is obviously much better than the hundreds of articles that come up when you Google it.

    And yeah, it obviously had nothing to do with them saving money...
  • twelveways 15 Apr 2017 17:12:40 7,131 posts
    Seen 2 weeks ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    By the way, a doctor who needs to take the flight in order to be in work is on the must-fly list
  • richardiox 15 Apr 2017 17:13:21 7,744 posts
    Seen 17 minutes ago
    Registered 15 years ago
    Bloobat wrote:
    @Decks sorry but what rights? I don't see which rights were broken? Had he stood up he wouldn't have suffered any of the injuries he did. I just don't get how people are asking for the security guys to lose their jobs when really they were just doing their jobs
    Their job is to drag paying customers off a plane to rectify mistakes made by their employers? In which case they should lose their jobs purely on the basis they're cunts.
  • richardiox 15 Apr 2017 17:18:38 7,744 posts
    Seen 17 minutes ago
    Registered 15 years ago
    Derblington wrote:
    Well wherever it sits, I skim read that and though it fit under it. Apparently there's some gov. reg. that enables airlines to send emergency reserve crew as priority in order to prevent flight standstill and subsequent backlog that would massively impact an airport.

    A ton of lawyers have stated that United were fine to remove him from the flight and followed the correct procedure in doing so - they didn't touch the guy and called the security in order to resolve the issue. The problems started with boarding the plane in the first place and then the escalation by airport security dude getting super heavy handed. United didn't have "his face smashed in to save a few dollars", don't be such an idiot - they didn't mandate that he had to lose a few teeth for holding them up.
    Putting legality aside for a second, just ethically speaking, you're basically on the side of the company that firstly asked a paying customer to leave the plane for a reason that was nothing to do with him and then when he didn't comply they called in airport security to remove him by force.

    That makes you sound like an arsehole. You're wording and phrases like "I'm sure the Dr will get a good payout" don't help.
  • Trowel 15 Apr 2017 17:56:00 22,633 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 16 years ago
    The legal aspects have been well covered:
    ...United, like most airlines, has a clause in its contract with every passenger which says, effectively, “You may have a ‘confirmed’ reservation for a flight, and be sitting on board, but we still reserve the right to offload you to make room for someone else.” (The actual wording is: “All of UA’s flights are subject to overbooking which could result in UA’s inability to provide previously confirmed reserved space for a given flight.”)

    I also pointed out that the captain’s word goes. The Federal Aviation Administration says: “The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.” Our own CAA has a similar regulation: “Every person in an aircraft must obey all lawful commands which the pilot in command of that aircraft may give for the purpose of securing the safety of the aircraft and of persons or property carried in the aircraft, or the safety, efficiency or regularity of air navigation.”
    http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/united-airlines-flight-3411-david-dao-denied-boarding-overbooking-compensation-regulations-faa-caa-a7682276.html
Log in or register to reply

Sometimes posts may contain links to online retail stores. If you click on one and make a purchase we may receive a small commission. For more information, go here.