quote:

Originally posted by feersum dreadnaught:
United Airlines' Own Contract Denied it any Right to Remove Passenger

by Jens David Ohlin

Like all airlines, United has a very specific (and lengthy!) contract for carriage outlining the contractual relationship between the airline and the passenger. It includes a familiar set of provisions for when a passenger may be denied boarding (Rule 25 “Denied Boarding Compensation”). When a flight is oversold, UA can deny boarding to some passengers, who then receive compensation under specific guidelines. However, Dao was not denied boarding. He was granted boarding and then involuntarily removed from the airplane. What does the contract say about that?

It turns out that the contract has a specific rule regarding “Refusal of Transport” (Rule 21), which lays out the conditions under which a passenger can be removed and refused transport on the aircraft. This includes situations where passengers act in a “disorderly, offensive, abusive, or violent” manner, refuse to comply with the smoking policy, are barefoot or “not properly clothed,” as well as many other situations. There is absolutely no provision for deplaning a seated passenger because the flight is oversold.

Bottom line is that if the airline wants to bump you from the aircraft, it must deny you boarding. After the crew grant you boarding, the number of conditions under which they may deplane you substantially decreases.

Might the airline argue that it had the right to refuse transport because Dao was “disorderly, offensive, abusive, or violent” (Rule 21H1) or causing a “disturbance” (Rule 21H4)? Although this depends on the facts, news reports suggest that Dao was not upset, and was minding his own business, until he was told that he was being involuntarily removed and he was dragged kicking and screaming from the aircraft. His being upset was caused by United Airline’s breach of its contractual duties towards him as a passenger, rather than the reverse.

All of this means that the airline may not have had the right to remove Dao from the aircraft. What are the consequences of this breach? Rule 21 on Refusal of Transport states that “UA is not liable for its refusal to transport any passenger or for its removal of any passenger in accordance with this Rule” and that the sole remedy is a refund of the ticket. In this case, however, United Airlines did not deplane the passenger “in accordance with this Rule,” but probably acted contrary to the Rule. So, the liability exclusion by its terms does not apply.

The last aspect of this case – the most disturbing one – is the level of force used by the police officers. Based on the videos, most observers have concluded that the force was excessive and unnecessary given the circumstances. A deeper issue is whether the police had the authority to remove Dao in the first instance once United Airlines declared him persona non grata and asked the police to treat him as a trespasser. Presumably the police had the authority to remove him (but only with an appropriate level of force), but even so, there is a plausible argument that Dao’s injuries and damages suffered during that process were caused by the airline’s breach of contract, which specifically defines the circumstances when it can refuse transport, none of which applied in this case.

http://www.dorfonlaw.org/2017/...tract-denied-it.html

quote:

Originally posted by bigwagon:

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
OK, let's try a different approach-

explain to me, please, hoiw this is relevent to the subject at hand.

Relevant or not, we at least ought to know the facts.

quote:

Originally posted by newtoSig765:
Anybody have a feel for the possibility of criminal charges and jail time for the Perps? I'm thinking of the "cops" since they administered the beating, but also against the airline employees who instigated the beating, primarily the air crew.

So far all I see being discussed is money, of which the industry has plenty to spare, no real punishment for the guilty. Jail time would put some teeth into the desire to reform the industry, I think!

quote:

Originally posted by mutedblade:

quote:

Originally posted by bigwagon:

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
OK, let's try a different approach-

explain to me, please, hoiw this is relevent to the subject at hand.

Relevant or not, we at least ought to know the facts.

I heard this guy had a bowl of Cheerios for breakfast that morning. Does this have any bearing whatsoever on this discussion? Not even a little bit! Maybe we can get past irrelevant issues and focus on what the real problems are with this debacle.

quote:

Originally posted by saigonsmuggler:
I have to say though that it is a bit disheartening, if not alarming, to see the commercial airline pilots in this forum, whom I suspect many hold with great regards, to simply see the wrong in this situation. To recognize the simple business ethos and simple common sense.

As equally alarming, was the article in Newsweek by that Cornell law professor pointing out the illegality of United's action based on their own contract of carriage. I guess it is not that surprising that the United gate crew screwed this up, given that our own Sigforum captains didn't know it as well.

quote:

Originally posted by Protein anchor:

I believe they would have been able to drive and still had time to rest properly. This incident took place in the afternoon - they could have driven to St. Louis and been there by mid evening. What's the problem? And, not to be a prick, but sometimes you have to work on less than optimal rest. In this case, however, they would have easily been snug as a bug by 9 PM had they so chosen to drive.

quote:

Originally posted by newtoSig765:
Anybody have a feel for the possibility of criminal charges and jail time for the Perps? I'm thinking of the "cops" since they administered the beating, but also against the airline employees who instigated the beating, primarily the air crew.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by Protein anchor:

I believe they would have been able to drive and still had time to rest properly. This incident took place in the afternoon - they could have driven to St. Louis and been there by mid evening. What's the problem? And, not to be a prick, but sometimes you have to work on less than optimal rest. In this case, however, they would have easily been snug as a bug by 9 PM had they so chosen to drive.

You obviously have no idea what you're talking about in regards to Federal work/rest hour rules.

quote:

Originally posted by OKCGene:

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by Protein anchor:

I believe they would have been able to drive and still had time to rest properly. This incident took place in the afternoon - they could have driven to St. Louis and been there by mid evening. What's the problem? And, not to be a prick, but sometimes you have to work on less than optimal rest. In this case, however, they would have easily been snug as a bug by 9 PM had they so chosen to drive.

You obviously have no idea what you're talking about in regards to Federal work/rest hour rules.

Federal DOT regulations definitely govern how many hours of work per day are allowed as well as how many hours of rest MUST be obeyed. Penalties are severe. This is not only for airline pilots but also truck drivers. You may recall events of tired truck drivers falling asleep and killing people.

I have no problem with this in general, however as always the devil is in the details, especially once unions are involved.

I will say that I am in favor of regulations so that there should be NO tired pilots or truck drivers, or bus drivers, falling asleep and killing people.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
Why are all those passengers upset at what they saw? Don't they know that all of this is the doctor's fault? I mean, they were eye witnesses. Surely they must be able to draw a conclusion based upon the events? How can they get it so wrong?

What's wrong with this picture?

quote:

Originally posted by RichardC:

quote:

Originally posted by newtoSig765:
...also against the airline employees who instigated the beating, primarily the air crew.

Really?

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by OKCGene:

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by Protein anchor:

I believe they would have been able to drive and still had time to rest properly. This incident took place in the afternoon - they could have driven to St. Louis and been there by mid evening. What's the problem? And, not to be a prick, but sometimes you have to work on less than optimal rest. In this case, however, they would have easily been snug as a bug by 9 PM had they so chosen to drive.

You obviously have no idea what you're talking about in regards to Federal work/rest hour rules.

Federal DOT regulations definitely govern how many hours of work per day are allowed as well as how many hours of rest MUST be obeyed. Penalties are severe. This is not only for airline pilots but also truck drivers. You may recall events of tired truck drivers falling asleep and killing people.

I have no problem with this in general, however as always the devil is in the details, especially once unions are involved.

I will say that I am in favor of regulations so that there should be NO tired pilots or truck drivers, or bus drivers, falling asleep and killing people.

The maritime industry is under similar regulations.

quote:

I will say that I am in favor of regulations so that there should be NO tired pilots or truck drivers, or bus drivers, falling asleep and killing people.

quote:

Originally posted by Icabod:
"Third, Dr. Dao is made out to to be the sole victim, when in fact, 200 of his fellow passengers were held up for two hours because of his selfish actions. If he acted differently, this story never happens. If the Flight Crew seeking seats doesn't get to KY in a timely fashion, another 200-250 travelers are victimized by one man."

Point of order. I was catching up on this tread and saw this statement. Previously I saw an article that there were 70 passengers. Check the aircraft type. It cannot hold that many. The diagram I found shows the layout....