Oh ok, so I rent you a car and we sign all the papers and you pay and I hand you the key. As you are about to leave I say, “Oh wait, I need that car so k9bfriender can pick up their dog at the groomers. I’ll get you a car a soon as I can but no promises. Here’s a voucher for a free rental from us that expires in a year.”
Knowing they can’t legally stop you from driving off, what would you do? After all, it is THEIR car.
All you’re saying here is that you want the debate to be about this one part of the entire event, excluding any and all context - including the inexorable fact that if United had exercised the least degree of common sense and responsibility for its own snafus, the part you so desperately want to debate would never have happened.
Others can take you up on that if they see fit, but I personally will take a pass on that, thanks.
Yes, but when they are ordering you out of your domicile is not the time to argue.
The time to argue about it is later, in court.
Even simpler solution: no involuntary bumps. Incentives for agreeing to being voluntarily bumped: strictly cash.
For how little the lawsuit is worth? Remember we’re assuming he left after illegally (and against the contract) being involuntarily bumped. How much is that worth? Less than an attorney would charge unless he goes in pro per against United’s lawyers where he’d have as much of a chance winning as finding a magnetic monopole.
Not even remotely comparable.
To be comparable to this situation, they would have had to offer me a cash refund + additional compensation, just as they gave this guy (if you think they gave him a time- and use-limited $800 voucher, you’re only demonstrating that you don’t actually have the slightest clue as to what actually happened–the $800 voucher was offered to volunteers; once no volunteers were forthcoming, they gave the legally-mandated cash compensation to those who were removed involuntarily)
You call the police. Unless the landlord can produce an eviction order from a court, they’ll tell the landlord to fuck off and let you back in–because the presence or absence of an eviction order is a simple enough matter that they can make a determination there and then.
Again, the law treats landlord-tenant relationships differently because you’re talking about kicking someone out of their home. The same principles absolutely do not apply as do to removing someone from their seat on an airplane, since a seat on an airplane is not at all like a home.
So, what you are saying, in this case, is that the police should have read the common carrier contract, and pointed out that it was United that was in violation, rather than the passenger, and told the flight crew to fuck off?
I guess I can agree with that
There are different laws about kicking people out of their home than there are about kicking someone off a flight, yes, but those laws are not treated differently. They should be followed in either case.
Cite?
…so you didn’t actually bother to read what I said?
The rules are different because they’re completely different situations.
How many times do I have to repeat it before it gets through to you?
For one, whether or not a court order exists is a hell of a lot simpler to determine than the meaning of a contract. It’s reasonable to expect police to deal with the first on the spot; the second is a vastly different matter. Indeed, determining whether or not a court order exists is roughly on par with determining who owns a plane and whether said owner wants a particular person off of it.
For two, a seat a plane is not the same as a home. The principles we use to deal with disputes over one do not necessarily apply to a dispute over the other.
Stop trying to pretend that two different things are the same. They’re not.
First of all, he’s already hired an attorney named Thomas Demetrio. He specializes in “medical negligence, product liability, airplane crash and commercial litigation”. Second my guess as a layman is that he will get a six-figure amount. Third, sometimes attorneys take on such cases for the publicity value. (I think that’s what Gloria Allred does.)
Not agreeing is not the same as not understanding. Repeating yourself is not the same as making a persuasive argument.
So, your standard is the difficulty that the police have in understanding contracts and court orders. If it’s easy for the cop to understand, then the police have discretion over the matter, if it is hard for cop to understand, they have to blindly follow the orders of whoever seems to have authority in the matter.
I am not pretending they are the same, I am living in a reality where both are under the same reality.
But, basically, what you are saying is that because one is depriving you of your domicile, the police will exercise some level of discretion in the matter, but if it is just for your rights in general, then you need to accept whatever they say, and go to court later for remedies. I can agree that, unfortunately, that is how it is now, but I disagree that that is how it should be, which is kind of the entire point of the thread.
This has already been settled in the court of public opinion. UAL certainly wants this out of the spotlight and will settle without a court proceeding. I suspect it will be for quite a bit. With the codicil that the amount is never exposed.
And, I think, that many attorneys would take this pro bono just for the exposure.
Nobody on that plane was the owner of the plane. The closest there is to an owner of the plane is the CEO of United Airlines.
He says:
You, Czarcasm, and Smapti may prefer a world where we must bow to authority regardless of how wrongfully it is being asserted, but most people including this passenger and the “owner of the property” in question disagree with you.
In the mean time both of the other officers involved in this assault have been suspended.
Kinda surprised too, but are we sure the armrest wasn’t raised?
[sidenote]Knowing this little trick is really handy for a tall guy like myself. I can raise it, swing my feet into the aisle and stand up without having to scrunch down under the overhead storage and wiggle my way out grabbing the seat in front of me for balance and disturbing that passenger. Also helps for other people in the row. [/sn]
Look up “contingency fee” - worked for me last time I needed a lawyer. You don’t *have *to go into debt to get a lawyer.
It looks now like they would have been better off going much higher on the compensation offers.
United loses $250 million of its market value
That’sa whole lotta bags of pretzels.
Stop avoiding the question.
OK they offer all that and you still want to drive off. Explain to me why you shouldn’t be allowed to.
I’m seeing claims online that at some point, a young couple on the plane offered to take the place of two of the randomly chosen boot-offs, and were refused. I haven’t seen this anywhere; anyone know a source?
I fly about once a year. And have had no problems. As people complained about the less, and less room, they introduced stretch seating. It is more common, and I will gladly pay for it.
The consumer spoke. Perhaps this will change the way ‘overbooking’ is handled. I understand that it was not an overbooking problem.
My understanding is that mechanical problems on a previous flight from Colorado had made the deadheading crew to be late to pick up/work their next flight. And that’s why the late bumping had occurred.
UAL (and all airlines) should have contingencies in place to offer enough for people to volunteer to leave the plane. Sure would have cost less for UAL overall.
“Sorry, I’m gonna be a day late, but will make up for it with $2000 to do so”
And no Smapti, no one is going to hold out for your mythical $1,000,000.