I’ve heard that a couple offered to get off for $1600 but they were, literally, laughed at.
Really? Because witnesses who were there claimed he was assaulted first, dragged off the airplane, *then *ran back on the airplane.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t think I said that exactly, as I’m sure that there are quite a few people who may not flynUnited out of principle. But I’m reasonably confident that those non-customers will be replaced by people who just want cheap tickets and shorter travel times on the routes they fly.
I note that the stock price has returned to essentially its pre-scandal value. If Wall Street thought this would impact profitability in the long term, I don’t think we would see that happen. As it is, people sold on the news and then value hunters bought what they think became an undervalued stock.
This. What United has to say and do to placate its potential customer base doesn’t necessarily match up with the rights and wrongs, or the legalities, of the situation. Whatever apologies and concessions United makes don’t undermine arguments being made here in United’s defense.
The hits keep coming. Yeah, it’s a tabloid … grain of salt required, yeah? But surely not fabulated from whole cloth … right?
.
United should be able to pull through in the end … but it’s starting to look like multiple incidents now.
I’ve read that article twice and still don’t understand it. Did they pay for the grandma’s seat in first class?
Then there’s this cryptic part:
Her granddaughter Marianne Santos Aguilar says staff from United Airlines would not allow Mrs Orquiza’s daughter Rose, who travelled on the same flight in economy, to help the elderly woman, but refused to help her themselves.
Help her what? Was Rose sitting in the premium seat next to her? Was it with boarding? There are just some details missing and it doesn’t make a lick of sense.
The sticky part is: it doesn’t have to make sense to be a damaging account.
If these stories keep coming out, and start numbering in the tens, say … hardly anyone is going to scour them and play devil’s advocate. It’ll just be so many more “another day at United Airlines” stories. As the butterfly emerges from the chrysalis, half-truths and one-sided accounts can yield cold, hard fact.
This account answers some of those questions. The elderly lady had a business class seat, while her daughter had an economy class seat. The daughter was up in business class before take-off helping her mother, according to the daughter’s account.
The Inquirer account quoted here goes a lot easier on United. Well, we’ll see which version of events wins out in the court of public opinion.
This is only true if you assume right versus wrong can be settled merely by asking whether they technically had a legal right to do it.
My position is that it can’t. The existence of a legal right is only one factor in asking whether United’s actions were “right” in a broader sense, and that broader sense is what matters.
“Technically, the law allows us to do this” is not an adequate answer to the question of right or wrong.
Sorry, I honestly am not looking to quibble with you, but that is in fact exactly what you said right at the start of this whole thing. It’s one of the posts that got me engaged with this thread because I thought you were crazy to think that 
I can see you’re taking a more nuanced position now. You could be right about that - no way to tell in the short term if they will gain back all the customers they’ve lost recently.
But doesn’t that simply mean that Dr. Dao would have a contractual remedy? He is still subject to removal if a property owner demands it, no?
Assume I am an Uber driver and I come to pick you up. As soon as you get in, I tell you that I changed my mind and (have to go to the hospital/pick up my girlfriend/go buy heroin/I don’t like you) please get out.
At the end of the day, it is my property and I may use reasonable force to eject you, no? I may have violated some other law by doing so that will allow you to sue for damages, but can I still enforce my property rights?
Otherwise, it would seem like forced servitude. The remedy for contractual violation is hardly ever specific performance, let alone demanded on the spot specific performance.
As I said, United was WRONG. Absolutely wrong, but I believe within their legal rights so that they would not be subject to damages for the forcible removal (if found not to be excessive).
No. Airlines are a federally regulated industry. This isn’t and has never been an issue of a private property owner exercising rights over their property.
They are allowed by law to overbook flights on the basis that it keeps ticket prices lower because some people probably won’t show up and they want the planes to be as full as possible. The question here is whether they can consider their own employees to be oversold passengers and if so, by what basis they were given priority over other paying, confirmed passengers. Like I said in an earlier post the reason why they are demanding someone leave the plane does matter. Federal law prohibits them from doing that except in circumstances laid out in the federal code.
By the looks of the regulation cited about bumping passengers they weren’t within their legal rights in this case. The fact that they have reversed their policy and apologized before even being sued isn’t just a PR stunt. I believe the executive management and legal counsel of the company have come to the conclusion that this wasn’t legal.
This is not clear. There are DOT regulations concerning that and the DOT is investigating. DOT regs will overule this silly idea of “trespassing”.
United flies under* Federal regulations* by the DOT, FAA etc. those overule any local laws on trespassing.
In the case of an Uber driver: yes.
But in the case of a carrier within the meaning of 14 CFR § 250.2? Not sure. The CFR regulates airline conduct. It’s true that United may have breached the contract; I’m arguing that United also breached the regulations imposed by the CFR. That’s not an action in tort or contract.
Makes me wonder if they aren’t planning to throw someone under the bus and try to pretend it was one or two rogue employees.
I’m not confident enough to announce it as established fact. I’m arguing that the CFR forbid United’s actions. But I’m basing that argument on a very brief read in an area of law I don’t know well.
I’m not sure I understand the depth of your certainty.
I tend to agree with you. I’ll be interested to see how this all plays out once the lawyers and regulators get involved.
But DrDeth was responding to a poster who, like quite a few others in this thread, was making a simplistic assertion about trespassing laws. While it might not be clear exactly what (if any) federal laws or regulations, or what contractual obligations, were violated by United, it strikes me as the height of oversimplification, in a case like this, to simply start trotting out vague assertions about trespassing as if this were some guy who barged into your house uninvited and wouldn’t move from your couch.
Almost everyone knows that airlines in the United States are a federally regulated industry, that they are subject to a very specific set of laws and regulations, and that things don’t necessarily work the same in airports and on planes as they do in a lot of other areas. People spouting trespassing claims would do well to remember this.