Originally Posted by
MSPeconomist
Surely it should be possible to reassure major corporate contract customers that their people won't be subject to IDBs. AFAIK it could even be written into the contract. Government fare passengers already can't be given IDBs/
I don't see how they could identify these customers, unless there is a special fare bucket and that is programmed into the IDB selection software. Most of my UA business travel is under a corporate contract, and I am never greeted with "thank you and X company for your business" though there is a special corporate checkin desk @
sfo (which I never use as I don't check bags and it's located in the domestic terminal).
I don't think corporate customers are asking for special privileges. I think the bigger concern (as an employer) is to ensure the safety of my employees when they travel. Which UA utterly failed to do.
Originally Posted by
spin88
He is wrong. Dao is an invitee, and his and UA's rights are per the CoC. If the CoC allows Dao to be removed in the circumstances of this incident UA is within its rights. My read is the CoC does not cover what happened to Dao, and United breached its contract in removing him for the reasons they removed him. I have not seen a reasonable counter argument (no "act of god" does not apply...)
Notably, AA's CoC would have allowed a removal in this situation, but they just changed to to take away that right from themselves (they made it more passenger friendly).
I agree that the CoC may not specifically cover this situation as it was not IDB or VDB but rather forcible ejection of a paid customer who had already boarded and was not a safety issue. Admittedly biased but I'd be comfortable ruling that UA breached the contract as a matter of law and the only issue for the jury is damages. Of course, that is a separate claim from the tort claim for personal injuries that directly resulted from UA's direction to LEOs to forcibly eject the passenger.
Originally Posted by
nitzer
Every single person on that plane has already hired a private lawyer. Passengers, crew, gate attendant, police. All of them. The employees of United's private lawyers are already negotiating their "severance" package in return for cooperation with United on what to say. Those packages will probably range around 5-10 million each depending on what they know. All you have to imagine is that the GA can just go up and say "Well yes we are told in training we will only give $800 max and after that we have the right to forcefully remove him and it will be determine later why. I was just following company procedure." That right there would be destruction at its finest.
I would not be so sure though UA or more likely the union has likely retained separate counsel to represent each employee. There is no way UA will offer a $5-10 million severance package to each employee, as that would instantly destroy their credibility. So it's in UA's interest to keep them in the fold. Moreover the employee's primary defense is that they were following UA's rules and Oscar has already admitted that.
Originally Posted by
spin88
My guess is that Dao ends up at around $10M gross. I think the risks to UAL presented by discovery as to "other similar incidents" as well as depositions of key policy makers such as Oscar will cause United to settle quickly, before they happen.
I think the over/under is $1 million. Remember the actual damages will be limited to the cost of medical treatment, pain & suffering, lost wages, etc. Of course punitive could go much higher but that is limited as well by SCOTUS precedent.
It is not at all clear that the court will permit discovery of unrelated incidents. For the same reason I do not think that a class action will be feasible as the factual circumstances of and damages resulting from Dr. Dao's ejection were rather unique. Though perhaps one could try a class action on behalf of all similarly ejected customers that did not go through the VDB or IDB process.