Summa Cum Laude Touro Law Center

False imprisonment consists of an unlawful restraint, against his will, of an individual's personal liberty or freedom of locomotion. Marcus v. Liebman, 59 Ill.App.3d 337, 339 (1978). An arrest or seizure by an officer caused or procured by a private person is the same as an arrest by the private person. Karow v. Student Inns, Inc., 43 Ill.App.3d 878, 881 (1976). Where the officer relies solely on the information which the defendant's employee gave him in making the arrest, the private party defendant may be held liable for false imprisonment. Odorizzi v. A. O. Smith Corp., 452 F.2d 229, 231 (7th Cir. 1971); Green v. No. 35 Check Exchange, Inc., 77 Ill.App.2d 25, 31-32 (1966).

TominLazybrook

I'd add to that the fact that many of us can clearly see that we sometimes get far worse seats than UA personnel flying on non-flight ops related tickets.

And I always assume that in any connection situation that UA (and other airlines) WANT you to misconnect because they've sold that seat multiple times.

---

Here's what they should do

1) Rework the IVDB procedure. It should include the IVDB payment plus UA payment for any and all costs to get the IVDBed pax to their destination as quickly as possible, even if it is on another airline and at great expense. When customers have an urgent need to get somewhere, they have to PAY, and UA profits from that. When UA needs to get pax off a plane at the last minute, they shouldn't be able to avoid the costs of that. Add clear, and defined procedures as to who gets IVDBed in such an eventuality and publish them so everyone knows the rules.


2) Rework the whole voucher mess. As far as I can tell, the most UA offered was a voucher worth about 200 real dollars to the airline for being a volunteer. That's not much. Perhaps they should remove the restrictions on the vouchers and allow them to be used for multiple travelers and multiple tickets and allow them to be sold (so that people who fly infrequently might be tempted to actually take the offer). When people ask for volunteers, many of the frequent fliers immediately ignore the announcement because they don't see much value in the vouchers (heck many of them could use the RPUs and GPUs as wallpaper for all the good they are to them), and those that don't fly frequently don't have any use for the voucher. So on a 70 person flight, its really easy to see why no one took the offer. Because the people who could actually use the voucher don't see it as something really worth their time. If UA values the voucher at 25 cents on the dollar, I can promise you many of their pax value it at even less than that.

3) Work on the perception that customers come last at UA. If a customer can just miss a meeting or an event because of a misconnect, IVDB, etc., then so can a UA non-flight-op employee (even if they work in Willis Tower or on Smith Street). Ensure that paying pax are taken care of first before placing non-revs in seats. Strictly enforce the bag rule for non-revs regarding overhead stowage. Don't place the security of your carryon over that of the pax by having the crew/deadheads take all the overheads in first class (if they don't hold seats in F). If there are a lot of people on a waitlist to get on a flight, have a stricter policy as to who gets on the flight as a non-rev. Try paying real cash to your pilots instead of offering them F instead of cash. Compensate your employees working in expensive hubs fairly so they don't feel the need to commute from all over the country to get to your hubs located in expensive cities.

4) Work on credibility. Part of the issue is that UA has overpromised and underdelivered for so long that many of its customers don't believe them anymore. And lets just say that the pages of FT are filled with threads complaining about UA employees being accused of being less than truthful with pax regarding IRROPS, delays, etc. Seriously, when there's a recognized acronym for hang up and call back, there's a serious problem. It means that everyone recognizes that the airline operates arbitrarily and see the 'workaround' as one of just hang up on the UA representative and get someone else.

UAzip

Possibly--which may or may not work. At some point, it will just get things done sooner to cancel. Not saying it is the right thing to do, but it would be practical and avoid a PR nightmare involving what we have seen.

Visconti

Sorry, may have read your post too quickly. While I agree that perceptions do matter, without having a crystal ball, I'm not sure how UA could have avoided this situation.

Allow me to clarify. Regardless of UA's actions here, people who value a better experience will pay more, whether it's for J, F, SQ or CX to Asia. Likewise, those who opt for the LCC experience will use price as the determining factor and will unlikely be affected one way or the other by this incident. Finally, those who make decisions based on philosophical beliefs and ideologies will do what they do regardless. For the latter, it makes little sense to cater to such a small clique (can't influence this group with price/quality, so ignore them) when the majority of the world decides on price vs. value.

In the end, I think UA will be fine. Their success or failure isn't going to be predicated on this one incident and a social media firestorm, in my view.

PS - Not suggest those make decisions based on philosophical beliefs are less important, but that it makes little sense to deviate form sound business practice based on this vocal minority.

NFH

Any passenger whom an airline unreasonably asks to leave the aircraft should refuse to move. The airline's request has to be for a reasonable purpose, and the purpose in this case was unreasonable. Unless passengers resist this abuse, airlines will continue it.

The smallest state

and......................the person buying the product is not allowed to resell it. So UA can sell 105% of the seats on the flights, but I cannot sell my ticket to another party.

dweick

So he can be removed because he failed to comply with an order to leave the plane.

That's circular logic and fails the first part:

Whenever refusal or removal of a Passenger may be necessary for the safety of such Passenger or other Passengers or members of the crew including, but not limited to:

He wasn't being removed or refused passage for safety reasons.

Karl Gustav Annus

The wall street has shown its opinion

http://gizmodo.com/united-loses-800-...ium=socialflow

chavala

another good one: http://www.msnbc.com/for-the-record-...t-918214723688

jwh212

definitely not missing any words here.

https://www.united.com/web/en-US/con...-carriage.aspx

each self standing reason (including being too fat, too drunk, or makes a voice telephone call while on the place) is considered a breach under section H

Passengers whose conduct is disorderly, offensive, abusive, or violent;
Passengers who fail to comply with or interfere with the duties of the members of the flight crew, federal regulations, or security directives;
Passengers who assault any employee of UA, including the gate agents and flight crew, or any UA Passenger;
Passengers who, through and as a result of their conduct, cause a disturbance such that the captain or member of the cockpit crew must leave the cockpit in order to attend to the disturbance;
Passengers who are barefoot or not properly clothed;
Passengers who appear to be intoxicated or under the influence of drugs to a degree that the Passenger may endanger the Passenger or another Passenger or members of the crew (other than a qualified individual whose appearance or involuntary behavior may make them appear to be intoxicated or under the influence of drugs);
Passengers wearing or possessing on or about their person concealed or unconcealed deadly or dangerous weapons; provided, however, that UA will carry law enforcement personnel who meet the qualifications and conditions established in 49 C.F.R. §1544.219;
Passengers who are unwilling or unable to follow UA’s policy on smoking or use of other smokeless materials;
Unless they comply with Rule 6 I), Passengers who are unable to sit in a single seat with the seat belt properly secured, and/or are unable to put the seat’s armrests down when seated and remain seated with the armrest down for the entirety of the flight, and/or passengers who significantly encroach upon the adjoining passenger’s seat;
Passengers who are manacled or in the custody of law enforcement personnel;
Passengers who have resisted or may reasonably be believed to be capable of resisting custodial supervision;
Pregnant Passengers in their ninth month, unless such Passenger provides a doctor’s certificate dated no more than 72 hours prior to departure stating that the doctor has examined and found the Passenger to be physically fit for air travel to and from the destination requested on the date of the flight, and that the estimated date of delivery is after the date of the last flight;
Passengers who are incapable of completing a flight safely, without requiring extraordinary medical assistance during the flight, as well as Passengers who appear to have symptoms of or have a communicable disease or condition that could pose a direct threat to the health or safety of others on the flight, or who refuse a screening for such disease or condition. (NOTE: UA requires a medical certificate for Passengers who wish to travel under such circumstances. Visit UA’s website, united.com, for more information regarding UA’s requirements for medical certificates);
Passengers who fail to travel with the required safety assistant(s), advance notice and/or other safety requirements pursuant to Rules 14 and 15;
Passengers who do not qualify as acceptable Non-Ambulatory Passengers (see Rule 14);
Passengers who have or cause a malodorous condition (other than individuals qualifying as disabled);
Passengers whose physical or mental condition is such that, in United’s sole opinion, they are rendered or likely to be rendered incapable of comprehending or complying with safety instructions without the assistance of an escort. The escort must accompany the escorted passenger at all times; and
Unaccompanied passengers who are both blind and deaf, unless such passenger is able to communicate with representatives of UA by either physical, mechanical, electronic, or other means. Such passenger must inform UA of the method of communication to be used; and
Passengers who are unwilling to follow UA’s policy that prohibits voice calls after the aircraft doors have closed, while taxiing in preparation for takeoff, or while airborne.

Rdenney

So, why is the burden of "taking it to court" placed on the passenger, and not on the airline? We expect Dao to take it to court, but United is free to use physical force? Why can't we expect United to take Dao to court, after having bought off another passenger?

dweick

They are selling you a parking permit, not a reserved parking space.

gold23

This, or government action, is the ONLY way change will be implemented. Hoping for a sustained dive here...

ShutteLag

QUOTE:

http://www.state.ky.us/agencies/kbml...ders/22439.pdf

To summarize:

The dude from the flight IS a doctor...who was indicted in 2003 by a grand jury for criminal acts of trafficking in a controlled substance, obtaining drugs by fraud and deceit, and unauthorized prescribing, dispensing, or administering of controlled substences.

During the investigation of all of this, it was discovered that he had become s-xually interested in a patient who was referred to him. During the initial evaluation, he performed a complete physical examination, including a genital examination, for the patient who had been referred for collapsed lungs and chest pain.

He then made the patient his office manager. Then he quit his job, and they ended up in some weird situation where prescriptions were exchanged for s-xual acts.

jkhuggins

And I would argue that airlines aren't selling you a reserved seat on a plane, either.