Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Airlines and Mileage Programs > United Airlines | MileagePlus
Reload this Page >

Man pulled off of overbooked flight UA3411 (ORD-SDF) 9 Apr 2017 {Settlement reached}

Community
Wiki Posts
Search
Old Apr 10, 2017, 8:42 pm
FlyerTalk Forums Expert How-Tos and Guides
Last edit by: WineCountryUA
WELCOME, THREAD GUIDELINES and SUMMARY PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING

If you are new to us, welcome to FlyerTalk! Who we are: FlyerTalk features discussions and chat boards that cover the most up-to-date traveler information; an interactive community dedicated to the topic of travel (not politics or arguments about politics or religion, etc. – those discussion are best in the OMNI forum)

The incident discussed in this thread has touched a nerve for many, and many posters are passionate about their opinions and concerns. However we should still have a civil and respectful discussion of this topic. This is because FlyerTalk is meant to be a friendly, helpful, and collegial community. (Rule 12.)

1. The normal FlyerTalk Rules apply. (Including not discussing moderation actions in thread). Please be particularly attentive to "discussing the idea and not the poster" when you have a disagreement. Civility and mutual respect are still expected and are what we owe each other as a community.

2. You are expected to respect the FlyerTalk community's diversity, and therefore refrain from posting inflammatory comments about race, religion, culture, politics, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc. Do not cite, copy, or report on such.

3. While you can disagree with an opinion, the holder of that opinion has the same right to their opinion as you have to yours. We request all to respect that and disagree or discuss their point of views without getting overly personal and without attacking the other poster(s). This is expected as a requirement in FT Rule 12.

4. Overly exaggerative posts as well as posts with information that has been posted several times previously may be summarily deleted.

5. In addition, those who repeatedly fail to comply with FlyerTalk Rules, may be subjected to FlyerTalk disciplinary actions and, e.g., have membership privileges suspended, or masked from this forum.

If you have questions about the Rules or concerns about what another has posted in this or other threads in this forum, please do not post about that. Rather, notify the moderators by using the alert symbol within each post or email or send a private message to us moderators.

Let’s have this discussion in a way that, when we look back on it, we can be proud of how we handled ourselves as a community.

The United Moderator team:
J.Edward
l'etoile
Ocn Vw 1K
Pat89339
WineCountryUA

N.B. PLEASE do not alter the contents of this moderator note
Statement from United Airlines Regarding Resolution with Dr. David Dao - released 27 April 2017
CHICAGO, April 27, 2017 /PRNewswire/ -- We are pleased to report that United and Dr. Dao have reached an amicable resolution of the unfortunate incident that occurred aboard flight 3411. We look forward to implementing the improvements we have announced, which will put our customers at the center of everything we do.
DOT findings related to the UA3411 9 April 2017 IDB incident 12 May 2017

What facts do we know?
  • UA3411, operated by Republic Airways, ORD-SDF on Sunday, April 9, 2017. UA3411 was the second to last flight to SDF for United. AA3509 and UA4771 were the two remaining departures for the day. Also, AA and DL had connecting options providing for same-day arrival in SDF.
  • After the flight was fully boarded, United determined four seats were needed to accommodate crew to SDF for a flight on Monday.
  • United solicited volunteers for VDB. (BUT stopped at $800 in UA$s, not cash). Chose not to go to the levels such as 1350 that airlines have been known to go even in case of weather impacted disruption)
  • After receiving no volunteers for $800 vouchers, a passenger volunteered for $1,600 and was "laughed at" and refused, United determined four passengers to be removed from the flight.
  • One passenger refused and Chicago Aviation Security Officers were called to forcibly remove the passenger.
  • The passenger hit the armrest in the aisle and received a concussion, a broken nose, a bloodied lip, and the loss of two teeth.
  • After being removed from the plane, the passenger re-boarded saying "I need to go home" repeatedly, before being removed again.
  • United spokesman Jonathan Guerin said the flight was sold out — but not oversold. Instead, United and regional affiliate Republic Airlines – the unit that operated Flight 3411 – decided they had to remove four passengers from the flight to accommodate crewmembers who were needed in Louisville the next day for a “downline connection.”

United Express Flight 3411 Review and Action Report - released 27 April 2017

Videos

Internal Communication by Oscar Munoz
Oscar Munoz sent an internal communication to UA employees (sources: View From The Wing, Chicago Tribune):
Dear Team,

Like you, I was upset to see and hear about what happened last night aboard United Express Flight 3411 headed from Chicago to Louisville. While the facts and circumstances are still evolving, especially with respect to why this customer defied Chicago Aviation Security Officers the way he did, to give you a clearer picture of what transpired, I've included below a recap from the preliminary reports filed by our employees.

As you will read, this situation was unfortunately compounded when one of the passengers we politely asked to deplane refused and it became necessary to contact Chicago Aviation Security Officers to help. Our employees followed established procedures for dealing with situations like this. While I deeply regret this situation arose, I also emphatically stand behind all of you, and I want to commend you for continuing to go above and beyond to ensure we fly right.

I do, however, believe there are lessons we can learn from this experience, and we are taking a close look at the circumstances surrounding this incident. Treating our customers and each other with respect and dignity is at the core of who we are, and we must always remember this no matter how challenging the situation.

Oscar

Summary of Flight 3411
  • On Sunday, April 9, after United Express Flight 3411 was fully boarded, United's gate agents were approached by crewmembers that were told they needed to board the flight.
  • We sought volunteers and then followed our involuntary denial of boarding process (including offering up to $1,000 in compensation) and when we approached one of these passengers to explain apologetically that he was being denied boarding, he raised his voice and refused to comply with crew member instructions.
  • He was approached a few more times after that in order to gain his compliance to come off the aircraft, and each time he refused and became more and more disruptive and belligerent.
  • Our agents were left with no choice but to call Chicago Aviation Security Officers to assist in removing the customer from the flight. He repeatedly declined to leave.
  • Chicago Aviation Security Officers were unable to gain his cooperation and physically removed him from the flight as he continued to resist - running back onto the aircraft in defiance of both our crew and security officials.
Email sent to all employees at 2:08PM on Tuesday, April 11.
Dear Team,

The truly horrific event that occurred on this flight has elicited many responses from all of us: outrage, anger, disappointment. I share all of those sentiments, and one above all: my deepest apologies for what happened. Like you, I continue to be disturbed by what happened on this flight and I deeply apologize to the customer forcibly removed and to all the customers aboard. No one should ever be mistreated this way.

I want you to know that we take full responsibility and we will work to make it right.

It’s never too late to do the right thing. I have committed to our customers and our employees that we are going to fix what’s broken so this never happens again. This will include a thorough review of crew movement, our policies for incentivizing volunteers in these situations, how we handle oversold situations and an examination of how we partner with airport authorities and local law enforcement. We’ll communicate the results of our review by April 30th.

I promise you we will do better.

Sincerely,

Oscar
Statement to customers - 27 April 2017
Each flight you take with us represents an important promise we make to you, our customer. It's not simply that we make sure you reach your destination safely and on time, but also that you will be treated with the highest level of service and the deepest sense of dignity and respect.

Earlier this month, we broke that trust when a passenger was forcibly removed from one of our planes. We can never say we are sorry enough for what occurred, but we also know meaningful actions will speak louder than words.

For the past several weeks, we have been urgently working to answer two questions: How did this happen, and how can we do our best to ensure this never happens again?

It happened because our corporate policies were placed ahead of our shared values. Our procedures got in the way of our employees doing what they know is right.

Fixing that problem starts now with changing how we fly, serve and respect our customers. This is a turning point for all of us here at United – and as CEO, it's my responsibility to make sure that we learn from this experience and redouble our efforts to put our customers at the center of everything we do.

That’s why we announced that we will no longer ask law enforcement to remove customers from a flight and customers will not be required to give up their seat once on board – except in matters of safety or security.

We also know that despite our best efforts, when things don’t go the way they should, we need to be there for you to make things right. There are several new ways we’re going to do just that.

We will increase incentives for voluntary rebooking up to $10,000 and will be eliminating the red tape on permanently lost bags with a new "no-questions-asked" $1,500 reimbursement policy. We will also be rolling out a new app for our employees that will enable them to provide on-the-spot goodwill gestures in the form of miles, travel credit and other amenities when your experience with us misses the mark. You can learn more about these commitments and many other changes at hub.united.com.

While these actions are important, I have found myself reflecting more broadly on the role we play and the responsibilities we have to you and the communities we serve.

I believe we must go further in redefining what United's corporate citizenship looks like in our society. If our chief good as a company is only getting you to and from your destination, that would show a lack of moral imagination on our part. You can and ought to expect more from us, and we intend to live up to those higher expectations in the way we embody social responsibility and civic leadership everywhere we operate. I hope you will see that pledge express itself in our actions going forward, of which these initial, though important, changes are merely a first step.

Our goal should be nothing less than to make you truly proud to say, "I fly United."

Ultimately, the measure of our success is your satisfaction and the past several weeks have moved us to go further than ever before in elevating your experience with us. I know our 87,000 employees have taken this message to heart, and they are as energized as ever to fulfill our promise to serve you better with each flight and earn the trust you’ve given us.

We are working harder than ever for the privilege to serve you and I know we will be stronger, better and the customer-focused airline you expect and deserve.

With Great Gratitude,

Oscar Munoz
CEO
United Airlines
Aftermath
Poll: Your Opinion of United Airlines Reference Material

UA's Customer Commitment says:
Occasionally we may not be able to provide you with a seat on a specific flight, even if you hold a ticket, have checked in, are present to board on time, and comply with other requirements. This is called an oversale, and occurs when restrictions apply to operating a particular flight safely (such as aircraft weight limits); when we have to substitute a smaller aircraft in place of a larger aircraft that was originally scheduled; or if more customers have checked in and are prepared to board than we have available seats.

If your flight is in an oversale situation, you will not be denied a seat until we first ask for volunteers willing to give up their confirmed seats. If there are not enough volunteers, we will deny boarding to passengers in accordance with our written policy on boarding priority. If you are involuntarily denied boarding and have complied with our check-in and other applicable rules, we will give you a written statement that describes your rights and explains how we determine boarding priority for an oversold flight. You will generally be entitled to compensation and transportation on an alternate flight.

We make complete rules for the payment of compensation, as well as our policy about boarding priorities, available at airports we serve. We will follow these rules to ensure you are treated fairly. Please be aware that you may be denied boarding without compensation if you do not check in on time or do not meet certain other requirements, or if we offer you alternative transportation that is planned to arrive at your destination or first stopover no later than one hour after the planned arrival time of your original flight.
CoC is here: https://www.united.com/web/en-US/con...-carriage.aspx
Print Wikipost

Man pulled off of overbooked flight UA3411 (ORD-SDF) 9 Apr 2017 {Settlement reached}

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Apr 13, 2017, 6:34 pm
  #5191  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: ROC/NYC/MSP/LAX/HKG/SIN
Posts: 3,212
Originally Posted by WorldLux
That does not discharge UA from laws, regulations and contractual terms that govern their relations with customers. And I believe that it was amply explained, when and how UA failed to perform the contracts they drafted.



Yes there was and that too has been amply explained over the last 5,000 posts. And it hasn't been proven that the other flights (including connections) were all fully booked.



Extraordinary circumstances warrant extraordinary solutions. Other airlines gladly pay 1,300$ for IDB situations that are out of their control (e.g. distributions due to weather). If having no delay on subsequent flights is so important to UA, why not pay 700$ over the limit. Barely affects the bottom line and it's cheaper than any marketing operation.

If those 8,000$ would've kept 1,004 people down the line happy and not delayed, that works out at <8$ per person. Great investment if you ask me. The decision that was taken delayed the flight in question and subsequent flights. Moreover, a passenger was injured and the brand value goes down the drain. Add to that a potential multi-million settlement and the cost of reimbursing every single passenger of UA3411. But you tell me, that UA took the right decision...
+1.

UA already learned the mistake but this is too late. Bolded - Not only UA has to figure out how to get the crew to final destination, AA, DL, whatever they have to do. How hard is it really to get a vehicle to ferry these four crew members to Louisville? 5.5 hours drive, these folks just have to sit tight in the car/van/motocycle/whatever it takes to get to Louisville. In addition, you would think UA has to get the crew members in for this particular flight, 3411? Internal investigations can easily figure out whether they were told to get on the other flights but GA played bully, or crew were lazy. I heard numerous occasions where crew/GA/club agents/friends just secretly bumped other passengers away because 'they wanted to get on this flight'. What exactly does UA mean 'it was overbooked' but two days later 'it's not overbooked?' UA can't even be consistent about this. Once DOT and class action lawsuit kick in, UA figures they cannot lie anymore.
PaulInTheSky is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 6:36 pm
  #5192  
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Programs: Amtrak Guest Rewards (SE), Virgin America Elevate, Hyatt Gold Passport (Platinum), VIA Preference
Posts: 3,134
Originally Posted by Ber2dca
What exactly would they sue United for anyway? A 2 hour delay in arriving in Louisville? Or being traumatized by having their bubble that the world is a kind and gentle place burst? Ninnies.
Snark aside, it's more the latter. The thing is that even if they would win at trial, United knows that they'd be better off settling a lawsuit from the pax for a lot more if it gets filed ($500/passenger times 70 is $35k in vouchers, or $8750 in paper liability...that is nothing). United would probably lose more in billable hours just trying to get the case dismissed on a bungled filing than they'd take in liabilities from this offering.

So, let me play with a summarized pleading from a class-action suit:
The rest of the passengers saw United have the Chicago Police Department/Chicago Aviation Department beat a passenger senseless while they were in an enclosed space with no viable avenue to escape. They have been put in fear of similar behavior playing out in the future and were shaken by the experience (by some definition you could contend that every passenger on that flight was assaulted in some sense). Add in the "threatening conduct" of the gate agent to begin with and not-implausible allegations that United's digging-up of information against Dr. Dao has put them in fear of similar behavior being directed at them and the suit could even allege that the $500 voucher offer, when taken alongside that, isn't so much a goodwill gesture as it is akin to a mobster saying "So you didn't see nuthin, right?" while tossing some cash at a witness.

Yes, I know the pleading above is likely overblown. However, given the sorts of nigh-on histrionic positions lawyers will stake out in cases, I don't think it's beyond the pale to see that made.
GrayAnderson is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 6:36 pm
  #5193  
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: YVR
Programs: Ice Cream Club, AC SE MM, Bonvoy Life Plat
Posts: 2,803
Originally Posted by desi
Doesnt even require thinking much out of the box.

Just change the regulations so that IDB are extremely painful (10 times total fare)

Then there is plenty of room on VDB to get willing volunteers (not dragged ones)
Agreed. Or just eliminate any cap. Leave it to market forces and VDB process. It will potentially introduce delays for pushback, but at some point airline will have to stop attempting to VDB this flight, and move to next flight..

What I find interesting though, is it removes power from airline to breach contract, which also is troublesome to reconcile with right to contract. But that's academic. Basically, the public wants more regulation here, more protection from some parental org, like FAA or DOT or whatever.
DrunkCargo is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 6:37 pm
  #5194  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: AU
Programs: former Olympic Airways Gold (yeah - still proud of that!)
Posts: 14,406
Originally Posted by halls120
Let's assume there is such a regulation. So what?

Is this UA pilot's wife offering a federal regulation as a defense to the lousy management by UA officials in carrying out the IDB and the inhumane way an elderly man was treated?

Talk about tone deaf - it isn't just Oscar who is afflicted.....
Not using it as an excuse by any means. I just want to know if there is such a thing as a mandated 'must fly' backed by law or if this is just airline policy. Can understand there are legal crew duty limits. But the poster seems to make out that 'must fly' has some legal basis. My thinking is that she is confusing the two.
LHR/MEL/Europe FF is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 6:37 pm
  #5195  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: PHX
Programs: AS 75K; UA 1MM; Hyatt Globalist; Marriott LTP; Hilton Diamond (Aspire)
Posts: 56,455
Originally Posted by LHR/MEL/Europe FF
Is there in fact some law as stated?
No. "Must-fly" has clearly taken on mythic internal proportions among crew and employees, which far exceed any legal or contractual basis.
Kacee is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 6:38 pm
  #5196  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 143
Originally Posted by LHR/MEL/Europe FF
As raised (many) pages ago - is anyone able to shed light on the legal basis of the comments by the UA captain's wife in respect of the 'must fly' provisions? Namely:



Is there in fact some law as stated? (full text here: https://thepilotwifelife.wordpress.c...hor/all4my3ks/)
There's absolutely no evidence such a thing exists. Indeed, if it did it would be incorporated in the CoC. This is (yet another) example of airline employees and {others} waving their hands about union contracts and internal accounting and acting as if it has any bearing on their relationship with contracted passengers. "Must fly" means nothing more and nothing less than the airline has designed these pax as such for their own internal reasons. And it is long past time to ensure that airline calculation does not prioritize them over people actually paying to fly.

Last edited by WineCountryUA; Apr 14, 2017 at 1:50 am Reason: Discuss the issues, not the poster(s)
George Purcell is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 6:39 pm
  #5197  
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Houston/DC
Programs: UA 1K, 1MM
Posts: 564
Originally Posted by PaulInTheSky
A class action lawsuit definitely costs way more than what they could get in the petty voucher. I would suggest every single traveler not to take it, and take the airline to the court.

Concussion, two broken teeth, and broken nose?

If the passengers from the entire cabin file lawsuit, this will probably go more than 10M...
And I really have to ask, what would they be suing for? Really, how were they wronged? Other than the 3 others that were IDB'd (and at least 2 of them did not witness the event since they were off the plane already), everyone got home that night.

If they are going to sue for the "horror" that they witnessed and the trauma, they might want to list Dr Dao also. He was a party to the incident they witnessed. Heck, according to some of the ridiculous estimates on here, Dr. Dao is going to have deep pockets soon. Isn't that who you are supposed to go after

I get that Dr. Dao is going to end up with a payday just for PR reasons (probably out of court), but IMHO any other pax filing suit would be frivolous.

Last edited by FlyngSvyr; Apr 13, 2017 at 7:02 pm
FlyngSvyr is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 6:43 pm
  #5198  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 143
Originally Posted by minnyfly
You clearly do not understand how airlines operate and how they have to comply with government rules and contractual rules regarding crew duties. There was no other alternative for the Republic operations department to maintain the operations of the flight(s) needed by the deadheading crew. Either they got on this flight, or there would be disruptions the next day.

$2,000 a seat? I've never ever heard of a VDB this high, and that would create an incentive for the airline to cancel a flight instead. We don't want that outcome either.
There is no "government rule" that designates crew as "must fly."
George Purcell is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 6:44 pm
  #5199  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BWI
Programs: AA Gold, HH Diamond, National Emerald Executive, TSA Disparager Gold
Posts: 15,180
Originally Posted by deskover54
But he did win. He became famous and is going to be laughing at all of us all the way to the bank.
We have definitions of winning.

Not all wins and losses are financial.
Superguy is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 6:45 pm
  #5200  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Programs: LH SEN; BA Gold
Posts: 8,405
Originally Posted by FlyngSvyr
I get that Dr. Dao is going to end up with a paday just for PR reasons (probably out of court), but IMHO any other pax filing suit would be frivolous.
+1

IMO difficult to argue that you have some sort of PTSD.
WorldLux is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 6:45 pm
  #5201  
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,203
Originally Posted by Wexflyer
Ah so, it was really the victims fault! Yes, when LEO slams your head into a solid object, it is your fault.
+100

It is indeed sickening.

Posts here dont hurt. But milder version of this incident happens to minorities way too frequently in ALL aspects of domestic air travel. Lack of support from the majority of the onlookers is indeed apalling.

Did you notice in the clips, guy seating in front of Dr Dao trying so hard to pretend that nothing wrong is happening. Pax like the nice lady complaining with "oh my god. what are you doing to him" are almost non-existent.

Last edited by WineCountryUA; Apr 14, 2017 at 1:53 am Reason: Quote updated to reflect Moderator edit
desi is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 6:45 pm
  #5202  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: IAH
Programs: UA 1K 2.7MM, Marriott Titanium/LT Plat, IHG Spire
Posts: 3,317
Originally Posted by FlyngSvyr
And I really have to ask, what would they be suing for? Really, how were they wronged? Other than the 3 others that were IDB'd (and at least 2 of them did not witness the event since they were off the plane already), everyone got home that night.

If they are going to sue for the "horror" that they witnessed and the trauma, they might want to list Dr Dao also. He was a party to the incident they witnessed. Heck, according to some of the ridiculous estimates on here, Dr. Dao is going to have deep pockets soon. Isn't that who you are supposed to go after

I get that Dr. Dao is going to end up with a paday just for PR reasons (probably out of court), but IMHO any other pax filing suit would be frivolous.
You are making too much sense to be here.
JNelson113 is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 6:45 pm
  #5203  
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: DMV
Posts: 2,092
Originally Posted by GrayAnderson
Snark aside, it's more the latter. The thing is that even if they would win at trial, United knows that they'd be better off settling a lawsuit from the pax for a lot more if it gets filed ($500/passenger times 70 is $35k in vouchers, or $8750 in paper liability...that is nothing). United would probably lose more in billable hours just trying to get the case dismissed on a bungled filing than they'd take in liabilities from this offering.

So, let me play with a summarized pleading from a class-action suit:
The rest of the passengers saw United have the Chicago Police Department/Chicago Aviation Department beat a passenger senseless while they were in an enclosed space with no viable avenue to escape. They have been put in fear of similar behavior playing out in the future and were shaken by the experience (by some definition you could contend that every passenger on that flight was assaulted in some sense). Add in the "threatening conduct" of the gate agent to begin with and not-implausible allegations that United's digging-up of information against Dr. Dao has put them in fear of similar behavior being directed at them and the suit could even allege that the $500 voucher offer, when taken alongside that, isn't so much a goodwill gesture as it is akin to a mobster saying "So you didn't see nuthin, right?" while tossing some cash at a witness.

Yes, I know the pleading above is likely overblown. However, given the sorts of nigh-on histrionic positions lawyers will stake out in cases, I don't think it's beyond the pale to see that made.
But if they offer them say 5k (which would still probably be a bargain all things considered), it looks even more like hush money paid by a guilty party. And tabloids could definitely spin that as even more 'mafia-esque' bribery. The path forward PR-wise isn't that obvious.
Ber2dca is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 6:48 pm
  #5204  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: SEA
Posts: 2,556
Originally Posted by PaulInTheSky
If the passengers from the entire cabin file lawsuit
I hope they do file against United.

When you call the police to physically remove a passenger who has clearly stated that he will not leave the aircraft, then it is obvious that a scary and violent scene will ensue, possibly with passengers, in addition the one to be removed, getting physically injured. And all of the passengers onboard, including children, would be forced into witnessing and being traumatized by the scene.

But they chose to not empty the plane first. Probably because they wanted to teach a lesson to all of us: Don't question our decisions, actions, or authority. Or else we will "re-accomodate" (a term with new meaning now) you.
muji is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 6:52 pm
  #5205  
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Programs: Amtrak Guest Rewards (SE), Virgin America Elevate, Hyatt Gold Passport (Platinum), VIA Preference
Posts: 3,134
Originally Posted by George Purcell
There's absolutely no evidence such a thing exists. Indeed, if it did it would be incorporated in the CoC. This is (yet another) example of airline employees and apologists waving their hands about union contracts and internal accounting and acting as if it has any bearing on their relationship with contracted passengers. "Must fly" means nothing more and nothing less than the airline has designed these pax as such for their own internal reasons. And it is long past time to ensure that airline calculation does not prioritize them over people actually paying to fly.
As always, I'm not a lawyer.

There's also the fact that a contract between A and B cannot be enforced to the direct detriment of C, who was never a party to the initial contract. There was a relevant lawsuit over the TV show Harsh Realm: It was based on a comic book that Fox had purchased the rights to. Fox tried to say that their WGA contract barred them from crediting the writers of the comic book, but the court found that since the initial writers had never been WGA members and thus weren't party to the WGA's rules, Fox couldn't block crediting them regardless of its agreement with the WGA.

In this case, this would manifest as the passengers being kicked back off the flight so that the airline could meet a contractual obligation for the crew of the other flight. I think the pax would have a case that a "reasonable person" would expect United/Republic to have their act together a little more and that once seated they shouldn't have their CoC abrogated [1] so that United/Republic could meet the terms of a contract which was in conflict.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harsh_..._Realm_lawsuit

[1] As usual, I'm operating on the presumption that the court would say that United crossed the line on its CoC when trying to enforce their previously unstated, tortured definition of "boarding".
GrayAnderson is offline  


Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.