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}

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

    Hide Wikipost
Old Apr 13, 18, 1:33 pm   -   Wikipost
Please read: This is a community-maintained wiki post containing the most important information from this thread. You may edit the Wiki once you have been on FT for 90 days and have made 90 posts.
 
Last edit by: WineCountryUA
Wiki Link
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 Do not cite, copy, or report on such.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
Poll link: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/KP68GYG
Results link: https://www.surveymonkey.com/results...Q6B2B/instant/
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

Old Apr 19, 17, 7:07 am
  #6241  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Benicia CA
Programs: Alaska MVP Gold 75K, AA 3.8MM, UA 1.1MM, enjoying the retired life
Posts: 31,135
Originally Posted by deniah View Post
would this be the same UA person who falsified the written report, claiming that Dao attempted to strike at the LEO?
There needs to be measures against this kind of behavior
I'm just not ready to throw the gate agent under the bus based on your conclusion that the agent lied.

Can you expand on how you know the agent falsified her remarks? Have you seen the police report and did it address whether an officer was struck or not? Have you seen any statements from the officers involved addressing what transpired and whether they say they were struck? Until all that information is released, you really can't conclude that the agent has typed up false info and needs to be disciplined.
tom911 is offline  
Old Apr 19, 17, 7:12 am
  #6242  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Programs: 6 year GS, now MM Jeff-ugee, *wood LTPlt, VX Gold, SkyPeso PLT
Posts: 6,281
Originally Posted by alanslegal View Post
If you were offered $10,000,000 (or even a tenth of that) right now to end this court case, would you? or would you be willing to risk a guaranteed outcome so you can let a judge or jury decide your outcome and potentially rule against you, give you nothing and then order you pay United's legal fees which mind you, will be an easy $250,000 at that point.

Also remember that depending on the cost agreement with the attorney, especially in contingency based agreements, where it stipulates that the client must consider any reasonable offer AND if their attorney's advice is that offer is reasonable BUT the client refuses, s/he may be immediately liable to their fees under that agreement. So again, if a decent offer was on the table, the person is taking it! If not, not only do you risk an unfavourable court decision but also be liable to your attorney's fees at xx% of the offer amount.
American has not "looser pays" rule absent a few cases which will not apply to this case. So fees are not at issue, at most a few $$$ in costs. But punative damages are likely capped at 10x compensatory damages, and I can't see expecting to get more than $1-1.5M in compensatory damages, so the case has a value, likely $15M max.

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.

p.s. and I expect United to pay 100% of the settlement. Chicago will not roll-over easily, and the last thing United wants to do is have airport security feel that United can't be trusted. If the word gets out that United is trying to put liability onto the police, they will find the police and airports must less cooperative. Paying any liability of Chicago is just good business.
spin88 is offline  
Old Apr 19, 17, 7:26 am
  #6243  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: NY Metro Area
Programs: AA 2MM Yay!, UA MM, Costco General Member
Posts: 42,037
Originally Posted by alanslegal View Post
Where I am from, landlords do hire/rent/pay 'Law Enforcement Officers' (called the Sheriff here) to remove tenants from properties BUT only after getting court approval to do so AND only after a series of legal steps have been taken and approved. Once the court approves that the property is to be returned to the landlord, the LEO/Sherriff, by such order, will throw people out, and with force if necessary. The landlord will not be personally liable at that point.




And this is where it is going to hurt United, finding out if there are systemic issues and internal policies that are designed or implemented to hurt passengers at the benefit of the airline, even if its within their right to do so. If some of the discovery is some what true, I mean who would want to fly an airline if they don't really care about its passengers.

Further to that and somewhat down the track, imagine the airlines' executives testifying under oath that they regularly overbook flights (as it is industry practice anyway) and that when they require passengers to give up seats, the admit that they are always ready, willing and able to use law enforcement officers to physically evict them (remembering that this is before Munoz's statement last week to never ever use LEO in these situations ever again). And then when pressed further, the airline executive admitting that they are well aware that removing someone by force, the passenger may suffer serious physical and mental harm and even death as a result of that eviction. This will not sound or look too good for United.




If you were offered $10,000,000 (or even a tenth of that) right now to end this court case, would you? or would you be willing to risk a guaranteed outcome so you can let a judge or jury decide your outcome and potentially rule against you, give you nothing and then order you pay United's legal fees which mind you, will be an easy $250,000 at that point.

Also remember that depending on the cost agreement with the attorney, especially in contingency based agreements, where it stipulates that the client must consider any reasonable offer AND if their attorney's advice is that offer is reasonable BUT the client refuses, s/he may be immediately liable to their fees under that agreement. So again, if a decent offer was on the table, the person is taking it! If not, not only do you risk an unfavourable court decision but also be liable to your attorney's fees at xx% of the offer amount.
I don't see this settling for less than several million, if for no other reason than UA not wanting to be subjected to discovery. Note that Dao's attorneys have already filed a discovery motion also.
GadgetFreak is online now  
Old Apr 19, 17, 7:37 am
  #6244  
Marriott Contributor Badge
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sydney, Australia
Programs: HHD, SPG LTG
Posts: 1,700
Originally Posted by spin88 View Post
American has not "looser pays" rule absent a few cases which will not apply to this case. So fees are not at issue, at most a few $$$ in costs. But punative damages are likely capped at 10x compensatory damages, and I can't see expecting to get more than $1-1.5M in compensatory damages, so the case has a value, likely $15M max.
I stand corrected then. My experience is not in the US but here where we can recover party / party costs or have costs ordered against a party. I just thought it would be fair to be able to recover your legal fees, especially if you are on the 'winning' side. Also we are not allowed to charge a % of any settlement/award/order though some days I wish we were.
alanslegal is offline  
Old Apr 19, 17, 7:42 am
  #6245  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Programs: 6 year GS, now MM Jeff-ugee, *wood LTPlt, VX Gold, SkyPeso PLT
Posts: 6,281
Originally Posted by alanslegal View Post
I stand corrected then. My experience is not in the US but here where we can recover party / party costs or have costs ordered against a party. I just thought it would be fair to be able to recover your legal fees, especially if you are on the 'winning' side. Also we are not allowed to charge a % of any settlement/award/order though some days I wish we were.
I don't know what Tom Demetreo is putting in his ARAs right now, but my guess is he is getting at least 40%.
spin88 is offline  
Old Apr 19, 17, 7:43 am
  #6246  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: SDF
Programs: former Olympic Airways Gold (yeah - still proud of that!)
Posts: 13,540
Originally Posted by Howard Long View Post
Lawyer Leonard French does a discussion on Qualified Immunity relating to this case here United Airlines removes man by FORCE to make room for STAFF - YouTube start at 10:25, the earlier part is merely recounting the story as it was known a week ago, but the Qualified Immunity part is still relevent.
Yeah... he might 'mention' Qualified Immunity at 10.25... but it gets lost for several more minutes as he gets distracted.

From what I could gather he seems to be saying that UA has the absolute right to remove anyone they wanted as they are a private company, with private property, and it amounts to trespass if the the passenger doesn't go.

I thought there was other legal opinion to the contrary?
LHR/MEL/Europe FF is offline  
Old Apr 19, 17, 7:59 am
  #6247  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Programs: 6 year GS, now MM Jeff-ugee, *wood LTPlt, VX Gold, SkyPeso PLT
Posts: 6,281
Originally Posted by LHR/MEL/Europe FF View Post
Yeah... he might 'mention' Qualified Immunity at 10.25... but it gets lost for several more minutes as he gets distracted.

From what I could gather he seems to be saying that UA has the absolute right to remove anyone they wanted as they are a private company, with private property, and it amounts to trespass if the the passenger doesn't go.

I thought there was other legal opinion to the contrary?
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).
spin88 is offline  
Old Apr 19, 17, 9:34 am
  #6248  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: NY Metro Area
Programs: AA 2MM Yay!, UA MM, Costco General Member
Posts: 42,037
Piling on

Now Jimmy Kimmel has a video of a fake UA ad by Matt Damon and during the voice over Damon is bumped for Kimmel.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...ushpmg00000009
GadgetFreak is online now  
Old Apr 19, 17, 9:54 am
  #6249  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 15,819
Originally Posted by spin88 View Post
American has not "looser pays" rule absent a few cases which will not apply to this case. So fees are not at issue, at most a few $$$ in costs. But punative damages are likely capped at 10x compensatory damages, and I can't see expecting to get more than $1-1.5M in compensatory damages, so the case has a value, likely $15M max.

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.

p.s. and I expect United to pay 100% of the settlement. Chicago will not roll-over easily, and the last thing United wants to do is have airport security feel that United can't be trusted. If the word gets out that United is trying to put liability onto the police, they will find the police and airports must less cooperative. Paying any liability of Chicago is just good business.
City of Chicago Department of Aviation Security forces are not police. Not only were some (one) of these people improperly wearing clothing suggesting such, but impersonating a police officer is a crime in its own right. It is questionable under exactly what authority they acted in removing Dr. Dao from the aircraft. I'm not so sure that there will not be some accountability on the part of City of Chicago.
Boggie Dog is offline  
Old Apr 19, 17, 9:55 am
  #6250  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Minneapolis: DL DM charter 2.3MM
Programs: A3*Gold, SPG Plat, HyattDiamond, MarriottPP, LHW exAccess, ICI, Raffles Amb, NW PE MM, TWA Gold MM
Posts: 83,931
Does anyone know who did release Dr. Dao's name?
MSPeconomist is offline  
Old Apr 19, 17, 9:56 am
  #6251  
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Programs: AA Advantage
Posts: 11
Wink Wow just wow

This thread has been an interesting read. Lots of theory's, police are the ultimate power in the universe etc.

Fact, The right to civilly disobey authority is a right in this country. It's been that way for a long long time. He had a right to disobey the police(ish) guys. They also have a right to charge him with crime and beat the crap out of him if they feel it was necessary(resisting etc). Then we have a trial. A jury of peers decides who was right and who was wrong. Again this has been done for a very long time and is not open to debate.

Fact, there was no charge here for Mr. Dao. He was not read his Miranda rights for this reason. If you don't charge him he can't be liable for any of this. They won't, as the resulting PR would probably crush the airline. I suspect China and maybe other countries would deny their routes to them and call Delta or American.

The possible list of charges criminal and civil will be brought to bear on United and the city of Chicago will be long. Very Very long. It also could get longer. I'll give you a couple examples.

Dao Attorney: "So the software chose the random people based on these criteria? Yes or No?"
GA : "Yes"
Dao Attorney: "We actually have a copy of the software and we came up with the same results as you."
GA : Quietly thinking "Oh thank god"
Dao Attorney: "When we used the same software on previous flights the people picked were not the same as who was IVDB. Remember you are under oath. Is that how you picked the 4 people to get off the plane. Yes or No"
GA: Uh Uh....
Dao Attorney: "We subpoena the developer who wrote the code. He will be next to testify. So I will ask you again did you pick them using the software?"
GA: "Well not exactly."
Dao Attorney: "You are aware that all 4 people who were asked to get off were minorities? Yes or No"
GA: Uh...

Another example
Dao Attorney: "Pilot were you on the plane during this incident Yes or No?"
Pilot: "Yes"
Dao Attorney: "Were you in the cockpit during the whole incident? Yes or No?"
Pilot: "Yes"
Dao Attorney: "Aren't you in charge of what happens in the aircraft?"
Pilot: "When the door closes yes."
Dao Attorney: "So before that its the GA? Yes or No?"
Pilot: "Yes"
Dao Attorney: "Are the laws in the aircraft that of the United State of America. Yes or No?"
Pilot: "Yes"
Dao Attorney: "So if this happened in China you would just hand a US Citizen over to a foreign power without US due process? Yes or No"
Pilot: "Uhhh No"
Dao Attorney: "So you do have some power and just didn't do your job? Yes or No?"
Pilot: "Uhhh"

Those are just 2. The best hope united has is to make sure no pattern of abuse is ever established. if it is there will be a class action that rivals this one.

The jury for this case will be sequestered due to trying to buy peoples silence on the plane. They have already shown a pattern they will do so by denying the right to sue the airline with a $500 voucher. There will be no tampering. The case is too big.

Both defendants have admitted guilt. The lawyer has been doing this for 35 years and has been waiting for the BIG one. It's landed in his lap. Now is what I like to refer to as the blank check phase. Mostly for United. The police have liability protections. The Daos lawyer will negotiate 200 million, The CEOs bonus for next year given to charity, plus all Daos attorneys fees. Your thinking max maybe 10 mil after the dust settles. 5 million wont even pay for the attorneys fees on either side. This is not the 90s. For that they get Dao on the news shaking hands with Munoz and that he is so glad United and airlines in general are starting to look out for the passengers needs.

If they refuse.....

They get dragged through the mud for the next year and all their little secrets that allow them to push the consumer around get aired out in the open. THEY ABSOLUTELY DO NOT WANT THIS. The damage to reputation and cost of regulation changes will go beyond recover mode. Secrets need to remain secrets.

United will be the first case. After that comes the City of Chicago. If they settle a LOT of United employees will have to testify in the City of Chicago Criminal and Civil trials. A lot of dirty laundry is still going to be aired out. There is a maximum liability for the police. The tax payers won't pay more than that. Probably like 300k. I suspect they will ask before trial settlement 40 million. City will say no. They don't have customers per sey or are publicly traded. United will make a phone call and pick up the tab just so their employees don't have to get on the stand and air out the dirty laundry and also to ensure that the Police of Chicago and the taxpayers love United. 240 million + attorney's fees + CEOs bonus total is pocket change. Drop in bucket.

Also,
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.
nitzer is offline  
Old Apr 19, 17, 10:05 am
  #6252  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: New Delhi, India
Programs: Bonvoy Ambassador & Lifetime Titanium, IHG Plat, HH Gold, Trident Plat, DL Diamond, AI Maharajah
Posts: 26,570
Originally Posted by GadgetFreak View Post
Now Jimmy Kimmel has a video of a fake UA ad by Matt Damon and during the voice over Damon is bumped for Kimmel.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...ushpmg00000009
hilarious....
Keyser is offline  
Old Apr 19, 17, 10:13 am
  #6253  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: SEA
Programs: Delta TDK(or care)WIA, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 1,800
Originally Posted by alanslegal View Post
I just thought it would be fair to be able to recover your legal fees, especially if you are on the 'winning' side.
Between corporations maybe, but against a private plaintiff in a personal injury case? On the defendant side, an insurance company (which is actually the party in interest) handles hundreds and hundreds of cases, and each private plaintiff has one (we hope) during his or her lifetime. Correct and incorrect results average out for the insurance company, and in addition, insurance companies spend lots of money lobbying, and that weights the overall balance toward them, so that they are more likely to experience more unjust wins than unjust losses.

The injured plaintiff's one case, in which turns his chance for some semblance of a normal life, won't be followed by tens or hundreds of case over which an unjust loss will average out. Paying the insurance company's legal fees will cause him financial ruin, and such a scheme would stop many many winning cases from going forward because the plaintiff couldn't face the risk of ruin that would accompany an unjust loss.

What if there were no video of the Dao incident, and United and the Chicago Mall Cop Authority had held up their lies all through the case? Dr. Dao would have been afraid to bring the case, or else there is probably a more than 50% chance and I would say almost certainly a more than 10% chance that a jury would believe the defendants' lies and Dr, Dao would lose. Even with the video and the latest statements from United admitting they had no right to throw him off, I believe there is a greater than 10% chance that he would lose - I think a substantial number of Americans trust anybody who wears a shirt with "police" on it.
Carl Johnson is offline  
Old Apr 19, 17, 10:30 am
  #6254  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Bellingham/Gainesville
Programs: UA-G MM, Priority Club Platinum, Avis First, Hertz 5*, Red Lion
Posts: 1,836
Originally Posted by Boraxo View Post
WSJ is now reporting that Munoz is getting heat from Corporate customers. This is far more significant that the temporary blowback from individual consumers and the bad press. I expect UA will offer some written assurances that rules are going to change so as to prohibit IDB except in the most extreme circumstances where planes are grounded (weather, IT) causing temp. overbooking (or at least under capacity) when flights resume.
It would be interesting to peek into the B2B contract language to see what the recourse is for failure to perform. I'm sure it is as one sided as the CofC. However, if there is B2B discomfort with employee travel UA has shifted some risk to their employees onto their corporate partners. So the questions in the boardroom will be, What is the chance of occurrence? Is it insurable? How is it mitigated? Maybe UA casts a IDB/VDB shield around pax on corporate travel. Interesting times...
prestonh is online now  
Old Apr 19, 17, 11:04 am
  #6255  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: ORD/MDW
Programs: AA, HH, MR elite. Fly mostly AA/WN/B6.
Posts: 18,774
Originally Posted by nitzer View Post
The Daos lawyer will negotiate 200 million, The CEOs bonus for next year given to charity, plus all Daos attorneys fees. Your thinking max maybe 10 mil after the dust settles. 5 million wont even pay for the attorneys fees on either side. This is not the 90s... 240 million + attorney's fees + CEOs bonus total is pocket change. Drop in bucket.
Welcome to FT. Agree with you there. We're in new, stratospheric territory here.

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.
Do we know this to be true, or is this just well-grounded speculation?

I don't know exactly what I'd do if I had been a passenger/ witness on 3411, but I sure as hell wouldn't accept the fare refund and sign away my legal rights in the bargain.

(I owned a MINI Cooper that caught fire spontaneously. Turned out to be a congenital wiring flaw. BMW USA offered to pay my $100 insurance deductible if I agreed to a gag order and never discussed the incident with anyone, even friends. I told them they could keep the $100 and I'd keep talking. Sometimes the buyoff offer is ridiculously low.)
BearX220 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread