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 Do not cite, copy, or report on such.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 12, 2018, 6:36 am
  #6811  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: NY Metro Area
Programs: AA 2MM Yay!, UA MM, Costco General Member
Posts: 49,038
Originally Posted by onthesam
United is named in order to increase chances of a payday. That is all.

And the fact that he was sitting on a plane that had United written on it (I'm referring to Dao).

I'm absolutely nauseated that there are people in the world that support police brutality and the use of law enforcement to settle customer service disputes, especially ones in which the customer wasn't wrong. Too often we get what people accept that we deserve as a result.

As for the cop, what a joke. He helps beat the hell out of someone, then sues for doing it. People who have said he should never wear a badge again are spot on.
CHOPCHOP767 likes this.
GadgetFreak is offline  
Old Apr 12, 2018, 6:53 am
  #6812  
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Chicago IL US
Programs: UA 1K; National Executive Elite; Hertz PC & Hotels Galore
Posts: 946
Originally Posted by GadgetFreak
And the fact that he was sitting on a plane that had United written on it (I'm referring to Dao).
I was referring solely to Mr Long, the political appointe CDA police officer, and the basis for his lawsuit.

That being said, IMO City of Chicago / CDA / Mr. Long/ his partner should bear a lot more if not all of the responsibility for the use of excessive force. The position that UA is somehow liable for the actions of the police force is kinda tenuous at best. UA settled with Dao so quickly, IMO, purely for PR reasons and would have had a good chance of prevailing at trial on the battery issue leaving Dao perhaps with a claim for minimal breach of contract damages against UA (but not the personal injury).
onthesam is offline  
Old Apr 12, 2018, 7:50 am
  #6813  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: NY Metro Area
Programs: AA 2MM Yay!, UA MM, Costco General Member
Posts: 49,038
Originally Posted by onthesam
I was referring solely to Mr Long, the political appointe CDA police officer, and the basis for his lawsuit.

That being said, IMO City of Chicago / CDA / Mr. Long/ his partner should bear a lot more if not all of the responsibility for the use of excessive force. The position that UA is somehow liable for the actions of the police force is kinda tenuous at best. UA settled with Dao so quickly, IMO, purely for PR reasons and would have had a good chance of prevailing at trial on the battery issue leaving Dao perhaps with a claim for minimal breach of contract damages against UA (but not the personal injury).
Yes, that's why I specified Dao. But it was UA that called the police on Dao, who bought a ticket from them and was on one of their planes. That's why I think UA was justifiably liable for what happened to Dao. Airlines have use the police for customer service issues way too readily. I've witnessed it with other airlines as well.
GadgetFreak is offline  
Old Apr 12, 2018, 5:00 pm
  #6814  
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Chicago IL US
Programs: UA 1K; National Executive Elite; Hertz PC & Hotels Galore
Posts: 946
Originally Posted by GadgetFreak
Yes, that's why I specified Dao. But it was UA that called the police on Dao, who bought a ticket from them and was on one of their planes. That's why I think UA was justifiably liable for what happened to Dao. Airlines have use the police for customer service issues way too readily. I've witnessed it with other airlines as well.
While I think the using-the-police to enforce customer service issue is fair to raise as a potential claim in the context of damages for breach under the Contract Of Carriage, I don't believe UA could have reasonably foresaw that calling in CDA's 'Aviation Police' would have resulted in the use of excessive force and ultimately the personal injury to Dao. We're talking vastly lower money damages for a claim for breach under the COC vs the personal injury.
CHOPCHOP767 likes this.
onthesam is offline  
Old Apr 12, 2018, 6:05 pm
  #6815  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: MRY - CNX - TXL
Programs: UA 1K / *G / Marriott PE / Expedia Gold+ / Hertz PC
Posts: 7,058
Originally Posted by GadgetFreak
Yes, that's why I specified Dao. But it was UA that called the police on Dao, who bought a ticket from them and was on one of their planes. That's why I think UA was justifiably liable for what happened to Dao. Airlines have use the police for customer service issues way too readily. I've witnessed it with other airlines as well.
How is it different from any other business that is asking someone to comply with their requests?
For whatever reason a restaurant, theatre, shop, etc is asking you to leave their place of business. You refuse and keep refusing. Police are called, they still refuse to leave and then the police drag them out. Is the place liable for what the police did?
JNelson113 and CHOPCHOP767 like this.
JVPhoto is offline  
Old Apr 12, 2018, 7:48 pm
  #6816  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Programs: 6 year GS, now 2MM Jeff-ugee, *wood LTPlt, SkyPeso PLT
Posts: 6,526
Originally Posted by JVPhoto
How is it different from any other business that is asking someone to comply with their requests?
For whatever reason a restaurant, theatre, shop, etc is asking you to leave their place of business. You refuse and keep refusing. Police are called, they still refuse to leave and then the police drag them out. Is the place liable for what the police did?
The short answer is that if the business had a lawful reason to have you tossed, they are not responsible. But if they had no lawful reason to call the cops (e.g. the server wanted to give table you were eating at to a co-worker, and tells you to leave after you have paid for your food, but before you get to eat it) well they are full liable for whatever happens.

The problem UA had was that under their CoC they had no right to toss Doa. Facts matter.
Robl likes this.
spin88 is offline  
Old Apr 12, 2018, 7:58 pm
  #6817  
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 26
Originally Posted by alanslegal
You are indeed in the minority; lucky that they didn't kill the old man - try banging your head in an arm rest with force and let me know how you feel after.

That said if you think it was an "opportunity" then why have UA changed their policy on oversold flights and will never ever forcibly remove a passenger in these situations from now on?
his flailing about reminded me of trying to lift up my toddlers during the middle of a temper tantrum. HIS actions caused him to get his head jammed into the headrest-he wasn’t slammed into it. The police lifted him and he played dead weight like a toddler.

The other issue is that we STILL don’t know the full story. I have heard so many variations.
one was that he actually AGREED to take the money (like his wife did) then changed his mind and ran back onto the plane
we DO know that he was in the phone with his lawyer when the police were talking him to get off the plane (per a video)
I also heard he ran back on after he was removed...
again, don’t know, but I wish we had he full truth of it all.

this guy is no saint, nor is he a hero for consumer rights.
republic Airways should have had some heads roll too.
WeekendsOnly is offline  
Old Apr 12, 2018, 8:49 pm
  #6818  
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: USA
Programs: UA Gold, Marriott Gold
Posts: 1,195
Originally Posted by pinniped
Scapegoated? This guy is on video as one of the ones who attacked Dao. He should never wear a badge again - anywhere, period.

"I wasn't trained to use force so I did it anyway and it went badly" seems like a really bad defense.
Attacked? He refused to comply with the order to get out. Yes, they went in to pull him out but he was the one swinging his arms violently and moving erratically.

Originally Posted by tuolumne
I’m firmly of the [admittedly minority] viewpoint that Dr. Dao, given his actions that day, and his prior court ordered psychiatric evaluation [post felony charges] which found him to have anger management issues, was the bad actor. He saw an opportunity to make a scene, and he sure did. He was paid handsomely for his cuts and minor concussion.
Agreed. From what I saw of the video, Dao's injuries were self-inflicted when he went ballistic while they tried to get him out of the seat. It wasn't even a matter of passively refusing to comply, he was the one who went out of control. The officers' arms weren't swinging violently, unlike Dao's.

Originally Posted by onthesam
While I think the using-the-police to enforce customer service issue is fair to raise as a potential claim in the context of damages for breach under the Contract Of Carriage, I don't believe UA could have reasonably foresaw that calling in CDA's 'Aviation Police' would have resulted in the use of excessive force and ultimately the personal injury to Dao. We're talking vastly lower money damages for a claim for breach under the COC vs the personal injury.
At the point Dao physically refused to leave his seat, he was in violation of the CoC and legally trespassing. I agree the UA staff couldn't have foreseen what happened. Rather than have one of their own staff try to muscle him out, they did the reasonable thing in terms of calling in what they expected to be professionals. After that, United was simply in a no-win situation.
ExplorerWannabe is offline  
Old Apr 12, 2018, 9:07 pm
  #6819  
Moderator: Manufactured Spending
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 6,580
Originally Posted by HkCaGu
A cop appearing would scare any passenger without a criminal past but does have a future career into complying. But for a wealthy doctor at retirement age with a rich experience with the justice system, he didn't have much to lose. He had been through war and brief detention(s). An arrest would not intimidate him. That's the relevance.
So if the exact same sequence of events had occurred, but the passenger had a different past (criminal background, experience with the justice system, etc.), would your conclusion be different?

While it's interesting to look at the past of people, I don't think it is a valid consideration when assigning blame/responsibility.

Originally Posted by onthesam
While I think the using-the-police to enforce customer service issue is fair to raise as a potential claim in the context of damages for breach under the Contract Of Carriage, I don't believe UA could have reasonably foresaw that calling in CDA's 'Aviation Police' would have resulted in the use of excessive force and ultimately the personal injury to Dao. We're talking vastly lower money damages for a claim for breach under the COC vs the personal injury.
They could have reasonably foreseen that the "police" would use physical force to remove him. This can result in injuries, especially in a cramped place like an airplane. I don't know if CDA police carry handcuffs, but they should have handcuffed him at the seat before taking him away.

Originally Posted by JVPhoto
How is it different from any other business that is asking someone to comply with their requests?
For whatever reason a restaurant, theatre, shop, etc is asking you to leave their place of business. You refuse and keep refusing. Police are called, they still refuse to leave and then the police drag them out. Is the place liable for what the police did?
No, they are not liable, and arguably UA wasn't liable here either. But it would still be bad publicity for the business. The media is going to put the blame on the business, not the police.

Originally Posted by ExplorerWannabe
At the point Dao physically refused to leave his seat, he was in violation of the CoC and legally trespassing.
I think this point has been discussed before, but the CoC does not give UA the unilateral right to remove a passenger from the plane any time they feel like it.

Originally Posted by ExplorerWannabe
Rather than have one of their own staff try to muscle him out, they did the reasonable thing in terms of calling in what they expected to be professionals. After that, United was simply in a no-win situation.
I agree. I believe the main failure here is with the "police" (who, by the way, were not sworn law enforcement, but rather some sort of security personnel). However, due to the circumstances, UA had to bear the consequences. This is why it is good to try and avoid legal issues, even if you are in the right.
cbn42 is offline  
Old Apr 12, 2018, 9:38 pm
  #6820  
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Programs: UA Plat; AS MVP Gold; BA Silver; LATAM Black; Hilton Diamond; Marriott Plat; GHA Plat
Posts: 289
If the police dept in fact failed to provide appropriate training, then the suit by the police officer might not be absurd.

What is interesting is whether United would also be liable in this scenario.

As for Dao, I thought the issue had been beaten to death (unlike Dao). He had already boarded, therefore United did not have a right to deny transport under the CoC; even if it did, this was a civil dispute, with no basis for physical assault; and United is liable for the actions of its agents (here, the security personnel in question). See, for instance,

Why United Was Legally Wrong to Deplane David Dao
Italian_Kayaker is offline  
Old Apr 12, 2018, 10:39 pm
  #6821  
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Chicago IL US
Programs: UA 1K; National Executive Elite; Hertz PC & Hotels Galore
Posts: 946
Wrongfully deplaning and causing personal injury are two wholly different matters. Nobody has alleged that United made a false police report or somehow incited the police to violence. I don't think there's a legitimate argument that the CDA 'Police' were acting as agents of or at the direction of UA.

If call the police about an unruly neighbor, I will not be responsible or liable for the actions of the police if they end up brutalizing the neighbor due to poor training or for any other reason as they are not my agent. There's no Illinois or Federal law that I can think of that would impose liability upon a third-party caller for the actions of the CDA police which caused personal injury in this instance. Maybe in some magical world there's some tort liability relating to UA's failure to maintain a safe environment, but even that would be a stretch IMO...

Also, IL is a not a comparative fault state -- if I were on a jury I don't think that I could apportion more than 5% of the responsibility for the injuries to UA. In Illinois, that would not be enough for a finding against UA in Dao' s favor. Dao is arguably close to 50%... In Illinois, more than 50% contributory fault of the plaintiff requires a finding that the defendant is not liable and bars the plaintiff from recovering damages. Comparative fault of 50% or less results in a diminution of damages in proportion to the amount of fault attributable to the plaintiff. In other words, if CDA Police were found to be more at fault than Dao who was more at fault than UA, Dao would not recover from UA. Same goes for the Aviation 'Cop' suing UA.

Last edited by onthesam; Apr 12, 2018 at 10:50 pm Reason: fixed reference
onthesam is offline  
Old Apr 12, 2018, 11:36 pm
  #6822  
Moderator: Manufactured Spending
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 6,580
Originally Posted by onthesam
I don't think there's a legitimate argument that the CDA 'Police' were acting as agents of or at the direction of UA.
I don't either, but just to play devil's advocate, the "police" had no idea what was happening until they came on board. Their actions were based entirely on information given to them by the airline's employees. So while they were not agents of the airline, an argument could be made that they were acting at the direction of the airline.

Note that I'm saying "the airline" because this plane was not operated by UA but rather by a regional carrier.

Originally Posted by onthesam
If call the police about an unruly neighbor, I will not be responsible or liable for the actions of the police if they end up brutalizing the neighbor due to poor training or for any other reason as they are not my agent.
In your scenario, did this take place on your property? Did your neighbor have a contractual right to be there? These factors can impact the analysis. If your neighbor had the right to be on the property (as Dao did), and was injured while either you or a third party attempted to remove him without justification, his claim against you would be stronger because you are responsible for the safety of your guests while they are on your property.

Last edited by cbn42; Apr 12, 2018 at 11:42 pm
cbn42 is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2018, 8:09 am
  #6823  
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Programs: UA 1K; *G, AA Plat
Posts: 1,700
Originally Posted by cbn42

In your scenario, did this take place on your property? Did your neighbor have a contractual right to be there? These factors can impact the analysis. If your neighbor had the right to be on the property (as Dao did), and was injured while either you or a third party attempted to remove him without justification, his claim against you would be stronger because you are responsible for the safety of your guests while they are on your property.
Debatable, no? My neighbor has a contractual right to be there should I invite him over. When I rescind that right and ask him to leave, he no longer has that right. Isn't that what happened to Dao? Had the right to be there, check. But that was rescinded by the airline when they made the decision to IDB?
laxmillenial is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2018, 9:19 am
  #6824  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: BNA
Programs: HH Gold. (Former) UA PP, DL PM, PC Plat
Posts: 8,184
Originally Posted by Italian_Kayaker
As for Dao, I thought the issue had been beaten to death (unlike Dao). He had already boarded, therefore United did not have a right to deny transport under the CoC
Overbooking is regulated by the Department of Transportation The DOT is the agency that wrote the regulation under which overbookings are regulated.

The DOT investigated and found two minor violations of the regulations involving an initial underpayment of another bumped passenger and the failure of the carrier to provide the Dao's with the required written notice of their rights after they were involuntarily bumped. The DOT letter states that they looked out how the carrier selected passengers to be involuntarily denied boarding and found that "United properly established and used non-discriminatory criteria to select passengers who were involuntarily denied boarding."

Here is a link to the DOT's letter: https://cms.dot.gov/sites/dot.gov/fi...ter-united.pdf
ContinentalFan likes this.
LarryJ is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2018, 12:13 pm
  #6825  
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: YYZ/YTZ/YUL
Programs: BA Gold, TK Elite
Posts: 1,558
Originally Posted by laxmillenial
Debatable, no? My neighbor has a contractual right to be there should I invite him over. When I rescind that right and ask him to leave, he no longer has that right. Isn't that what happened to Dao? Had the right to be there, check. But that was rescinded by the airline when they made the decision to IDB?
Except that United did not "invite" Dr Dao, but rather he paid to be there.

If you invite your neighbour, there is no contract, and hence no contractual right to do anything.

On a separate note, I'd be interested to know whether the fact that the enforcers weren't "real" police makes a difference. If they are considered to be "only" private security, it would seem to me that UA/Republic Airlines have more responsibility for their action, than if they are actual law enforcement. Would such a distinction be relevant here?
TravellingSalesman 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.