What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Doctor violently dragged from full United flight (1 Viewer)

Don Quixote said:
4x is just the rule for involuntary bumping.  I haven't seen anything that says they are limited to four times ticket cost for voluntary bumping.
Click to expand...
Good point. The law only states payment on involuntary. Maybe United might have a "policy" (unspoken or otherwise) saying try $400, then $800, then go nuclear.

 
Gustavo Fring said:
He may have been at fault to some degree, but that doesn't warrant the treatment he got.  If you can't see that, the rock you have been living under, has impaired your vision.  
Click to expand...
If you (or anyone else) cant see LE is not in the "pretty please (with sugar on top)" business, its you that's living under the rock. Cops tell you to move, you move. Refuse to move and they will move you. The more you fight, the harder they go. Its pretty simple.

 
Gustavo Fring said:
I would be able to understand the use of force if this guy was an unruly passenger who was becoming a threat to other passengers and/or flight crew, but this was not this type of situation at all.  
Click to expand...
So what's the answer when you lawfully ask someone to leave and they refuse?

 
whiskey7 said:
If you (or anyone else) cant see LE is not in the "pretty please (with sugar on top)" business, its you that's living under the rock. Cops tell you to move, you move. Refuse to move and they will move you. The more you fight, the harder they go. Its pretty simple.
Click to expand...
Well that so-called "cop" was placed on leave, if that tells you anything about how the situation should have been handled, guy.  

 
3C's said:
So what's the answer when you lawfully ask someone to leave and they refuse?
Click to expand...
Was it legal?  Didn't someone post the policy earlier that in order to make him leave they had to give him written notification/reasoning and offer him $1350?

Given that another passenger said they offered to give up their seat for $1500 and were laughed at, do we really believe United gave this guy a written notice and offered him $1350 before dragging him off the plane by force?

 
3C's said:
So what's the answer when you lawfully ask someone to leave and they refuse?
Click to expand...
I'm still waiting on Zow's insight, but I'm pretty sure the response escalation protocol is:

1) Verbal taunting, but no insulting of family members

2) Noogies

3) Electric Chair

4) Subjecting the perpetrator to the entire Hank Williams Jr. catalog indefinitely.

 
Gr00vus said:
I'm still waiting on Zow's insight, but I'm pretty sure the response escalation protocol is:

1) Verbal taunting, but no insulting of family members

2) Noogies

3) Electric Chair

4) Subjecting the perpetrator to the entire Hank Williams Jr. catalog indefinitely.
Click to expand...
it escalates pretty quickly between steps 2 and 3 and then just gets cruel and unusual at step numero 4 take that to the made the old swcer laugh bank brohan

 
FreeBaGeL said:
Was it legal?  Didn't someone post the policy earlier that in order to make him leave they had to give him written notification/reasoning and offer him $1350?

Given that another passenger said they offered to give up their seat for $1500 and were laughed at, do we really believe United gave this guy a written notice and offered him $1350 before dragging him off the plane by force?
Click to expand...
Yes, from several sources it was legal.

 
Gr00vus said:
O.k., bear with me as I'm trying to understand this. Is the idea that (for instance), as long as the security guy (policeman, air marshall, whatever) only intended to put handcuffs on or otherwise restrain the passenger in the standard non-injurious manner (whatever that is), then it's reasonable/necessary that in the act of doing that he somehow caused the passenger's head to hit the arm rest?
Click to expand...
Watch the videos again. When they begin, the "Police" (calling them that as that is what was printed on their jackets) are standing by the guy's row. We don't see what lead up to that point nor what was said. They didn't run onto the plane and storm this guy immediately with nothing said, though. That we can see. I could be wrong, but I suspect they approached his row and told him to get up because he needs to get off the plane. He may not have ever even looked up from his phone which he's clinging to throughout the process. When they told him to get up and he ignored them, the easy way was no longer an option and it was time for the hard way. It takes the officer a few tries to pull the guy out of his seat and it would seem the last one jerked him hard enough that he hit his face on the armrest across the aisle.

Some of you people and the whole "these hired goons just came on to the plane and beat the #### out of a senior citizen for absolutely no reason" need to get a grip.

 
It's absolutely not clear how they gave this specific person notice that they were going to be removed, and the penalty for not doing so.   

 
RBM said:
So how do you get him off?  
Click to expand...
Don't have moronic policies where you have to forcefully remove an already boarded passenger who is minding their own business.

There is no way it should ever come down to this.  Good on this guy taking one for the team so hopefully policies are enacted where this can't happen in the future.

 
whiskey7 said:
Watch the videos again. When they begin, the "Police" (calling them that as that is what was printed on their jackets) are standing by the guy's row. We don't see what lead up to that point nor what was said. They didn't run onto the plane and storm this guy immediately with nothing said, though. That we can see. I could be wrong, but I suspect they approached his row and told him to get up because he needs to get off the plane. He may not have ever even looked up from his phone which he's clinging to throughout the process. When they told him to get up and he ignored them, the easy way was no longer an option and it was time for the hard way. It takes the officer a few tries to pull the guy out of his seat and it would seem the last one jerked him hard enough that he hit his face on the armrest across the aisle.

Some of you people and the whole "these hired goons just came on to the plane and beat the #### out of a senior citizen for absolutely no reason" need to get a grip.
Click to expand...
This is the crux of the discussion I'm having with Woz. I'm sure the law enforcement person didn't intend to seriously injure the guy, but that's what resulted from the law enforcement person's actions - what's the responsibility/liability for law enforcement there? What's the responsibility on the airline's part to make sure law enforcement has a complete understanding of the reason their presence has been requested? There's no way that what resulted was merited based on the initial circumstances, and that's not all on the passenger.

Also, what do you mean by "you people"?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
"DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND, IT WAS PERFECTLY LEGAL!!!" WHAT ELSE WERE THEY SUPPOSED TO DO?? THEY WARNED THE GUY, MAYBE HE SHOULD TRY READING THE TERMS OF AGREEMENT NEXT TIME LOSER! IN FACT NEXT TIME THEY SHOULD BEAT HIS ### RIGHT IN FRONT OF KIDS TO TEACH THEM A LESSON!"

I mean, that doctor is going to be lucky if United doesn't freaking sue him, and probably the security guard should sue him too.

 
FreeBaGeL said:
Link?
Click to expand...


Can United really do this? Legally, yes. https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/04/united-video-scandal-law/522552/

Point 25 describes in detail how much the airline is willing to pay to entice passengers off of an oversold flight, but it also reserves the right to deny boarding to passengers trying to get on to an oversold flight.  https://www.complianceweek.com/blogs/coffin-on-compliance/sometimes-the-rules-will-not-save-you#.WOv9y2d0o4t

 
Gustavo Fring said:
Well that so-called "cop" was placed on leave, if that tells you anything about how the situation should have been handled, guy.  
Click to expand...
I don't think that is uncommon when there is a confrontation that gets physical and there are injuries. It doesn't necessarily mean he handled it improperly. 

 
3C's said:
Can United really do this? Legally, yes. https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/04/united-video-scandal-law/522552/

Point 25 describes in detail how much the airline is willing to pay to entice passengers off of an oversold flight, but it also reserves the right to deny boarding to passengers trying to get on to an oversold flight.  https://www.complianceweek.com/blogs/coffin-on-compliance/sometimes-the-rules-will-not-save-you#.WOv9y2d0o4t
Click to expand...
Again, yes an airline has legal rights to remove a passenger but only if they follow the proper procedure.

As far as I'm aware there is not a single source that has stated that United did indeed follow the proper procedure, which includes a written notice of their rights (via transportation.gov).

Did you see the guy holding a piece of paper in any of those videos?

It's possible that they did serve him with one, but no one has said as much yet.

 
whiskey7 said:
I don't think that is uncommon when there is a confrontation that gets physical and there are injuries. It doesn't necessarily mean he handled it improperly. 
Click to expand...
Fair - but, there needs to be an allegation of misconduct to place someone on administrative leave (video evidence in this case).  I only know what I've seen and read online about this situation, but from the reactions of the other passengers on that plane in the videos circulating, it definitely seems like it was handled improperly in this specific situation. 

 
TobiasFunke said:
You know they don't offer cash, right?  It's an air travel voucher.  Not quite the same.
Click to expand...
Not true.  If you insist on cash they have to pay you in cash/check. The logic being that the law needs to take into account a person who does not travel often for whom a travel voucher would be worthless. 

The minimum compesation, I believe, is the lower of 4x the ticket cost or $1,350.  

So hypothetically any offer above 800 (if the ticket is 200) for volunteers would be eating into their bottom line, so they just went involuntary, with the results now occupying the entire world.

 
FreeBaGeL said:
Again, yes an airline has legal rights to remove a passenger but only if they follow the proper procedure.

As far as I'm aware there is not a single source that has stated that United did indeed follow the proper procedure, which includes a written notice of their rights (via transportation.gov).

Did you see the guy holding a piece of paper in any of those videos?

It's possible that they did serve him with one, but no one has said as much yet.
Click to expand...
They appeared to have followed their procedure as stated in their contract. Nothing in the transportation.gov info says the airline is required to provide any written explanation before choosing and removing a ticketed passenger. They're not "served" and they're not read their rights. You would get a piece of paper explaining your rights and compensation once you're back at the gate.

 
elbowrm said:
Not true.  If you insist on cash they have to pay you in cash/check. The logic being that the law needs to take into account a person who does not travel often for whom a travel voucher would be worthless. 

The minimum compesation, I believe, is the lower of 4x the ticket cost or $1,350.  

So hypothetically any offer above 800 (if the ticket is 200) for volunteers would be eating into their bottom line, so they just went involuntary, with the results now occupying the entire world.
Click to expand...
You can only insist on cash in the involuntary context, and which is where the law kicks in.  They only offered vouchers when they were seeking volunteers.

They could have offered $800 in cash to volunteers, which would have been same to bottom line, but they did not.

 
3C's said:
Can United really do this? Legally, yes. https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/04/united-video-scandal-law/522552/

Point 25 describes in detail how much the airline is willing to pay to entice passengers off of an oversold flight, but it also reserves the right to deny boarding to passengers trying to get on to an oversold flight.  https://www.complianceweek.com/blogs/coffin-on-compliance/sometimes-the-rules-will-not-save-you#.WOv9y2d0o4t
Click to expand...
That means nothing. He had already boarded. Both articles say there is no policy for passengers that are already on the plane. 

 
Grace Under Pressure said:
"DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND, IT WAS PERFECTLY LEGAL!!!" WHAT ELSE WERE THEY SUPPOSED TO DO?? THEY WARNED THE GUY, MAYBE HE SHOULD TRY READING THE TERMS OF AGREEMENT NEXT TIME LOSER! IN FACT NEXT TIME THEY SHOULD BEAT HIS ### RIGHT IN FRONT OF KIDS TO TEACH THEM A LESSON!"

I mean, that doctor is going to be lucky if United doesn't freaking sue him, and probably the security guard should sue him too.
Click to expand...
This from "Grace Under Pressure"  :lmao:

 
GilbertGrape said:
That means nothing. He had already boarded. Both articles say there is no policy for passengers that are already on the plane. 
Click to expand...
Where in either of those articles does it state that?

They likely have an out for "boarding" until the cabin door is shut.

 
Gr00vus said:
O.k., bear with me as I'm trying to understand this. Is the idea that (for instance), as long as the security guy (policeman, air marshall, whatever) only intended to put handcuffs on or otherwise restrain the passenger in the standard non-injurious manner (whatever that is), then it's reasonable/necessary that in the act of doing that he somehow caused the passenger's head to hit the arm rest?
Click to expand...
Obviously this is a relatively gray area where specific facts of an individual situation really really matter.  Also, almost every law enforcement agency has some sort of policy or training guidelines for use of force situations.  Here, it did not look, at least to me, that the officer directly caused the injury.  The officer looked to be grabbing the guy, the guy still passively resisted (i.e. did not fight the officer but essentially went limp/didn't let himself be carried away) and the combination of the two probably caused the injury.  

My original point was that, in terms of the appearance of violence, this was relatively tame compared to many of the arrests I've seen seen where somebody passively arrests. 

 
GilbertGrape said:
"Here is the key part of the contract language, under Rule 25 Denied Boarding Compensation (which, notably, says nothing about forcibly removing passengers after they have boarded the plane to make room for United workers):"
Click to expand...
I honestly can't believe I keep defending the airlines here, but at the point it got to it was probably a trespassing situation.  As such, law enforcement was the one who decided to forcibly remove the passenger.  Huge distinction here. 

 
3C's said:
Can United really do this? Legally, yes. https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/04/united-video-scandal-law/522552/

Point 25 describes in detail how much the airline is willing to pay to entice passengers off of an oversold flight, but it also reserves the right to deny boarding to passengers trying to get on to an oversold flight.  https://www.complianceweek.com/blogs/coffin-on-compliance/sometimes-the-rules-will-not-save-you#.WOv9y2d0o4t
Click to expand...
A) They never offered the full amount from all accounts

B) He had already boarded.

Next.

 
GilbertGrape said:
"Here is the key part of the contract language, under Rule 25 Denied Boarding Compensation (which, notably, says nothing about forcibly removing passengers after they have boarded the plane to make room for United workers):"
Click to expand...
I take that as the writer's disgust with the situation, not that they (United) had broken a law or internal policy. So going back to your point of " That means nothing.", when both articles say they legally could do what they did it clearly does not mean nothing.

 
Zow said:
I honestly can't believe I keep defending the airlines here, but at the point it got to it was probably a trespassing situation.  As such, law enforcement was the one who decided to forcibly remove the passenger.  Huge distinction here. 
Click to expand...
No it wasn't. The airline had not offered the full amount they were obligated to offer for someone getting bumped and they had not provided him with a written notice of his rights. As such, they had no right by regulation nor contract to remove him. He was fully in his rights not to move until those requirements were fulfilled.

 
3C's said:
I take that as the writer's disgust with the situation, not that they (United) had broken a law or internal policy. So going back to your point of " That means nothing.", when both articles say they legally could do what they did it clearly does not mean nothing.
Click to expand...
You just aren't getting it. There IS NO policy dealing with passengers that have already boarded. 

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

dkp993
United Flight 93 Todd Beamer Call Transcript -Must Read.
Replies
23
Views
2K
belljr
belljr
GregR
Greg's Useless Trivia #50 - 100 questions (75 greatest hits, 25 new)
Replies
19
Views
3K
GregR
GregR
(HULK)
Dave Berry's Year in Review
Replies
2
Views
1K
Joe Summer
J

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top