Originally Posted by ckinchen (Post 818676)

W Court doesn't matter do you know how many civil cases make it to trial? VERY FEW. United is not going to want their polices or treatment of customers to become public record. The plantiff would find other similar cases and United would find themselves in a world wind of issues. I promise you this guy will get a check and he should IMO. Can you imagine United trying to defend why the cheaper tickets were the ones kicked off and how that might discriminate, etc.... Pay that man his money and they will.

Originally Posted by "W" (Post 818687)

Dude ain't getting Millions lmao

It's going to be a few thousand to shut up and move on deal

He didn't obey the policy he signed
You can say what you want all day long but at the end of the day . United had the "Right" to remove him from the plane
Via . voluntary or non voluntary

Bet he don't do it again !! And next time they say get off bet that dude is running off like Forrest Gump

Originally Posted by "W" (Post 818691)

There stock has not even took a hit
Which is tale sign of zero trouble !

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...023fa909ef.jpg

Originally Posted by Feesherman (Post 818673)

I know what you posted. I know what the rules say. But you don't listen. Those rules change once the man boarded the plane. You don't want to hear it tho.


YOU GONE SEE!!

Originally Posted by Andy C (Post 818700)

And federal law takes over and you have to fallow flight crew instructions!! He didn't!! So united employees went by the book and called the police in, how is that united failure fault as to how the cop's handled it​ ?????

Originally Posted by bjhooper82 (Post 818705)

All bs aside, what would some of you guys done if that was you? I know I would have been pissed but I can promise you I would not have acted the way this guy did. I would have taken $800 and a hotel and meal vouchers and caught the next flight out. It's a damn shame that this idiot will collect any money at all. Like someone said earlier, play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

Originally Posted by Feesherman (Post 818706)

I can tell you 800 bucks ain't gonna be worth my time to miss work. Obviously it wasn't worth it for the upteen people on the plane either because there was zeros volunteers. I would not have stepped off for 800. 1600 maybe so. Don't you think all of this could have been avoided? Offer better incentives, drive the crew the few hours to their destination, put em on a private flight, buy em tickets on another carrier. All of those choices to solve their staffing issue and they choose to screw over 4 paying customers and assaulting 1 of em in the process. But hey, we just had to "reaccomdate" a few passengers that bought a seat on our plane. What's the big deal?

I'm not sure buying a seat on a plane to get home for work is playing a stupid game but what do I know.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by bjhooper82 (Post 818709)

I know $800 isn't a ton of money but it would have been enough for me to feel a little better about it.

Originally Posted by Feesherman (Post 818715)

Yup, just like I said.


http://finance.yahoo.com/m/8ff53eab-...noz%3a-we.html


And once again for W.


https://www.yahoo.com/news/united-ai...201302721.html


From the article that he won't read:


?You can?t remove, under the current rules, a passenger once they?re seated on the aircraft. You can deny them entry if you?re overbooked, but once they?re on the aircraft, it?s a completely different set of rules.?




?If they?re not dressed appropriately, if they have certain communicable diseases, if they?re drunk, if they?re violent, you can remove them,? he said. ?If they don?t turn off their cell phone when they?re supposed to, you can remove them. If they won?t obey lawful instructions from a crew member, you can remove them. But telling someone, ?Hey, we?ve overbooked, get off the plane,? that wouldn?t be a lawful instruction.?

Originally Posted by "W" (Post 818721)

He did not OBEY rules " damn how narrow minded are you ?"

Originally Posted by "W" (Post 818723)

Let me put it in real world you can understand
I'll put it as me the owner

Guy pays for a fishing when he gets on board my boat I realize I double booked my boat and another group showes up
So I tell the guy look man
I'm going to refund you your $600 back plus I'm going to put you up in a lodge for free and pay for all your meals
I really apologize for the inconvenience

Then he refuses to get out of my boat
I ask and plead for 20 mins then I get marina division to handle it .

Now they drag him out and rough him up and it gets videod of that 7 secs and goes viral . Well as the owner of company yes I have to uphold a image and apologize to the public for what happened !

But in reality I did everything I could to not make it go that route !

You understand now ?

Originally Posted by mcjaredsandwich (Post 818725)

I see your point, but let me change a couple things.

Instead of booking 2 clients and taking their money up front, change one client to family and leave the other a client. The client pays you up front for a guaranteed spot on your boat. He's made reservations and paid and has his fishing "ticket" in hand and is already seated on your boat with all his gear.

Now, the other client is "Family" being that United employees can be represented as such in a business perspective. You messed up and forgot about your family when you sold that fishing trip to the client who has fully paid up front. Instead of honoring your client's time and money, you offer them X amount of money/trip/whatever. They refuse. They've paid. As a company, your clientele should come first. But, in this case, you call the marina police and have them aggressively drag your client off the boat to make room for your family so you can take them fishing. That doesn't sound like much of a good PR move. Your business will gain a reputation as putting family over the service it provides to the masses with violent tendencies.

United should not have over sold their seats and taken into account they needed 4 seats left for crew. This man did nothing wrong at all, and should have never been forced to give up a seat when United is at fault for overselling their seats.

Originally Posted by Feesherman (Post 818727)

Forget it. W is either a democrat or one of those that is never wrong even when proven to be wrong. Or he's both.

Originally Posted by "W" (Post 818730)

I Promise I'm far from Democrat

But I am a business owner and know that if you have to have law remove someone you done all you could do !

Again you saw a 15 sec video to make your conclusion !

Where is the other hour before ?

Dude just had to obey the officers and leave and again that's how people get shot and wonder why !

I'm not saying guy can't get pissed and raise hell because I would of but when turned over to PD it's time to listen or get dealt with

Originally Posted by "W" (Post 818730)

Again you saw a 15 sec video to make your conclusion !

Originally Posted by mcjaredsandwich (Post 818732)

United should have never taken it to the point where police were needed. If no one wanted to give up a spot they've paid for and where their belongings are, united should have bit the bullet and either put those four employees in a van or car or different flight.

Originally Posted by Pat Babaz (Post 818735)

United was morally wrong, BUT the question is were they legally wrong? The link Feesh posted seemed to indicate that United was legally wrong because the dude had already boarded the plane. This was only one lawyer's opinion though.


I'd like to see how the actual law reads concerning when and under what circumstances people can be bumped off of flights AFTER they have boarded.

Originally Posted by Pat Babaz (Post 818735)

United was morally wrong, BUT the question is were they legally wrong? The link Feesh posted seemed to indicate that United was legally wrong because the dude had already boarded the plane. This was only one lawyer's opinion though.


I'd like to see how the actual law reads concerning when and under what circumstances people can be bumped off of flights AFTER they have boarded.

Originally Posted by mcjaredsandwich (Post 818739)

Taken from a Reddit thread. I take no credit for this and these are not my words.

"Ok, because people keep missing that I do not claim to be an expert nor did I write the material I quoted, I have to emphasize I copy-pasted from and left a link to the original Reddit comment, which is itself a copy of a comment from off-site. I do not claim it's correct, I just put it forward as a perspective. Remainder of my original comment follows.

It doesn't seem like this situation went off as it should have though. From /u/deskreference's comment taken from https://thepointsguy.com/2017/04/you...luntary-bumps/)

Lawyer here. This myth that passengers don't have rights needs to go away, ASAP. You are dead wrong when saying that United legally kicked him off the plane.

1. First of all, it's airline spin to call this an overbooking. The statutory provision granting them the ability to deny boarding is about "OVERSALES", specifically defines as booking more reserved confirmed seats than there are available. This is not what happened. They did not overbook the flight; they had a fully booked flight, and not only did everyone already have a reserved confirmed seat, they were all sitting in them. The law allowing them to denying boarding in the event of an oversale does not apply.

2. Even if it did apply, the law is unambiguously clear that airlines have to give preference to everyone with reserved confirmed seats when choosing to involuntarily deny boarding. They have to always choose the solution that will affect the least amount of reserved confirmed seats. This rule is straightforward, and United makes very clear in their own contract of carriage that employees of their own or of other carriers may be denied boarding without compensation because they do not have reserved confirmed seats. On its face, it's clear that what they did was illegal-- they gave preference to their employees over people who had reserved confirmed seats, in violation of 14 CFR 250.2a.

3. Furthermore, even if you try and twist this into a legal application of 250.2a and say that United had the right to deny him boarding in the event of an overbooking; they did NOT have the right to kick him off the plane. Their contract of carriage highlights there is a complete difference in rights after you've boarded and sat on the plane, and Rule 21 goes over the specific scenarios where you could get kicked off. NONE of them apply here. He did absolutely nothing wrong and shouldn't have been targeted. He's going to leave with a hefty settlement after this fiasco.

Originally Posted by mcjaredsandwich (Post 818739)

Taken from a Reddit thread. I take no credit for this and these are not my words.

"Ok, because people keep missing that I do not claim to be an expert nor did I write the material I quoted, I have to emphasize I copy-pasted from and left a link to the original Reddit comment, which is itself a copy of a comment from off-site. I do not claim it's correct, I just put it forward as a perspective. Remainder of my original comment follows.

It doesn't seem like this situation went off as it should have though. From /u/deskreference's comment taken from https://www.thepointsguy.com/2017/04...luntary-bumps/

Lawyer here. This myth that passengers don't have rights needs to go away, ASAP. You are dead wrong when saying that United legally kicked him off the plane.

1. First of all, it's airline spin to call this an overbooking. The statutory provision granting them the ability to deny boarding is about "OVERSALES", specifically defines as booking more reserved confirmed seats than there are available. This is not what happened. They did not overbook the flight; they had a fully booked flight, and not only did everyone already have a reserved confirmed seat, they were all sitting in them. The law allowing them to denying boarding in the event of an oversale does not apply.

2. Even if it did apply, the law is unambiguously clear that airlines have to give preference to everyone with reserved confirmed seats when choosing to involuntarily deny boarding. They have to always choose the solution that will affect the least amount of reserved confirmed seats. This rule is straightforward, and United makes very clear in their own contract of carriage that employees of their own or of other carriers may be denied boarding without compensation because they do not have reserved confirmed seats. On its face, it's clear that what they did was illegal-- they gave preference to their employees over people who had reserved confirmed seats, in violation of 14 CFR 250.2a.

3. Furthermore, even if you try and twist this into a legal application of 250.2a and say that United had the right to deny him boarding in the event of an overbooking; they did NOT have the right to kick him off the plane. Their contract of carriage highlights there is a complete difference in rights after you've boarded and sat on the plane, and Rule 21 goes over the specific scenarios where you could get kicked off. NONE of them apply here. He did absolutely nothing wrong and shouldn't have been targeted. He's going to leave with a hefty settlement after this fiasco.

Originally Posted by redaddiction (Post 818743)

All I can say is I wish it was me that got dragged off that flight! I could use a fat bank account!!!

Originally Posted by Feesherman (Post 818738)

Like I said, once on the plane the rules have changed and it's out of local PD's jurisdiction. It becomes Federal, as in TSA level at that point. Why you think United blamed the man at first and is now bending over backwards so far as to refund everyone on the plane. The realized what they did was illegal and is now gotten themselves in hot water.

Originally Posted by "W" (Post 818748)

Running back on a plane you were removed from is also a security risk and federal security risk at that !

So he broke the law by running back on a plane when removed by law!

Airline has 100% right to remove anyone from a plane anytime with out reason !




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Feesherman (Post 818738)

Like I said, once on the plane the rules have changed and it's out of local PD's jurisdiction. It becomes Federal, as in TSA level at that point. Why you think United blamed the man at first and is now bending over backwards so far as to refund everyone on the plane. The realized what they did was illegal and is now gotten themselves in hot water.

Originally Posted by "W" (Post 818751)

Clear as day !!
In United rules
Clear as DAY
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...69937b7cfa.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by mcjaredsandwich (Post 818753)

Yea, that's the policy. HOWEVER, all the passengers WERE ALREADY BOARDED. It's not like he jumped through the window. It also states that if no one voluntarily gives up their seats, they will deny further boarding.



You just posted a picture of rules contradicting your argument.

Originally Posted by "W" (Post 818754)

Then In my view it was a successful removal !



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Matt G (Post 818760)

I see reading comprehension isn't your strong point. The flight was not oversold because the 4 employees did not hold a confirmed reserved space, so BY LAW, United could not deny boarding to any passengers holding a confirmed reserved space to accommodate their own employees. It's really that simple.


Go read 14 CRF 250. That's the only rules that apply in this situation. Any policy by United contradicting this is in violations of the law and therefore not valid.
link: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/part-250

Originally Posted by Matt G (Post 818760)

I see reading comprehension isn't your strong point. The flight was not oversold because the 4 employees did not hold a confirmed reserved space, so BY LAW, United could not deny boarding to any passengers holding a confirmed reserved space to accommodate their own employees. It's really that simple.


Go read 14 CRF 250. That's the only rules that apply in this situation. Any policy by United contradicting this is in violations of the law and therefore not valid.
link: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/part-250