United airlines defences

A collection of links to internal martial arts videos. Serious martial arts videos ONLY. Joke videos go to Off the Topic.

Re: United airlines defences

Postby windwalker on Wed Apr 12, 2017 3:46 pm

Dao could certainly make a case in civil court that he is entitled compensation for physical harm and emotional distress suffered as a result of the decisions UA made. And this would not be a bad thing if it gets airlines to make sure that they do everything they can to avoid incidents like this from happening in the future. This was a situation they created, and one that could easily have been avoided.


This remains to be seen.
Any distress he may have suffered he caused.
As far as the incidents in looking at this they seem to be very few relative to the number flights.

It is not known at what point UA knew about their people needing to get to another location. They made a business decision
and seem to have followed the procedures they have for implementing it.
rule 19
windwalker
Wuji
 
Posts: 6061
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 4:08 am

Re: United airlines defences

Postby C.J.W. on Wed Apr 12, 2017 4:56 pm

I see fault on both sides. UA shouldn't have overbooked and asked the passengers to leave the flight, and Dao shouldn't have insisted to remain while sporting an attitude.
C.J.W.
Wuji
 
Posts: 1469
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 5:02 am

Re: United airlines defences

Postby everything on Wed Apr 12, 2017 6:42 pm

Sure but it's a PR disaster no matter what. The court of public opinion already ruled and United was found guilty. The sentencing will be carried out with people's wallets (or they will decide they are apathetic). Doesn't really matter at that point what the courts say or don't say. Once you see the image, assuming you are the most brutally cold-hearted CEO in it for the stock options and don't give a shit about a little blood, you still don't react with your MA or legal brain; you will still be smart to use your PR brain. If you are halfway human still, you react with your compassionate humanity + your PR brain.

And this all happened after the leggings PR fiasco. United is really on a roll.
Last edited by everything on Wed Apr 12, 2017 6:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
amateur practices til gets right pro til can't get wrong
/ better approx answer to right q than exact answer to wrong q which can be made precise /
“most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. Source of all true art & science
User avatar
everything
Wuji
 
Posts: 3949
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 7:22 pm
Location: USA

Re: United airlines defences

Postby windwalker on Wed Apr 12, 2017 7:14 pm

everything wrote:Sure but it's a PR disaster no matter what. The court of public opinion already ruled and United was found guilty. The sentencing will be carried out with people's wallets (or they will decide they are apathetic). Doesn't really matter at that point what the courts say or don't say. Once you see the image, assuming you are the most brutally cold-hearted CEO in it for the stock options and don't give a shit about a little blood, you still don't react with your MA or legal brain; you will still be smart to use your PR brain. If you are halfway human still, you react with your compassionate humanity + your PR brain.

And this all happened after the leggings PR fiasco. United is really on a roll.



And if the court of public opinion had agreed with the actions taken what than
would it suddenly be "right" or "lawful" ?

I would say its an indication of the lack of understanding first by the man,
and than by the "court of public" opinion swayed by the media which really cares for neither.
Anything for views whether its fake or not. In reading the story line by different media sources
its amazing how the facts are not reported nor explained.

You mentioned voting with the wallet,,,why not mention the UA employees who according to some
reports never felt supported in supporting actions they did in accordance with the law but
were unpopular to do? according to some reports they felt the airlines did not have "their back" for actions
taken...according to rule sets they had to enforce.

You as CEO, what or how would you square this?

People do vote with their wallets, give it a little time
the stock will go back up, this will be a memory and people will
fly UA.

I think along with a review of what happened UA along with other
business will start to learn if not understand that they have to do a better
job of getting their story out on the new media platforms..


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Atwsx9vlhSQ&t=15s
Last edited by windwalker on Wed Apr 12, 2017 8:18 pm, edited 3 times in total.
rule 19
windwalker
Wuji
 
Posts: 6061
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 4:08 am

Re: United airlines defences

Postby Bao on Wed Apr 12, 2017 7:45 pm

C.J.W. wrote:I see fault on both sides. UA shouldn't have overbooked and asked the passengers to leave the flight, and Dao shouldn't have insisted to remain while sporting an attitude.


Again, the case is technically not overbooking. They had missed to give their employees seats and found out at the last minute. Every airline overbook most of their flights. Everything is resolved before boarding. UA does the same. They overbook and resolve at check in or latest before boarding.

No airline let more people into an airplane than there are seats due to passenger safety rules. No one wants to argue with passengers inside a plane. If a plane is delayed for take-off, they are put last in the cue for the take-off, and must wait last in line. And then they lose a lot of money. They need to pay all of the crew one hour extra for every hour of delayment. So especially a low-budget company would be extra-extra careful to not be delayed. This is also the main reason why a lot of companies charge extra for check-in baggage. If someone must leave the plane of doesn't show up in time for take-off, they must search up the pieces from the plane and that takes time and cost extra money. So they actually prefer people who don't have any luggage to check-in. They do everything to be able to take-off as scheduled and they don't start unnecessary conflicts with passengers who have already boarded the plane. That is just not the way any low cost airline company would work.

What they can do in this kind of situation is trying to find another flight with another airline and put their employee on that plane. That is the only thing they can or is allowed to do if they have already given away all of their seats. Or they can ask around in the plane and give the passengers who leave some kind of reward. But I suspect that United have a very strict policy to not give away money. So Dr Dao had all of the right to stay and put up an attitude. Why he didn't leave when he already knew that they were going to drag him away is another thing, that's just poor judgment on his own safety. But I have no doubt that there will be a settlement and I bet that the IATA organization will even support Dr Dao against the airline because as how United handled the situation was way out off line and hurts all of the travel industry.
Thoughts on Tai Chi (My Tai Chi blog)
- Storms make oaks take deeper root. -George Herbert
- To affect the quality of the day, is the highest of all arts! -Walden Thoreau
Bao
Great Old One
 
Posts: 5753
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 12:46 pm
Location: High up north

Re: United airlines defences

Postby Bao on Wed Apr 12, 2017 8:10 pm

http://lawnewz.com/uncategorized/batter ... l-trouble/

And if the flight is simply overbooked, airlines can throw off whoever they want in that case too. Being thrown off an airplane is called “involuntary denied boarding ,” and there are rules. The airline must first seek volunteers to give up their reservation for some kind of compensation, usually money. If they must bump a passenger off the flight, the airline must 1) notify the passenger of his or her rights in writing 2) compensate the passenger with a check or cash unless they can rebook you on a flight that arrives within an hour of your original scheduled arrival. Bumped passengers are entitled to 200 percent of the one-way ticket price, capped at $650.


What is said above is a modification of truth. Denying boarding does not mean that they are allowed to "throw off whoever they want". An airline can refuse boarding. "involuntary denied boarding" means that you can be denied to board the plane. But there is no law that supports throwing off Dr Dao or anyone else who had already boarded. Excessive force or not, what they did was clearly an illegal act.

Remember, Dr Dao had already boarded the flight:

§ 250.5 Amount of denied boarding compensation for passengers denied boarding involuntarily.
(a) Subject to the exceptions provided in § 250.6, a carrier to whom this part applies as described in § 250.2 shall pay compensation in interstate air transportation to passengers who are denied boarding involuntarily from an oversold flight as follows:

(1) No compensation is required if the carrier offers alternate transportation that, at the time the arrangement is made, is planned to arrive at the airport of the passenger's first stopover, or if none, the airport of the passenger's final destination not later than one hour after the planned arrival time of the passenger's original flight;

(2) Compensation shall be 200% of the fare to the passenger's destination or first stopover, with a maximum of $675, if the carrier offers alternate transportation that, at the time the arrangement is made, is planned to arrive at the airport of the passenger's first stopover, or if none, the airport of the passenger's final destination more than one hour but less than two hours after the planned arrival time of the passenger's original flight; and

(3) Compensation shall be 400% of the fare to the passenger's destination or first stopover, with a maximum of $1,350, if the carrier does not offer alternate transportation that, at the time the arrangement is made, is planned to arrive at the airport of the passenger's first stopover, or if none, the airport of the passenger's final destination less than two hours after the planned arrival time of the passenger's original flight.

(b) Subject to the exceptions provided in § 250.6, a carrier to whom this part applies as described in § 250.2 shall pay compensation to passengers in foreign air transportation who are denied boarding involuntarily at a U.S. airport from an oversold flight as follows:

(1) No compensation is required if the carrier offers alternate transportation that, at the time the arrangement is made, is planned to arrive at the airport of the passenger's first stopover, or if not, the airport of the passenger's final destination not later than one hour after the planned arrival time of the passenger's original flight;

(2) Compensation shall be 200% of the fare to the passenger's destination or first stopover, with a maximum of $675, if the carrier offers alternate transportation that, at the time the arrangement is made, is planned to arrive at the airport of the passenger's first stopover, or if not, the airport of the passenger's final destination more than one hour but less than four hours after the planned arrival time of the passenger's original flight; and

(3) Compensation shall be 400% of the fare to the passenger's destination or first stopover, with a maximum of $1,350, if the carrier does not offer alternate transportation that, at the time the arrangement is made, is planned to arrive at the airport of the passenger's first stopover, or if not, the airport of the passenger's final destination less than four hours after the planned arrival time of the passenger's original flight.
Thoughts on Tai Chi (My Tai Chi blog)
- Storms make oaks take deeper root. -George Herbert
- To affect the quality of the day, is the highest of all arts! -Walden Thoreau
Bao
Great Old One
 
Posts: 5753
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 12:46 pm
Location: High up north

Re: United airlines defences

Postby windwalker on Wed Apr 12, 2017 8:12 pm

But I suspect that United have a very strict policy to not give away money. So Dr Dao had all of the right to stay and put up an attitude. Why he didn't leave when he already knew that they were going to drag him away is another thing, that's just poor judgment on his own safety. But I have no doubt that there will be a settlement and I bet that the IATA organization will even support Dr Dao against the airline because as how United handled the situation was way out off line and hurts all of the travel industry.


The airline says it asked volunteers to give up their seats in exchange for as much as $1,000, but when no one volunteered the gate agent selected four people to exit the plane.

http://www.businessinsider.com/united-a ... ash-2017-4

the law limits the amount they can offer to 1300 US I believe.
edited: "with a maximum of $1,350"
Last edited by windwalker on Wed Apr 12, 2017 8:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
rule 19
windwalker
Wuji
 
Posts: 6061
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 4:08 am

Re: United airlines defences

Postby Bao on Wed Apr 12, 2017 8:19 pm

windwalker wrote:
The airline says it asked volunteers to give up their seats in exchange for as much as $1,000, but when no one volunteered the gate agent selected four people to exit the plane.

http://www.business insider.com/united-airlines-big-mistake-offering-cash-2017-4

the law limits the amount they can offer to 1300 US I believe.


And again, they can't ask people who had already boarded to go off the plane. There is no legal basis to throw anyone out if they refuse. "Deny boarding" happens before a passenger has boarded the plane, not afterwards, when he or she is already sitting there. You cannot deny boarding if you already have permitted boarding. That means that the passenger have got the seat, and has actually already boarded.
Last edited by Bao on Wed Apr 12, 2017 8:20 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Thoughts on Tai Chi (My Tai Chi blog)
- Storms make oaks take deeper root. -George Herbert
- To affect the quality of the day, is the highest of all arts! -Walden Thoreau
Bao
Great Old One
 
Posts: 5753
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 12:46 pm
Location: High up north

Re: United airlines defences

Postby windwalker on Wed Apr 12, 2017 8:26 pm

And again, they can't ask people who had already boarded to go off the plane.


Happens all the time, go check it out. People have been asked to get off the plane for any
number of reasons.

There is no legal basis to throw anyone out if they refuse.


The act of not complying is the legal basis, which is why in this case they called
the airport police to enforce the request.

Takeoff was delayed and the family was ordered to deboard.
"We understood. They helped us off the plane, but as we gathered our stuff the people toward the back of the plane clapped," said Fabian.

https://pjmedia.com/parenting/2016/02/2 ... rom-plane/

An unidentified woman says that while she was sitting on the tarmac in New Orleans on a Spirit Airlines flight to Fort Lauderdale, a flight attendant told her to 'cover up.'
She said she wrapped herself in a coat, but the attendants still weren't satisfied, and when a female stranger came to her defense, both of them were tossed off the plane on January 30.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z4e62nqbBf
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Last edited by windwalker on Wed Apr 12, 2017 8:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
rule 19
windwalker
Wuji
 
Posts: 6061
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 4:08 am

Re: United airlines defences

Postby Bao on Wed Apr 12, 2017 8:30 pm

windwalker wrote:
And again, they can't ask people who had already boarded to go off the plane.


Happens all the time, go check it out. People have been asked to get off the plane for any
number of reasons. ]


Overboarding is NOT one of those reasons. The subject is overboarding.

Dr Dao was not thrown out because of that he was too drunk or behaved badly. The reason to throw out people that the airline claimed was overboarding.
Last edited by Bao on Wed Apr 12, 2017 8:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Thoughts on Tai Chi (My Tai Chi blog)
- Storms make oaks take deeper root. -George Herbert
- To affect the quality of the day, is the highest of all arts! -Walden Thoreau
Bao
Great Old One
 
Posts: 5753
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 12:46 pm
Location: High up north

Re: United airlines defences

Postby Bao on Wed Apr 12, 2017 8:34 pm

The act of not complying is the legal basis, which is why in this case they called
the airport police to enforce the request.


They had no legal basis to ask him to leave.
Thoughts on Tai Chi (My Tai Chi blog)
- Storms make oaks take deeper root. -George Herbert
- To affect the quality of the day, is the highest of all arts! -Walden Thoreau
Bao
Great Old One
 
Posts: 5753
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 12:46 pm
Location: High up north

Re: United airlines defences

Postby windwalker on Wed Apr 12, 2017 8:39 pm

Bao wrote:
windwalker wrote:
And again, they can't ask people who had already boarded to go off the plane.


Happens all the time, go check it out. People have been asked to get off the plane for any
number of reasons. ]


Overboarding is NOT one of those reasons. The subject is overboarding.

Dr Dao was not thrown out because of that he was too drunk or behaved badly. The reason to throw out people that the airline claimed was overboarding.


They can and did.

It was a business decision the others complied, he did not.
In so doing he became a threat to the safety of the plane and was removed.

The legality of it could be pursued after he complied if he wished to do so.
The non compliance did in fact break the law and made it a safety issue.
rule 19
windwalker
Wuji
 
Posts: 6061
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 4:08 am

Re: United airlines defences

Postby Bao on Wed Apr 12, 2017 9:02 pm

windwalker wrote:The legality of it could be pursued after he complied if he wished to do so.
The non compliance did in fact break the law and made it a safety issue.


As they had no basis for asking him leave in the first place, no legal or any support in the company's own regulations, the staff asking him leave was the very cause for both non compliance and making it a safety issue.

Legally speaking, it's the company's staff who provoked Dr Dao and they were the sole reason for anything that followed, just because they had no reason or legal basis to ask him to leave. So their own actions caused the situation of non-compliance and made it a safety issue, not Dr Dao.
Thoughts on Tai Chi (My Tai Chi blog)
- Storms make oaks take deeper root. -George Herbert
- To affect the quality of the day, is the highest of all arts! -Walden Thoreau
Bao
Great Old One
 
Posts: 5753
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 12:46 pm
Location: High up north

Re: United airlines defences

Postby GrahamB on Wed Apr 12, 2017 10:56 pm

According to Town and Country Magazine, a legal expert in aviation law, Arthur Wolk, said he thinks “Dao could sue for assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional disturbance, and may also have grounds to sue under various civil rights acts, in addition to that breach of contract.”

Nothing allows an airline to batter a passenger, he told the magazine, although airlines have the right to remove disruptive passengers. Dao could sue for millions, he said to the magazine.



https://www.google.co.uk/amp/heavy.com/ ... suing/amp/
"The killer in me is the killer in you"- The Smashing Pumpkins.
http://www.taichinotebook.wordpress.com
User avatar
GrahamB
Great Old One
 
Posts: 10916
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 3:30 pm

Re: United airlines defences

Postby Ian on Thu Apr 13, 2017 12:33 am

windwalker wrote:I would say its an indication of the lack of understanding first by the man...


So they "made him understand." :)

windwalker wrote:Any distress he may have suffered he caused.


What? :D

You mean he caused his own mouth to bleed, or what? Getting roughed up was his fault?

I'm glad I fly Emirates.

Image
Last edited by Ian on Thu Apr 13, 2017 12:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
Ian
Great Old One
 
Posts: 5650
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 12:22 am

PreviousNext

Return to Video Links

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest