I've thought that for awhile in many situations. In this one I think maybe it is more that a lot of people feel only certain people, like the wealthy for example, should be allowed to assert rights. It's almost an envy in some cases of anyone who is close to themselves in economic or social status who dares to stand up for something. There has also been this creeping subservience to and vehement defense of big business in this country that has developed over the years, as well as this pervasive attitude that people act "entitled" when they should simply take what they are given without complaint, even if they rightfully earned more.
I find it quite odd. To put a corporation over the dignity and rights of a human being is just odd to me. Especially when the "inconvenience" to the human can be great when you consider the stressors of travelling, being trapped in a metal tube for hours, the increasing lack of customer service and deterioration of air travel, the cost of missing work or dearly needed vacation days, or family events of various significance, or health-related appointments, etc., that a delayed flight can cause, balanced with the inconvenience to the airline, when they have to either up the price of getting someone to volunteer, or perhaps not overbook.
I mean
United earned a net profit of 2.3 BILLION last year. But people are screaming about how they have the right and authority to have a passenger yanked off a plan because hell, they can do whatever they want. It's their policy! As if that makes it legal or just or ok. So the passenger who st6ands to lose a lot is a brat and only inconvenienced, but the rich corporation has rights that must be defended at all costs. Bizarre:
http://atwonline.com/airline-financials/united-earns-23-billion-2016-net-profit
Me too. I would likely have simply left. That doesn't mean though, that had I chosen to stand my ground and remain in the seat I paid for, that the airline would've had the right to order me bodily moved from the airplane. If I started threatening, cursing at people, making nasty or racist or sexist remarks as I sat there, that's different.
Apparently, despite your knowledge of the law, you don't really know what you're talking about. :scared:
Yup. Once again, putting a cap on what the airlines is ALLOWED to offer would be an impermissible interference with commerce per the Commerce Clause of the constitution. I guess I can understand why they are confused but a cap protects the company. It doesn't bind them.
Yup. I sure do. And now we have a monopoly.
I don't think that's relevant to some!
So non-lawyers posting here should be able to understand these complex regulations and laws better than lawyers? I guess that's possible. But if our opinions don't seem that credible, which I get, how about this:
Judge Napolitano - judge, attorney and professor:
"By dislodging this passenger against his will, United violated its contractual obligation," Napolitano said. "He bought the ticket, he passed the TSA, he was in his seat, he has every right to stay there."
He said the man "absolutely" has a case against United if he files a lawsuit, because of the "inconvenience and public humiliation."
http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/04/...video-could-sue-airline-judge-napolitano-says
Napolitano is a "graduate of Princeton University and Notre Dame Law School. He was admitted to the New Jersey bar in 1975.[5] After law school, Napolitano entered private practice as a litigator. Napolitano first taught law for a brief period in 19801981 at Delaware Law School (then-Widener). Napolitano sat on the New Jersey bench from 1987 to 1995, becoming the state's youngest then-sitting Superior Court judge.
He resigned his judgeship in 1995 for private practice. He also served as an adjunct professor at Seton Hall University School of Law for 11 years from 19892000. Napolitano is a distinguished visiting professor at Brooklyn Law School where he teaches courses on advanced and introductory constitutional law and jurisprudence, and has begun a renewed endeavor to developing his natural law jurisprudence."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Napolitano#Early_life_and_judicial_and_acad emic_career
Aaron Podhurst - trial lawyer for aviation cases:
Trial lawyer Aaron Podhurst, who represents plaintiffs in aviation cases, said he believes Dao can make a strong civil case based on the assault and battery that appears to have occurred. United could be liable, and Dao could also sue Chicago authorities for use of excessive force, Podhurst said.
"This case is a very strong case for the passenger," Podhurst said. He added that he expects Dao would be able to secure a settlement.
[video]http://money.cnn.com/2017/04/13/news/companies/united-legal-issues/index.html[/video]
Andrew Harakas - head of aviation law group:
Passengers agree to a litany of terms in any airline's "contract of carriage," which they agree to when purchasing a ticket. But the agreement doesn't sign away the right to sue if the airline treats a passenger in a manner that breaches the law.
"If you're injured, or dragged off the airplane, or falsely arrested, you can sue," said Andrew Harakas, head of the aviation law group at Clyde & Co. [video]http://money.cnn.com/2017/04/13/news/companies/united-legal-issues/index.html[/video]
David Katzman - aviation lawyer:
"You could give this to a group of first-year lawyers and they could list all the claims this guy has," he said, naming intentional infliction of emotional distress in addition to assault and battery.
[video]http://money.cnn.com/2017/04/13/news/companies/united-legal-issues/index.html[/video]
Jens David Ohlin - professor of law and Dean at Cornell Law School:
Dao was not denied boarding. He was granted boarding and then involuntarily removed from the airplane. So Rule 25 does not apply
There is absolutely no provision for deplaning a seated passenger because the flight is oversold. And he was not removed due to being disorderly, so Rule 21 would not apply. And the flight was not oversold anyhow. Further, neither employee transportation nor oversold situations is listed as among the reasons that a passenger may be refused transport.
He had already boarded. He was not denied boarding, even though the plane was still boarding passengers. So he could not be denied transport.
The airline did not comply with its requirements, so it should be liable for the damages associated with their breach, including the injuries sustained by the police.
http://www.newsweek.com/why-united-were-legally-wrong-deplane-dr-dao-583535
John Banzhaf - public interest law professor:
Having boarded and been seated, a passenger is generally entitled to keep a seat and remain on the flight, except in rare instances: e.g., a legitimate concern about terrorism, unruly or drunken behavior by the passenger, it is suddenly discovered that he is ill, is using a forged or stolen ticket, etc. Here, none of these rare exceptions applied, so the carrier had no right to eject him once he had validly boarded, says Banzhaf.
Here, since there clearly was no emergency, the passenger posed no threat and did not fight back, and there would have been room for addition security personnel to restrain him with less violence, and not literally drag him down the floor of the passenger cabin, a jury could easily find that the amount of force used was more than was reasonably necessary under the circumstances, and that the cabin crew should have taken whatever steps were necessary to see that the force used was no more than what was reasonable.
http://www.valuewalk.com/2017/04/united-airlines-eject-passengers/
eace:
