• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What should be the outcome of the Passenger being forcibly removed from UAL

What should be the outcome of the forcible removal of a passenger from UAL

  • Total voters
    74
AlbqOwl said:
So today, I am starting to see more and more reports like this one. (I don't know anything about the source but they are citing TMZ's report and this was also on the AOL news feed this morning.)
According to TMZ, the 69-year old doctor who refused to give up his seat on this now-infamous United flight is named David Dao.

In 2005, Dao was charged with 98 felony drug counts for illegally prescribing and trafficking painkillers.

Prosecutors claimed at the time that Dao fraudulently and illegally filled prescriptions for hydocodone, Oxycontin and Percocet.

Dao, who a decade later is best known for having his face bloodied (see images above and below) by members of the Chicago Police Department, was also convicted on six felony counts of obtaining drugs by fraud and deceit.

He was given five years probation for these crimes.

But this wasn't all: Dao was also convicted for writing prescriptions and checks to a patient in exchange for sex . . .
United Airlines Passenger Convicted of Drug Trafficking, Sex Crimes | Pioneer News​

And while this does not justify the perceived treatment of the man in the UAL incident, it perhaps gives credence to UAL's assertion that the man was abusive or whatever they accused him of.

I wonder if UAL's lawyers aren't distributing this information to reduce UAL's liability exposure?
Click to expand...




First I heard of that.


While it dilutes a lot of my sympathy for the guy as an individual, I still think this overbooking and involuntary-removal crap, is crap.
 
Goshin said:
First I heard of that.

While it dilutes a lot of my sympathy for the guy as an individual, I still think this overbooking and involuntary-removal crap, is crap.
Click to expand...

IKR, reminds me of this:

"I know why we have reservations"
"I don't think you do"
 
AlbqOwl said:
So today, I am starting to see more and more reports like this one. (I don't know anything about the source but they are citing TMZ's report and this was also on the AOL news feed this morning.)

According to TMZ, the 69-year old doctor who refused to give up his seat on this now-infamous United flight is named David Dao.

In 2005, Dao was charged with 98 felony drug counts for illegally prescribing and trafficking painkillers.

Prosecutors claimed at the time that Dao fraudulently and illegally filled prescriptions for hydocodone, Oxycontin and Percocet.

Dao, who a decade later is best known for having his face bloodied (see images above and below) by members of the Chicago Police Department, was also convicted on six felony counts of obtaining drugs by fraud and deceit.

He was given five years probation for these crimes.

But this wasn't all: Dao was also convicted for writing prescriptions and checks to a patient in exchange for sex . . .
United Airlines Passenger Convicted of Drug Trafficking, Sex Crimes | Pioneer News​

And while this does not justify the perceived treatment of the man in the UAL incident, it perhaps gives credence to UAL's assertion that the man was abusive or whatever they accused him of.

I wonder if UAL's lawyers aren't distributing this information to reduce UAL's liability exposure?
Click to expand...
Some random thoughts...

- He most certainly DID come off as a drama queen. That's been my biggest 'hold back', so far. I'd watch and think, "Really, dude?" I cannot dismiss the possibility that he overreacted on purpose precisely hoping for a big payday.

- It is also possible that there were other non-video'd factors that led up to this.

- But, *if* the two points I just mentioned are not true, then all the other stuff does not justify how and what happened. It just makes him a douchebag, and sometimes even douchebags are wronged.
 
>


The poll asks what "Should" be the outcome. That would be "He loses at civil trial or is convicted of a crime".


When you purchase airline tickets, you agree to what is called a Contract of Carriage which spells out the terms of the contract entered into with the ticket purchase. It is your responsibility to know what you agree to. And yes I've actually read them when making online purchases (ya a nerd I know). The UA Contract the individual agrees to specifically says the airline can overbook the flight and the seat may not be available - that's what overbooking is.


By refusing to depart the airplane he was in violation of the contract he voluntarily entered into when he purchased the ticket.



>>>>
 
radcen said:
Some random thoughts...

- He most certainly DID come off as a drama queen. That's been my biggest 'hold back', so far. I'd watch and think, "Really, dude?" I cannot dismiss the possibility that he overreacted on purpose precisely hoping for a big payday.

- It is also possible that there were other non-video'd factors that led up to this.

- But, *if* the two points I just mentioned are not true, then all the other stuff does not justify how and what happened. It just makes him a douchebag, and sometimes even douchebags are wronged.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but my cynical side always kicks in on these things. Such negative publicity about the person, such publicity that would almost certainly come out and be more widely publicized if UAL agreed to go to court, might persuade the person to take a more reasonable settlement maybe or not file a complaint at all?

Of course if that is a tactic UAL is employing, that makes them even worse scumbags than the incident itself makes them appear to be.
 
WorldWatcher said:
>


The poll asks what "Should" be the outcome. That would be "He loses at civil trial or is convicted of a crime".


When you purchase airline tickets, you agree to what is called a Contract of Carriage which spells out the terms of the contract entered into with the ticket purchase. It is your responsibility to know what you agree to. And yes I've actually read them when making online purchases (ya a nerd I know). The UA Contract the individual agrees to specifically says the airline can overbook the flight and the seat may not be available - that's what overbooking is.


By refusing to depart the airplane he was in violation of the contract he voluntarily entered into when he purchased the ticket.



>>>>
Click to expand...

This is true. I think all of us who fly here and there know that. It's one of the reasons many of us get to the airport plenty early enough to be near the front of the line to board on airlines who don't assign seating like Southwest. So if you're late to the gate and the plane is full, you can be out of luck unless somebody wants to take the reward for giving up his/her seat.

But by golly, once you have your boarding pass and assigned seat number, that should absolutely be your seat unless you voluntarily give it up.

And I also saw a blurb somewhere, or on TV, or something that said the seats UAL was demanding were for their own crew that they needed to get to someplace. Throwing off passengers for that purpose, if the report is true, makes it look even worse.

In my opinion, UAL has no leg to stand on in this one.
 
WorldWatcher said:
>


The poll asks what "Should" be the outcome. That would be "He loses at civil trial or is convicted of a crime".


When you purchase airline tickets, you agree to what is called a Contract of Carriage which spells out the terms of the contract entered into with the ticket purchase. It is your responsibility to know what you agree to. And yes I've actually read them when making online purchases (ya a nerd I know). The UA Contract the individual agrees to specifically says the airline can overbook the flight and the seat may not be available - that's what overbooking is.


By refusing to depart the airplane he was in violation of the contract he voluntarily entered into when he purchased the ticket.



>>>>
Click to expand...

That is not at all clear. The plain reading of the contract is that he can be denied boarding. There's nothing in there about kicking off an already boarded passenger. In the other thread on this topic a number of people disagree with that reading - though I don't understand why - but the worst (best) you can say at this point is that whether he or United violated the terms of the contract depends on how you defined "denied boarding."


I expect they'll settle because it'll be cheaper for United in the end. I'd love to see it go to trial though.
 
I voted the airline should settle, but not through legal action.

Most passengers are aware that there's a chance your flight could be overbooked and when it occurs you'll probably be asked to leave your flight. I know most passengers don't want to exit the plane especially on a flight that was hard to book in the first place, but in such situations the airline will ask for volunteers first and then randomly selection someone if no one volunteers to leave.

About the only thing the airline should assure a passenger in such a situation - whether the passengers gives up the seat or is asked to leave - is prompt booking on the next flight and a complimentary flight (or one at a discount) the next time the passenger travels via that carrier.
 
Objective Voice said:
I voted the airline should settle, but not through legal action.

Most passengers are aware that there's a chance your flight could be overbooked and when it occurs you'll probably be asked to leave your flight. I know most passengers don't want to exit the plane especially on a flight that was hard to book in the first place, but in such situations the airline will ask for volunteers first and then randomly selection someone if no one volunteers to leave.

About the only thing the airline should assure a passenger in such a situation - whether the passengers gives up the seat or is asked to leave - is prompt booking on the next flight and a complimentary flight (or one at a discount) the next time the passenger travels via that carrier.
Click to expand...
But when will that be? It could be soon for many, it could be... who knows when.

To me, a proper response by the airline would be a re-booking now (at their cost), on another carrier if necessary, and a full immediate refund of the current flight. Leaving it hanging until some unknown future point only works in the favor of the airline, and they've already taken enough at this point.
 
Redress said:
At a guess, the airline will settle. Not because they necessarily would lose in court, but there is a real chance they would, and because it is simply easier and puts the bad publicity behind them the fastest. I do not know the rules and whether UA violated their rules or the law removing the passenger, but it sure looks bad, and a jury could be swayed by the emotional argument even if the airline did not do anything exactly wrong, so why risk having it go before a jury.
Click to expand...

Unless you get a jury with people like me who have no sympathy for whiney little bitches that think they are more important than the other passengers. He lost the lottery, man up and exit the plan and wait for the next one like the other 3 passengers.
 
Redress said:
The video of the guy all bloody and saying "just kill me" over and over again...not what you would want a jury to see...
Click to expand...

He brought it on himself.
 
Winchester said:
He brought it on himself.
Click to expand...

Whether true or not(and that is strictly opinion), it would not play well with a jury. The airline is within their rights to not let him fly, but the question will be whether they used reasonable means to achieve that.
 
I'll bet United will cut a check just to stop the nasty publicity they're getting.
 
Redress said:
Whether true or not(and that is strictly opinion), it would not play well with a jury. The airline is within their rights to not let him fly, but the question will be whether they used reasonable means to achieve that.
Click to expand...

they should have never let him get on the plane if he was going to be denied boarding because those assholes screwed up. Once they let him on the plane, that contractual power they have disappeared and elements of reliance come into play. They are in a legally untenable area
 
The ones doing the dragging. Must be charged with 2 crimes. Robbery of his ticket. And assault and battery. And a big money civil suit against the company. A company security is not public law enforcement. All those guys should have not touched the guy
 
Hawkeye10 said:
What ever it takes to get airlines to not board people they refuse to fly for seat reasons.

This to me becomes a much more serious matter after boarding has been granted.

There needs to be a new penalty added.

And not coupons either...

CASH ON THE SPOT.
Click to expand...

Imagine if everyone who got kicked off a flight refused to leave and just went limp when police came. I bet they would change the policy pretty quickly. :)
 
Not a damn thing. The airline is a private business. They have no obligation to do business with him and he has no right to a flight without their consent. So long as his money was refunded, he has no case.
 
Cephus said:
Not a damn thing. The airline is a private business. They have no obligation to do business with him and he has no right to a flight without their consent. So long as his money was refunded, he has no case.
Click to expand...

If they had refused to sell him a ticket at the time of purchase I would agree. He could have then made alternate arrangements. But they took his money, thus entering into a business arrangement with him. Refusing to provide the service paid for at the very last minute should not be acceptable.
 
Skeptic Bob said:
If they had refused to sell him a ticket at the time of purchase I would agree. He could have then made alternate arrangements. But they took his money, thus entering into a business arrangement with him. Refusing to provide the service paid for at the very last minute should not be acceptable.
Click to expand...

Oh, I agree that the airline shouldn't have overbooked and that's completely on them. They deserve whatever bad publicity they get out of it and whatever lower revenue comes of it. However, the airline is still a private company and doesn't actually owe anyone anything. So long as they didn't throw him off the plane for strict scrutiny reasons and returned his money, he should have no case.
 
A massage.
 
The outcome should be that United loses Billions of dollars and the company goes bankrupt... not immediately, but eventually.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
I don't see where the airline did anything wrong, somebody had to be removed, he got selected, refused, the police get involved, and he resists the cops.

although I don't know the state of regulation around this kind of thing, but to me it should be an issue of refusing to obey an order to depart someone's private property and being detained for the trespass.
Click to expand...

Nobody "had to be removed". The airline arbitrarily decided to remove a person for their own convenience and chose to remove a person with whom they had a legally binding contract with. Some of you are just robots... refuse and order... refuse an order... refuse an order.

Jesusfor****s.sakechrist. :roll:
 
Redress said:
I suspect the guys wife would object to his marrying a waitress...
Click to expand...

Don't be so sure... some of those stewardesses are hot as ****.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom