Some new stories beggar belief

[Rhiannon]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39554421

If this is as it appears (and social media suggests that it is) then it's astonishing. It's worth following the link to United's Twitter feed - this man and his wife were being 're-accommodated'.

[Nearly Sane]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39554421

If this is as it appears (and social media suggests that it is) then it's astonishing. It's worth following the link to United's Twitter feed - this man and his wife were being 're-accommodated'.

Just been discussing this elsewhere with a friend who sees ot as symptomatic of the US moving towards authoritarianism.  I need a bit more info generally but it seems to be true. I would think that the law suit could be catastrophic for United

[Rhiannon]

Yes, unless they settle out of court with a gagging clause.

I agree about the authoritarianism. There also seems to be a way in which political leaders can bring out he worst in people like them. Just as Gove and Farage bring out latent racism so maybe Trump brings out self important bluster and bullying.

[Rhiannon]

Good old Newsthump.

http://newsthump.com/2017/04/11/united-airlines-confirms-that-beatings-will-continue-until-volunteering-improves/

A spokesman for United said that they were mystified by the response to the video of a bloodied passenger being by dragged off staff, and stressed that offering $400, then $800, and then violently assaulting someone at random is perfectly normal in the airline business.

[Rhiannon]

Clearly it is.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39563570

[Harrowby Hall]

Yes, unless they settle out of court with a gagging clause.

The Third Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America guarantees the freedom of speech. A "gagging clause" would be unconstitutional.

So, No.

I think, were I the passenger who was treated so brutally, I would like to see prosecutions of the security staff involved, any flight crew who assisted and the manager who took the decision to evict passengers.

A couple of weeks ago, United ejected two passengers who were wearing leggings. One (I seem to recall) was an off-duty employee who was deemed to be dressed inappropriately and the other was a young girl.

[Nearly Sane]

Given Simon Calder's stuff in the link it would appear no chance of suing.

[Rhiannon]

He must be able to sue security, surely?

[Nearly Sane]

He must be able to sue security, surely?

From the link

'Can an airline really treat passengers like this? - by Simon Calder, travel correspondent for the Independent

Yes. The captain is in charge of the aircraft. And if he or she decides that someone needs to be offloaded, that command has to be obeyed. From the moment that the unfortunate individual in this case said, "I'm staying put", he became a disruptive passenger.
From that moment he was disobeying the captain's command. Officials were legally entitled to remove him, and as the videos show, he was dragged from the plane. It appears from the evidence that the law was broken - by him, not by the airline. But I would be surprised if United pressed charges.'


Maybe if he could show it was racially motivated but not sure how he could do that.

[Rhiannon]

From the link

'Can an airline really treat passengers like this? - by Simon Calder, travel correspondent for the Independent

Yes. The captain is in charge of the aircraft. And if he or she decides that someone needs to be offloaded, that command has to be obeyed. From the moment that the unfortunate individual in this case said, "I'm staying put", he became a disruptive passenger.
From that moment he was disobeying the captain's command. Officials were legally entitled to remove him, and as the videos show, he was dragged from the plane. It appears from the evidence that the law was broken - by him, not by the airline. But I would be surprised if United pressed charges.'


Maybe if he could show it was racially motivated but not sure how he could do that.

Yes I've followed that in the story, but I think unnecessary force has been used here. As one security guard has been suspended that would indicate some kind of misdemeanour on their part.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

From the link

'Can an airline really treat passengers like this? - by Simon Calder, travel correspondent for the Independent

Yes. The captain is in charge of the aircraft. And if he or she decides that someone needs to be offloaded, that command has to be obeyed. From the moment that the unfortunate individual in this case said, "I'm staying put", he became a disruptive passenger.
From that moment he was disobeying the captain's command. Officials were legally entitled to remove him, and as the videos show, he was dragged from the plane. It appears from the evidence that the law was broken - by him, not by the airline. But I would be surprised if United pressed charges.'


Maybe if he could show it was racially motivated but not sure how he could do that.

Maybe an airline is liable for ensuing problems such as loss of earnings, loss of livelihood any loan or mortgage repayment issues and if this guys hospital needed a locum then perhaps some liability there as well.

Getting injured sounds like an accident which may have happened do to incorrect procedures or just plain rough handling so there could be room there for a claim.

On the other hand the airline industry is a huge machine and sometimes interruptions to that have knock on effects. Presumably that is why airlines have draconian powers of removal and why it is probably best to shut the fuck up and follow orders for once in your goddamn poncy pampered ego fuelled lives.

[Nearly Sane]

I imagine suing what is effectively a police department will be difficult. Even if the person is found not to have followed protocol it does not mean that the force would be deemed unnecessary.

[Harrowby Hall]

The most bizarre aspect of this, I suppose, is that the ejected passenger rejoined the flight before it took off.

Apparently he was originally from Vietnam and had lived in the USA for 20 years. In the absence of any arab-looking passengers, that would make him a totally appropriate candidate in Trump's brave new world.

[Nearly Sane]

Stock affected


http://www.marketwatch.com/story/uniteds-stock-is-set-to-fall-5-and-wipe-1-billion-off-the-airlines-market-cap-2017-04-11

[bluehillside Retd.]

I'm no expert on US law nor on aviation law, but I'd have thought the Captain's writ and the execution of it would stand separate. To take a ridiculous extreme, if the passenger had refused to move and he'd been shot so as to remove the body, that would clearly have been a stand alone crime regardless. The question is where along the line does reasonable force become common assault or worse?

Unless the situation was itself a life or death one, the Captain's sanction would have been not to take off at all and later on for the airline to pursue the passenger through the courts for civil damages.

If I was the passenger I'd be getting lawyered up right now. I'd go for assault (common or grievous) and for reputational damage (the video has been seen round the world after all), and I'd throw in a claim too for $10m in punitive damages. If the airline has had enough of the lousy PR and the falling stock price as other passengers switch carriers, I'd then settle graciously for the $5m they offered.

Then I'd use a different airline to fly me somewhere else for a nice holiday, and I'd make sure the press knew about it.       

[Rhiannon]

Yes, that is what I think. There has to be some kind of 'reasonable force' line here that has been broken.

I'm also assuming that there is potential for the passengers who were not breaking the law to sue. Some have described being treated like 'hostages'.

[Rhiannon]

Stock affected


http://www.marketwatch.com/story/uniteds-stock-is-set-to-fall-5-and-wipe-1-billion-off-the-airlines-market-cap-2017-04-11

The shares are being re-accommodated. 

[Bubbles]

Have you seen the reaction from the CEO of united airways?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/11/united-airlines-boss-oliver-munoz-says-passenger-belligerent

One is going to be belligerent if you are treated in a heavy handed fashion.

It's disgusting, the CEO hasn't taken into account how the other passengers on the plane saw it.

Given the poor man was dragged off so their staff could fly, it says a lot about the company attitude towards their customers.

United Airways is now a company I shall avoid at all costs.

If the reaction of the staff was bad enough,  the reaction of the CEO just isn't good enough.

They don't value their customers.

Some of the other airline companies are adding it to their advertising

http://bgr.com/2017/04/12/united-airlines-twitter-trolling-delta-southwest/

That CEO just made a bad company decision that shows their contempt for their customers, potential and otherwise.

[jeremyp]

The Third Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America guarantees the freedom of speech. A "gagging clause" would be unconstitutional.

Not so. There's no reason why two private parties cannot make an agreement that is conditional on one party keeping silent.

I think, were I the passenger who was treated so brutally, I would like to see prosecutions of the security staff involved, any flight crew who assisted and the manager who took the decision to evict passengers.

The security staff clearly assaulted the passenger.

The flight crew apparently just stepped back and let them get on with it.

The manager who took the decision to bump passengers was entirely within his rights. They needed to get four flight crew to the destination to fly another plane out the next day. The choice was four passengers on this plane or a whole flight cancelled the next day. Obviously the manner in which it was done was pretty disastrous and potentially costly since there was an assault and injury involved.

A couple of weeks ago, United ejected two passengers who were wearing leggings. One (I seem to recall) was an off-duty employee who was deemed to be dressed inappropriately and the other was a young girl.

They were the daughters of an off duty employee and they were flying on a free pass. United has a dress code for employees flying for free which apparently does not include leggings.

[Harrowby Hall]

Not so. There's no reason why two private parties cannot make an agreement that is conditional on one party keeping silent.
The security staff clearly assaulted the passenger.

The clause is only effective if both parties agree. In the absence of such agreement, the Third Amendment stands.

The flight crew apparently just stepped back and let them get on with it.

 Indeed. Nor is there any indication that the aircraft's captain had any involvement in the incident.

The manager who took the decision to bump passengers was entirely within his rights.

 

Not so, according to an American legal expert on Radio 4's PM programme last night. The relationship between the passenger and the airline is covered by a 24 page legal agreement which was clearly broken. The passenger was selected at random. There is an established procedure for such eventualities. This was not followed. There is even the possibility that the passenger was selected because of his ethnicity.

They needed to get four flight crew to the destination to fly another plane out the next day. The choice was four passengers on this plane or a whole flight cancelled the next day.

And the established procedure was not followed.

 The manager (who I imagine is already gazing at his American P45 equivalent) failed to make any provision for the needs of the flight crew. His action appeared to be made in panic.

  Obviously the manner in which it was done was pretty disastrous and potentially costly since there was an assault and injury involved.

United Airlines are now looking at a lawsuit which will probably result in millions of dollars being paid in damages,  as is the authority which employed the security officers. The cabin crew have a duty to ensure the safety of their passengers - they have failed in this duty and could also face civil action.

They were the daughters of an off duty employee and they were flying on a free pass. United has a dress code for employees flying for free which apparently does not include leggings.

Does your employer dictate how your children dress?

I find your willingness to defend the action of this airline towards a paying customer to be astonishing.

[Rhiannon]

With regards to the leggings issue, I can understand that if an adult is using a staff ticket then a dress code can apply. Refusing to allow girls to fly for wearing leggings is just ridiculous though and has an unpleasant undertone to it. And I agree with HH -employers should not dictate how their employee's kids dress.

[jeremyp]

The clause is only effective if both parties agree. In the absence of such agreement, the Third Amendment stands.

Err yes. That's why my post says "agreement". Out of court settlements frequently have non disclosure clauses in them and they are not deemed unconstitutional. In fact the US Constitution only focuses on what the government can and cannot do with respect to free speech, not airlines.

Furthermore an out of court legal settlement with a non disclosure clause does not infringe your right to free speech. You are perfectly free to talk about it, but make sure, as the party that breeched the agreement, you are ready to give the money back.

Not so, according to an American legal expert on Radio 4's PM programme last night. The relationship between the passenger and the airline is covered by a 24 page legal agreement which was clearly broken.

Well we can all agree that causing physical injury is clearly illegal. There's no way that what the airline or the security staff did is right. We'll probably find out if it was a breech of contract over the coming weeks if the passenger sues.

The passenger was selected at random. There is an established procedure for such eventualities. This was not followed. There is even the possibility that the passenger was selected because of his ethnicity.

If he was selected at random, there is no possibility that he was selected because of his ethnicity.

The manager (who I imagine is already gazing at his American P45 equivalent) failed to make any provision for the needs of the flight crew. His action appeared to be made in panic.

Yes, it does, but we do not know the full circumstances.

Does your employer dictate how your children dress?

My employer does not hand out free plane tickets to employees' families. If they did and they accompanied such free tickets with a dress code, I would make sure I and my family were in compliance with the dress code.

I find your willingness to defend the action of this airline towards a paying customer to be astonishing.

I'm not defending their actions, I am simply pointing out that there are two sides to every story. We all agree that United went too far but as for the act of bumping a few passengers (without physical violence) to get a flight crews to where it needs to be, that is not unreasonable.

[jeremyp]

And I agree with HH -employers should not dictate how their employee's kids dress.

Why not? Is it suddenly child abuse to insist that children dress reasonably smartly on occasion. These children were being given free travel. If conditions apply, so be it.

[Robbie]

I think it's a bit strong jeremy. Kids need to be comfortable whilst travelling,I'm sure they didn't look scruffy, merely casual.
It would be different if they were taken to a formal function, presumably then they would be smartly dressed, hair tied back, maybe in school uniform but travelling is different.