Posted on 04/15/2017 6:22:19 AM PDT by Sean_Anthony
But part of the phenomenon long precedes YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, and social media dictating the news. It's the American cult of victimization
You’ve been snookered folks! By that poor elderly doctor who was involuntarily dragged from his seat, had his face smashed in, and was beaten unconscious by the evil airport security at the behest of United Airlines.
Because there’s no evidence any of that was true. It was in fact a premeditated temper tantrum gone viral, comprising one 69-year-old Vietnamese-American David Dao, a medical doctor who lost his license, planning a lawsuit from the moment United first politely asked him to give up his seat. He demanded to be dragged, did an excellent impersonation of Ned Beatty’s character in that horrific scene in Deliverance, and struck his lip on an armrest. From the many videos taken by numerous passengers, obviously from numerous angles, there’s no evidence of a beating, a “serious” concussion, or bodily damage beyond that lip.
>> someone suggested that this could be a “Hands up, don’t shoot!” moment.
There’s no shortage of virtue signaling when it concerns these histrionic events.
The doc should be serving time.
Really....the whole spate of discussions posted on various threads is moot. Munoz already stated that it should not have happened. His public pronouncements are an indication that he knows UA’s goose is cooked. The only question remaining is how much $$$ UA will dispense.
Yeah, but if everybody does that, there won't be enough planes to go around. ROTFL. Hell, if the chances of winning a plane are so good, a person would be nuts to follow the crew's instructions to vacate the plane.
Sorry - I’m not buying it. A blanket statement like this and he ends it without any substantiation or proof? AND this individual lost his medical license but is allowed to work in Internal Medicine? Perhaps the author should lose his law license....
Was there any further reporting that this man had been confused with a doctor with a similar name who had/has a criminal past? This writer doesn’t mention that initial report or possibility!
“”To be sure, United deserves blame and played into Dao’s hands—not entirely a metaphor since the good doctor has also made hundreds of thousands of dollars on the professional poker circuit.””
Serving time for what?
Trying to get United to provide him the transportation they offered and he paid for?
Coule be, but I'm not going to judge him harshly, not knowing him. Maybe he's usually an okay person, and was just tired and cranky, or having a bad day.
One thing I'm pretty sure of, after he goes through the "ordeal" of dealing with the civil law system, he's going to wish he never sued. Not that he'll walk away empty handed, just that the payout rarely covers the emotional turmoil, dealing with the lawyers and the judge, etc. A minusclue fraction of "regular people" who resort to court are willing to do it again.
I was taking to a friend, who is a pilot on a different airline. He heard that this guy actually did give up his seat initially, then changed his mind. He then ran back on the plane.
This website puts out some of the most unbelievable stuff with nothing to back it up, yet some people just lap it up because it fits what they’d like to believe. Hell, some people immediately jump to somehow deporting an American citizen. News flash: Anyone can say anything on the internet. Don’t be a fool that believes anything that sounds good to you.
>>>>He was boarded and seated. UA violated the contract. That a Conservative would advocate violating contracts and law is something I’d expect from a mind numbed Liberal.>>>>
You probably don’t fly much. Boarding is when the door closes and they tell you that. Until that door closes, all bets are off.
Yes, but after they dragged him out of the plane, he managed to get back on. How do the cops explain that?
When the target of a coercive action by some flavor of law enforcement, in this case not even real cops but airport cops, performing outside the bounds of their duties by enforcing one side of a contract dispute by beating the crap out of someone who is likely in the right, I believe it is the right and indeed duty of a citizen to resist the power of the state.
For example, leo have continued to try and shut down people who video interactions with the police claiming the video is "interference with a police investigation" or "invasion of privacy". The courts have repeatedly ruled against leo because they are public officials, on public pay, in the performance of their duties.
Here's a recent example
NC Officer Demoted After Telling Man Not To Record Video
Given the damning video in this case you can see why the cops don't want to be videoed. If you want to live in a police state where citizens have no recourse but to do as they're told or take a beating I can recommend several for you. Dao, having fled from Vietnam, already knows what that looks like.
UA will never stipulate anything and they'd be insane to let this get in front of a jury. I hope Dao holds out for a jury trial. UA will not be able to find a juror who has not been mistreated by an airline just itching for justice to be done. I hope when Dao wins his damages, and after paying for his extensive injuries, Dao uses the remainder to continue suing airlines on behalf of other mistreated passengers until the airlines are forced to do better than this.
Yes, the way the government can “solve” the problem is by encouraging competition, getting out of the way of innovation, and by discouraging monopolies.... the last one is most difficult imo because it might involve intervention...a quandary to be sure.
Ralph Nader in the 70’s sued an airline about overbooking and it went to the Supreme Court.
Interesting!!
> He heard that this guy actually did give up his seat initially, then changed his mind. He then ran back on the plane. <
From what I’ve read, the guy was first dragged off the plane by security. But then they left him alone - laying on the ground - while they went looking for a gurney. The guy got up and got back on the plane.
Really odd, all the way around.
See my post above.
The language in UA’s Contract of Carriage uses the words “deny boarding”. In contract law, I’ll bet the performance of this provision in the contract is when the airline accepts the boarding pass and allows you to enter the aircraft. Transaction done, UA’s right under their own CoC to deny boarding is now lost to them.
Google “plain meaning rule”. I’m sure UA’s lawyers will argue, as do you apparently, that “boarding” doesn’t really mean, you know, actually boarding the aircraft.
So to carry your argument to its conclusion, suppose in this case, the aircraft had pushed back from the gate by 100 yards and THEN UA decided they needed four more seats. So they return to the gate, open the cabin door, and kick four people out. Were these people “denied boarding”. How about the aircraft in position for takeoff and then returns to the gate and kicks four people off. Were these people “denied boarding”.
It seems to me the plain meaning of boarding is when you actually are permitted to enter the aircraft using a boarding pass. I hope a jury gets to decide this.
I respectfully disagree..... Here is a direct copy and paste of the ‘overbooking clause’ for the last flight I took a few months ago (not United but I don’t think it matters since the fine print is virtually all the same. What I have done is highlight the operative phrase….
NOTICE - OVERBOOKING OF FLIGHTS
"Airline flights may be overbooked, and there is a slight chance that a seat will not be available on a flight for which a person has a confirmed reservation. If the flight is overbooked, no one will be denied a seat until airline personnel first ask for volunteers willing to give up their reservation in exchange for compensation of the airline's choosing. If there are not enough volunteers, the airline will deny boarding in accordance with its particular boarding priority. With few exceptions, including failure to comply with the airline's check-in deadlines, persons involuntarily denied boarding are entitled to compensation. The rules for the payment of compensation and the airline's boarding priorities are available at the airline's airport ticket counters and boarding locations. Some airlines do not apply these consumer protections to travel from some foreign countries, although other consumer protections may be available. Check with your airline or your travel agent."
Where the airline screwed up was when they decided to apply ‘enforced volunteerism’ AFTER the plane was boarded…. If they had of done it while everyone was at the gate, fine. But the second that one walks past the check in agent and boards the plane, this is well after the ‘deny boarding’ part of the clause could be applied.
>>>The language in UA’s Contract of Carriage uses the words “deny boarding”. In contract law, I’ll bet the performance of this provision in the contract is when the airline accepts the boarding pass and allows you to enter the aircraft. Transaction done, UA’s right under their own CoC to deny boarding is now lost to them.>>>>
Well, you could be right and the term “boarding” may be the key in a trial. But I notice they sure go out of their way to tell us when the door is closed. In fact, they even formally advise us that if we do NOT want to travel to the destination city, now is the last chance to exit the plane.
They do this on every American Airlines Flight, which is what i fly. So for the industry.....the term “boarded” may mean the door is closed and there’s no going back.
I guess we will see.
What’s up, click farmer? How’s the revenue from Free Republic holding up?
Yeh I don’t think so. Too many other United stories. This was Occum’s razor. The most likely situation was the right one.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.