Posted on 04/12/2017 1:18:57 PM PDT by blackbetty59
The passenger dragged from his seat aboard a Sunday night flight at O'Hare International Airport took the first step toward potential legal action against United Airlines or the city on Wednesday.
David Dao, who has retained a high-powered personal injury lawyer, asked the Cook County Circuit Court for an order requiring United and the city of Chicago to keep all video, cockpit recordings and other reports from the flight, along with the personnel files of the Aviation Department officers who pulled Dao from the flight. From Our Partners: Video Shows Man Forcibly Removed From Overbooked United Flight
The request was filed less than two hours after United CEO Oscar Munoz put a human face on the airline's apology over the incident, saying in an interview with "Good Morning America" that he felt "shame" when watching viral videos of Dao being dragged down the plane's aisle.
Munoz previously had addressed the incident in written statements on the airline's website.
"This will never happen again on a United Airlines flight," Munoz said on TV, apologizing to Dao, his family, passengers on that flight and United's customers and employees. He said he took full responsibility for the situation but has no plans to resign.
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
Munoz said he takes full responsibility. Terrific. Does that mean he’ll pay for the lawsuit damages?
David Dao will come up with better solutions for over booking when he owns United Airline...
He better hurry. Yesterday we discovered that he is a POS felon. Who knows what today or tomorrow will bring.
Prediction ... if the case isn’t quietly settled then He’ll win the first round then lose on appeals.
It would be smart to settle for a few hundred thousand, but go to war over 7 or 8 figure lawsuit.
Look at the facts.
Asked to leave — didn’t.
Police called.
Police removed him.
Seems like the only leverage he has was that he was asked to leave as a valid ticket holder. Which sits rather tenuous as overbooking isn’t illegal.
If he sues on physical damage / duress ... well that would be the police now wouldn’t it?
‘David Dao will come up with better solutions for over booking when he owns United Airline...”
And he can create a way to remove a stubborn passenger from the airplane without calling the police.
United Airlines Security Police or maybe the FAA Security Patrol.
TSA is already too busy harassing the paying customers.
The new force would board airplanes and gently remove passengers who refuse to leave.
Specifically the Chicago Aviation Police, not the City of Chicago PD.
So what?
asked to leave
refused
they finally got him off the plane
he re-entered the plane
asked to leave
refused
they called the police and they removed him kicking and screaming from the aircraft
the airline was offering a hotel stay and $800.00 for the inconvenience
with this guy’s spotted past, I think I would have considered the deal a bit more
From the greatest movie ever. A United Airlines Training Video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=rVQcXR2HVhw
Turns out they had the records for the wrong guy.
Not that it matters. It does not even matter if he was a doctor or not.
What does matter is that United has the problem solving skills of a two year old. After two hours of sitting at the gate (which cost the airline a bunch of money) this was their best solution to the problem of four employees wanting to get on the plane.
Think about that for a moment.
Out of all the things they could have come up with... this was their very best idea.
The media and airline officials need to stop claiming the flight was overbooked or oversold. Per UA’s “Contract of Carriage.
“Oversold Flight means a flight where there are more Passengers holding valid confirmed Tickets that check-in for the flight within the prescribed check-in time than there are available seats.”
“Passenger means any person, except members of the crew, carried or holding a confirmed reservation to be carried in an aircraft with the consent of the carrier.”
Good for some laughs.
Munoz said he takes full responsibility...
What about the Gate Agent, I heard her name was Melissa Click ?
Who needs a court order (besides a publicity seeking ambulance chaser)?
Send them a preservation letter; then if the evidence disappears, you’ve won your case. In fact, you’ve probably won it even without the letter.
“He’ll win the first round then lose on appeals...
Look at the facts.”
Facts:
United’s Contract of Carriage (COC - required by 14 CFR 253 -often referred to as the “fine print”) includes two distinct sections: Rule 21 entitled “Refusal of Transport,” and Rule 25 entitled “Denied Boarding Compensation.”
United cited Rule 25 incorrectly - while there are several issues with this rule such as the order for determining the losers (”may be determined based on a passenger’s fare class, itinerary, status of frequent flyer program membership, and the time in which the passenger presents him/herself for check-in without advanced seat assignment” while in this case they did a “lottery”) the passengers had in fact already boarded (and been seated) and could not be forced from their seats (they could have volunteered - free market solution - but United wasn’t willing to let the free market decide).
Rule 21 does address removal of a person from an aircraft for many reasons. None were cited by United. The fact he refused an illegal order and resisted will not be sufficient.
The vast majority recognize they could have been in his position so whether or not he has something in his past is irrelevant.
United is going to lose. Bigtime.
And if the lawyers are very smart they should seek a class action - find others who were forced out of their seats by United, likely will find a pattern of late arriving flight crews needing transport. Guess this is what happens when the inmates run the asylum (consider employee ownership of United issues).
“He’ll win the first round then lose on appeals...
Look at the facts.”
Facts:
United’s Contract of Carriage (COC - required by 14 CFR 253 -often referred to as the “fine print”) includes two distinct sections: Rule 21 entitled “Refusal of Transport,” and Rule 25 entitled “Denied Boarding Compensation.”
United cited Rule 25 incorrectly - while there are several issues with this rule such as the order for determining the losers (”may be determined based on a passenger’s fare class, itinerary, status of frequent flyer program membership, and the time in which the passenger presents him/herself for check-in without advanced seat assignment” while in this case they did a “lottery”) the passengers had in fact already boarded (and been seated) and could not be forced from their seats (they could have volunteered - free market solution - but United wasn’t willing to let the free market decide).
Rule 21 does address removal of a person from an aircraft for many reasons. None were cited by United. The fact he refused an illegal order and resisted will not be sufficient.
The vast majority recognize they could have been in his position so whether or not he has something in his past is irrelevant.
United is going to lose. Bigtime.
And if the lawyers are very smart they should seek a class action - find others who were forced out of their seats by United, likely will find a pattern of late arriving flight crews needing transport. Guess this is what happens when the inmates run the asylum (consider employee ownership of United issues).
There certainly was a clearing price at which the airline could have gotten as many volunteers as they needed to surrender their seats. They were just too cheap to pay what was needed to achieve this, and now they'll pay far more both in actual damages as well as loss of future business due to bad publicity.
This is textbook "How not to handle a problem" material. Management consultants will be citing this case for years to come.
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.