C*I 发帖数: 4736 | 1 Why United Was Legally Wrong to Deplane David Dao
Jens David Ohlin,Newsweek 3 hours ago
This article first appeared on the Dorf on Law site.
On Sunday, United Airlines passenger David Dao was forcibly removed from
his United Airlines flight when he refused to relinquish his seat. The
police officers who removed him from the seat, then dragged him down the
aisle of the airplane. Videos of the incident show a visibly injured and
bloodied Dao screaming.
Videos also show a clearly injured Dao returning to the plane, walking up
and down the aisle and muttering that he needed to get home. He was then
escorted off the plane a second time.
Trending: 'Veep' Had to Remove Golden Shower Joke Because of Trump-Russia
Dossier
The incident has caused a PR nightmare for United Airlines. Videos of the
incident have reinforced the public perception that airlines care too much
about their profit margins and too little about their passengers.
The initial public comments from the airline exacerbated the PR crisis by
insufficiently recognizing the depth of the public’s anger over the issue.
Instead of apologizing profusely in the first instance, the airline
initially issued statements indicating that it was reviewing the situation
and apologizing only for the need to “re-accommodate” the affected
passengers.
Only later did United CEO Oscar Munoz issue a blanket apology for the
incident and pledge a full investigation and review of its policies that led
to the event.
Related: After initially defending staff, United Airlines boss apologizes
The airline’s stock has declined since the incident became public, and
some on the internet are suggesting a consumer boycott. Twitter users have
relentlessly mocked the airline with a series of vicious memes.
For the moment, I want to focus on the basic premise—and legal assumptions
—behind most of the press accounts of the incident.
Most articles and news reports have implied that the airline was permitted
to remove Dao from the airplane. Articles have made this claim as part of a
larger point to readers: Airlines frequently overbook their flights and “
bump” passengers, and then pay them compensation in line with federal
regulations governing the payment of this compensation.
It happens all the time, according to the newspapers.
This overarching narrative—repeated in virtually every newspaper, with only
a few exceptions—is incorrect at least as applied to this situation. Or,
at the very least, it is far more complicated than the news reports suggest.
In truth, airlines do indeed “bump” passengers from oversold flights, but
the process by which they do so is to “deny boarding” to ticketed
passengers who have otherwise complied with the boarding requirements.
However, Dao was not denied boarding. Dao was granted boarding, and then
subsequently involuntarily deplaned, which is not the same thing.
To understand the difference, it is important to review the facts of the
case. This summary is drawn from press reports in major newspapers.
It appears that Dao had a valid ticket. He presented his ticket to the gate
agent, who accepted the ticket, scanned it and granted him access to the
causeway and the airplane. Because he was granted boarding, Dao walked onto
the aircraft and took his seat.
Only later, after he and the other passengers were in their seats, did a
representative come onto the plane and explain that four seats would need to
be surrendered to make room for four United Airlines employees who needed
to get to Louisville.
After no passengers accepted financial incentives to voluntarily relinquish
seats, four seated passengers—including Dao—were told to leave. Dao
refused.
Like all airlines, United has a very specific (and lengthy!) contract for
carriage outlining the contractual relationship between the airline and the
passenger. It includes a familiar set of provisions for when a passenger may
be denied boarding (Rule 25: “Denied Boarding Compensation”).
When a flight is oversold, UA can deny boarding to some passengers, who then
receive compensation under specific guidelines. However, Dao was not
denied boarding. He was granted boarding and then involuntarily removed
from the airplane. What does the contract say about that?
It turns out that the contract has a specific rule regarding “Refusal of
Transport” (Rule 21), which lays out the conditions under which a passenger
can be removed and refused transport on the aircraft. This includes
situations where passengers act in a “disorderly, offensive, abusive, or
violent” manner, refuse to comply with the smoking policy, are barefoot or
“not properly clothed,” as well as many other situations.
There is absolutely no provision for deplaning a seated passenger because
the flight is oversold.
An added complication here is that the flight wasn’t even oversold. The
contract defines an oversold flight as “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.”
In this case, the airline attempted to remove seated passengers to make room
for airline staff requiring transport to another airport, not because it
had sold more tickets than there were seats available.
In any event, this point is largely moot, because neither employee
transportation nor oversold situations is listed as among the reasons that a
passenger may be refused transport.
One might argue that Dao had not completed “boarding” until the cabin door
was closed. This argument would be wrong. The term “boarding” is not
defined in the definition section of the contract, and absent an explicit
definition in the contract, terms are to be afforded their plain meaning.
“Boarding” means that the passenger presents a boarding pass to the gate
agent who accepts or scans the pass and permits entry through the gate to
the airplane, allowing the passenger to enter the aircraft and take a seat.
It is possible in this regard to distinguish between the collective
completion of the plane’s boarding process, which is not complete until
all passengers have boarded and the cabin door is closed. But that is
different from each passenger’s boarding, which is complete for each
individual once he or she has been accepted for transportation by the gate
agent and proceeded to the aircraft and taken his or her assigned seat.
Bottom line is that if the airline wants to bump you from the aircraft, it
must deny you boarding. After the crew grant you boarding, the number of
conditions under which they may deplane you substantially decreases.
In this case, United Airlines made the mistake of boarding all passengers
and then trying to find space for additional crew. The airline should bear
the burden of this mistake, not the passengers who successfully boarded the
plane. If the airline doesn’t like this, it should have written a different
contract.
Might the airline argue that it had the right to refuse transport because
Dao was “disorderly, offensive, abusive, or violent” (Rule 21H1) or
causing a “disturbance” (Rule 21H4)?
Although this depends on the facts, news reports suggest that Dao was not
upset, and was minding his own business until he was told that he was being
involuntarily removed and he was dragged kicking and screaming from the
aircraft.
His being upset was caused by the breach by United Airlines of its
contractual duties towards him as a passenger, rather than the reverse.
Finally, Rule 21 includes a provision on force majeure and other unforeseen
circumstances such as weather, but there is no evidence that the airline had
to specifically deplane Dao due to a force majeure that was impacting his
plane.
Perhaps UA could make the argument that getting the airline employees to
Louisville was a necessary response to unforeseen circumstances (weather-
related flight delays and cancellations in another city that caused the crew
to be misplaced). The contract allows the airline to take actions that are
“reasonable” or “advisable” in response to circumstances beyond its
control.
UA might give “reasonable” a utilitarian gloss and argue that it was
reasonable (i.e., economical) for it to deplane four passengers to transport
the misplaced crew and thus prevent cancellation of another flight that
would have impacted a far greater number of passengers. (I have no idea if
the facts support this contention or not.)
The argument is vulnerable to various questions about the reasonableness or
advisability of the action. Could the airline have arranged alternate
transportation for the misplaced crew, such as renting a car and driver, or
used a larger aircraft, but refused to do so because it was too cheap?
Following this train of thought might just make the public angrier. The
utilitarian argument suggests that the rights of individual passengers can
be balanced away—which is precisely why so many people are furious about
the airline’s conduct.
All of this means that the airline may not have had the right to remove Dao
from the aircraft.
What are the consequences of this breach? Rule 21 on Refusal of Transport
states that “UA is not liable for its refusal to transport any passenger or
for its removal of any passenger in accordance with this Rule” and that
the sole remedy is a refund of the ticket.
In this case, however, United Airlines did not deplane the passenger “in
accordance with this Rule” but probably acted contrary to the rule. So,
the liability exclusion by its terms does not apply.
The last aspect of this case, the most disturbing one, is the level of force
used by the police officers. Based on the videos, most observers have
concluded that the force was excessive and unnecessary given the
circumstances.
A deeper issue is whether the police had the authority to remove Dao in the
first instance once United Airlines declared him persona non grata and
asked the police to treat him as a trespasser.
Presumably the police had the authority to remove him (but only with an
appropriate level of force), but even so, there is a plausible argument that
Dao’s injuries and damages suffered during that process were caused by the
airline’s breach of contract, which specifically defines the circumstances
when it can refuse transport, none of which applied in this case.
In some situations, a contractual dispute and a trespassing dispute should
be kept separate. Say you hire a painter to paint the inside of your house.
You refuse to pay, and so the painter says, “I’m not leaving until you pay
me.” When the painter refuses to leave, you call the police and ask them
to remove him because he is trespassing. The proper resolution is that the
painter must leave but can sue you for breach of contract.
That may be so, but in that case, the painter’s refusal to leave is
incidental to the object and purpose of the contract, which is to paint the
house, not stay in your house.
In contrast, the object and purpose of the contract of carriage is, among
other things, to require the airline to transport the passenger from
location A to location B aboard aircraft C. Being on the aircraft is the
whole point of the contract, and it specifically lists the situations when
the airline may deny transport to a ticketed customer.
Since the airline did not comply with those requirements, it should be
liable for the damages associated with their breach.
Jens David Ohlin is associate dean for academic affairs and professor of law
at Cornell Law School.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/why-united-legally-wrong-deplane-134223391.html |
C*I 发帖数: 4736 | |
l****p 发帖数: 27354 | |
C*I 发帖数: 4736 | 4 这个分析得透彻深刻,估计接下来官司都没有得打了,人要多少估计就给了。打下去估
计只有输的命。
【在 l****p 的大作中提到】 : 法律就是吵架用的,这个架吵的不错。
|
q*****n 发帖数: 2570 | 5 这种事要么不上庭,要是上庭,就没这么简单,否则那有那么多最高法院的官司。
【在 C*I 的大作中提到】 : 这个分析得透彻深刻,估计接下来官司都没有得打了,人要多少估计就给了。打下去估 : 计只有输的命。
|
h******k 发帖数: 15372 | |
l****p 发帖数: 27354 | 7 官司还得打,私下和解的话,也不能狮子大开口,我觉得几百万美元妥妥的,是否上千
万不好说。
【在 C*I 的大作中提到】 : 这个分析得透彻深刻,估计接下来官司都没有得打了,人要多少估计就给了。打下去估 : 计只有输的命。
|
q*****n 发帖数: 2570 | 8 这种事,要么不上庭,要是上了庭,结果很难说。不是说现在舆论在谁那面谁就一定赢。
上法庭,变数太大。 |
C*I 发帖数: 4736 | 9 几百万? 这官司要我看怎么都上千万了。
打断了鼻子,打掉了两颗门牙,皮肤多处受伤你去找找案例看曾经赔过多少了?
这还只是精神的,现在的问题是心理受到极大创伤,隐私被严重曝光,你再算算看得赔
多少了?
还没有完,如果最后无法证明是用电脑随机选中的,而是target了他的少数族裔身份被
圈定的,航空公司就要解释为啥要选dao? 说不清楚就有discrimination的问题,那
赔的就更多了。
另外,dao的律师,今天一早记者会上说,把人当cattle一样对待,就已经不仅仅是
discrimination的问题了。
要不你看,丫的ceo开始还嘴硬,现在天天在给人apologize! 满飞机的人都给
refund了!
【在 l****p 的大作中提到】 : 官司还得打,私下和解的话,也不能狮子大开口,我觉得几百万美元妥妥的,是否上千 : 万不好说。
|
h*********n 发帖数: 11319 | 10 绝对亭外和解
UA自己都不敢赢,赢了就没人坐他家飞机了
【在 C*I 的大作中提到】 : 这个分析得透彻深刻,估计接下来官司都没有得打了,人要多少估计就给了。打下去估 : 计只有输的命。
|
|
|
h*********n 发帖数: 11319 | 11 这次是UA跪求对方接受和解,否则上了庭一定会有惩罚性赔偿
UA自己都不敢赢,赢了就没人坐他家飞机了
【在 l****p 的大作中提到】 : 官司还得打,私下和解的话,也不能狮子大开口,我觉得几百万美元妥妥的,是否上千 : 万不好说。
|
m*****t 发帖数: 16663 | 12 这么说,恐怖分子只要上机了,就不可以因为怀疑remove了是吧?
因为人家安检也过了,gate也同意了,正安静地坐在那儿,只要还没劫持飞机,你就不
可以要求人家下机吧。
一群SB迟早被自己的自作聪明害死。不给机组和机警绝对的权威,飞机就是颗定时炸弹。
【在 C*I 的大作中提到】 : Why United Was Legally Wrong to Deplane David Dao : Jens David Ohlin,Newsweek 3 hours ago : This article first appeared on the Dorf on Law site. : On Sunday, United Airlines passenger David Dao was forcibly removed from : his United Airlines flight when he refused to relinquish his seat. The : police officers who removed him from the seat, then dragged him down the : aisle of the airplane. Videos of the incident show a visibly injured and : bloodied Dao screaming. : Videos also show a clearly injured Dao returning to the plane, walking up : and down the aisle and muttering that he needed to get home. He was then
|
q*****n 发帖数: 2570 | 13 没人坐飞机就是扯淡了。这种航线包括时间,替代性没那么强,绝大多数人不会受影响
的。
【在 h*********n 的大作中提到】 : 这次是UA跪求对方接受和解,否则上了庭一定会有惩罚性赔偿 : UA自己都不敢赢,赢了就没人坐他家飞机了
|
l****p 发帖数: 27354 | 14 满飞机的都refunded,聪明的乘客应该感谢这个医生,而不是UA。当然了,那些拍录像
的乘客立功了,医生应该感谢人家。
【在 C*I 的大作中提到】 : 几百万? 这官司要我看怎么都上千万了。 : 打断了鼻子,打掉了两颗门牙,皮肤多处受伤你去找找案例看曾经赔过多少了? : 这还只是精神的,现在的问题是心理受到极大创伤,隐私被严重曝光,你再算算看得赔 : 多少了? : 还没有完,如果最后无法证明是用电脑随机选中的,而是target了他的少数族裔身份被 : 圈定的,航空公司就要解释为啥要选dao? 说不清楚就有discrimination的问题,那 : 赔的就更多了。 : 另外,dao的律师,今天一早记者会上说,把人当cattle一样对待,就已经不仅仅是 : discrimination的问题了。 : 要不你看,丫的ceo开始还嘴硬,现在天天在给人apologize! 满飞机的人都给
|
C*I 发帖数: 4736 | 15 从丫ceo先前的嘴硬,到现在ua 董事长的表态认错,和ceo的一次又一次的道歉判断,
ua已经准备和解了。 因为官司打下去,丫根就赢不了,你打什么打?
【在 h*********n 的大作中提到】 : 绝对亭外和解 : UA自己都不敢赢,赢了就没人坐他家飞机了
|
b*****s 发帖数: 11267 | 16 歧视的问题很难啊,最最不利的时候UA就可以甩锅嘛,说这是员工个人行为。 一个员
工你指望能赔多少钱?还拉长战线,律师估计不会太在意这方面
【在 C*I 的大作中提到】 : 几百万? 这官司要我看怎么都上千万了。 : 打断了鼻子,打掉了两颗门牙,皮肤多处受伤你去找找案例看曾经赔过多少了? : 这还只是精神的,现在的问题是心理受到极大创伤,隐私被严重曝光,你再算算看得赔 : 多少了? : 还没有完,如果最后无法证明是用电脑随机选中的,而是target了他的少数族裔身份被 : 圈定的,航空公司就要解释为啥要选dao? 说不清楚就有discrimination的问题,那 : 赔的就更多了。 : 另外,dao的律师,今天一早记者会上说,把人当cattle一样对待,就已经不仅仅是 : discrimination的问题了。 : 要不你看,丫的ceo开始还嘴硬,现在天天在给人apologize! 满飞机的人都给
|
k**********4 发帖数: 16092 | 17 扯J8蛋,星光大侄女已经分析过了,UA没有责任
【在 C*I 的大作中提到】 : Why United Was Legally Wrong to Deplane David Dao : Jens David Ohlin,Newsweek 3 hours ago : This article first appeared on the Dorf on Law site. : On Sunday, United Airlines passenger David Dao was forcibly removed from : his United Airlines flight when he refused to relinquish his seat. The : police officers who removed him from the seat, then dragged him down the : aisle of the airplane. Videos of the incident show a visibly injured and : bloodied Dao screaming. : Videos also show a clearly injured Dao returning to the plane, walking up : and down the aisle and muttering that he needed to get home. He was then
|
C*I 发帖数: 4736 | 18 你懂个屁!
弹。
【在 m*****t 的大作中提到】 : 这么说,恐怖分子只要上机了,就不可以因为怀疑remove了是吧? : 因为人家安检也过了,gate也同意了,正安静地坐在那儿,只要还没劫持飞机,你就不 : 可以要求人家下机吧。 : 一群SB迟早被自己的自作聪明害死。不给机组和机警绝对的权威,飞机就是颗定时炸弹。
|
w*p 发帖数: 16484 | 19 航空公司看完这个之后要重新定义“boarding”,从此以后,没关舱门boarding就没完
成。 |
h******k 发帖数: 15372 | 20 这个事儿拖得越久UA损失越大,所以UA现在是跪求老中医和解,钱根本不是问题,一天
市值就跌了1个billion,赔个几亿UA不会有意见,只要赶紧收场了结就好。
不过这事儿不是那么容易了结的,老中医的官司了结了,接下来很可能还有class
action,赔一个或者几个billion不稀奇。
【在 C*I 的大作中提到】 : 从丫ceo先前的嘴硬,到现在ua 董事长的表态认错,和ceo的一次又一次的道歉判断, : ua已经准备和解了。 因为官司打下去,丫根就赢不了,你打什么打?
|
|
|
m*****r 发帖数: 1240 | 21 换句话说,ua随便找个理由先把所有人都先赶下飞机,然后再deny boarding就行了。
。 |
h******k 发帖数: 15372 | 22 要能甩锅美国律师早就都饿死了。员工在paid time做的公司的事儿,即使是他严重违
法公司规定擅自做的结果,公司也得负责,更别说他是按照公司的既有规程做的了。
【在 b*****s 的大作中提到】 : 歧视的问题很难啊,最最不利的时候UA就可以甩锅嘛,说这是员工个人行为。 一个员 : 工你指望能赔多少钱?还拉长战线,律师估计不会太在意这方面
|
C*I 发帖数: 4736 | 23 难也不难。 就这个case来说, ua一开始口口声声说是要用computer随机选人。 那么
现在你就得证明你当时是怎么用computer选的人? 如果你最后拿不出用 computer
random选人的证据,那人家就要你回答你 1)为啥说谎: 2)dao是怎么选出的?
你解释不了,你就说服不了陪审团你是有意target dao的亚裔身份选的人,就有
discrimination的问题。
另外,treat人不如动物,众目睽睽之下,当着人老婆的面,象狗一样drag & drop,
就不光是discrimination的问题了。
【在 b*****s 的大作中提到】 : 歧视的问题很难啊,最最不利的时候UA就可以甩锅嘛,说这是员工个人行为。 一个员 : 工你指望能赔多少钱?还拉长战线,律师估计不会太在意这方面
|
m*****t 发帖数: 16663 | 24 肯定是要上千万的。
一群愚民牺牲自己将来的飞行安全和便利来成就一个恶行累累的机闹的人权表演,真的
非要等到哪天发生无法移除安全隐患而造成事故后,才来重新解读法律?
如果空乘包括空警说话都如放屁,随时担心被告,你还幻想飞行安全?
真有有问题,以后哪个SB空警还会帮你remove , 说两句不肯下机人家就走了好了,最
后一起飞,真出事,摔死的又不是人家。
【在 l****p 的大作中提到】 : 官司还得打,私下和解的话,也不能狮子大开口,我觉得几百万美元妥妥的,是否上千 : 万不好说。
|
w*p 发帖数: 16484 | 25 这个想法不错,不过先得有个取消boarding的条款,用飞机故障的原因骗大家暂时下飞
机再重新登机,这个被抓到了也过不了法官那一关。
【在 m*****r 的大作中提到】 : 换句话说,ua随便找个理由先把所有人都先赶下飞机,然后再deny boarding就行了。 : 。
|
h******k 发帖数: 15372 | 26 这个定义权在FAA和DOT,而不是航空公司。
【在 w*p 的大作中提到】 : 航空公司看完这个之后要重新定义“boarding”,从此以后,没关舱门boarding就没完 : 成。
|
h******k 发帖数: 15372 | 27 如果被人发现飞机实际没有故障或者没有需要全体乘客下飞机的故障的话UA就惨了,美
国的法律不是就事论事,会以此类推追究你的历史责任,比如造假货的从你开始做生意
第一天就开始计算你的造假营业额罚款。
【在 w*p 的大作中提到】 : 这个想法不错,不过先得有个取消boarding的条款,用飞机故障的原因骗大家暂时下飞 : 机再重新登机,这个被抓到了也过不了法官那一关。
|
C*I 发帖数: 4736 | 28 这康奈尔教授说的很仔细,连相关条款都给你一个一个列出来了,所以,这官司看起来
没有得打了。 最后估计赔人一个巨额数字就息事宁人了。
如果ua还要强辩,只会激怒更多的人和美国社会,甚至整个世界。 |
m*****r 发帖数: 1240 | 29 关键是,正常人应该也不会质疑 飞机故障 这种理由吧。。。 不过大公司应该干不
出这种故意骗人的事。。
【在 w*p 的大作中提到】 : 这个想法不错,不过先得有个取消boarding的条款,用飞机故障的原因骗大家暂时下飞 : 机再重新登机,这个被抓到了也过不了法官那一关。
|
t**x 发帖数: 20965 | 30 一家之言而已
看把你激动的
: 这康奈尔教授说的很仔细,连相关条款都给你一个一个列出来了,所以,这官司
看起来
: 没有得打了。 最后估计赔人一个巨额数字就息事宁人了。
: 如果ua还要强辩,只会激怒更多的人和美国社会,甚至整个世界。
【在 C*I 的大作中提到】 : 这康奈尔教授说的很仔细,连相关条款都给你一个一个列出来了,所以,这官司看起来 : 没有得打了。 最后估计赔人一个巨额数字就息事宁人了。 : 如果ua还要强辩,只会激怒更多的人和美国社会,甚至整个世界。
|
|
|
g******e 发帖数: 3760 | 31 不知道你在说啥。安全隐患?老中医是安全隐患?
【在 m*****t 的大作中提到】 : 肯定是要上千万的。 : 一群愚民牺牲自己将来的飞行安全和便利来成就一个恶行累累的机闹的人权表演,真的 : 非要等到哪天发生无法移除安全隐患而造成事故后,才来重新解读法律? : 如果空乘包括空警说话都如放屁,随时担心被告,你还幻想飞行安全? : 真有有问题,以后哪个SB空警还会帮你remove , 说两句不肯下机人家就走了好了,最 : 后一起飞,真出事,摔死的又不是人家。
|
T*********r 发帖数: 2953 | 32 你是真蠢啊?
那也需要怀疑的证据。
弹。
【在 m*****t 的大作中提到】 : 这么说,恐怖分子只要上机了,就不可以因为怀疑remove了是吧? : 因为人家安检也过了,gate也同意了,正安静地坐在那儿,只要还没劫持飞机,你就不 : 可以要求人家下机吧。 : 一群SB迟早被自己的自作聪明害死。不给机组和机警绝对的权威,飞机就是颗定时炸弹。
|
m*****t 发帖数: 16663 | 33 那就全机一起等证据好了。
你会看到这件事情的发酵的。
【在 T*********r 的大作中提到】 : 你是真蠢啊? : 那也需要怀疑的证据。 : : 弹。
|
S***i 发帖数: 289 | 34 你个傻逼,UA要有证据证明医生是恐怖分子,当场打死都可以,现在医生一切行为合法
,你的假设不适用,你还斯坦福的,你低能儿看护所的吧?基本逻辑思维都不懂
[在 mynight (一束星光) 的大作中提到:]
:这么说,恐怖分子只要上机了,就不可以因为怀疑remove了是吧?
:因为人家安检也过了,gate也同意了,正安静地坐在那儿,只要还没劫持飞机,你就
不可以要求人家下机吧。
:一群SB迟早被自己的自作聪明害死。不给机组和机警绝对的权威,飞机就是颗定时炸
弹。 |
m*****t 发帖数: 16663 | 35 你们脑残就不要显眼啊。
难道次次都必须是这一个理由不听安排啊?
以后有了纠纷,但凡觉得自己有理的谁特么还听警察叽歪,反正反抗一下又不会死,一
不小心就发财了。
绝对是扯皮到底全机人一起耽搁看戏。
【在 S***i 的大作中提到】 : 你个傻逼,UA要有证据证明医生是恐怖分子,当场打死都可以,现在医生一切行为合法 : ,你的假设不适用,你还斯坦福的,你低能儿看护所的吧?基本逻辑思维都不懂 : [在 mynight (一束星光) 的大作中提到:] : :这么说,恐怖分子只要上机了,就不可以因为怀疑remove了是吧? : :因为人家安检也过了,gate也同意了,正安静地坐在那儿,只要还没劫持飞机,你就 : 不可以要求人家下机吧。 : :一群SB迟早被自己的自作聪明害死。不给机组和机警绝对的权威,飞机就是颗定时炸 : 弹。
|
j****3 发帖数: 2836 | 36 你个傻逼不要只会说空话瞎扯。你不是觉得自己特聪明吗? 那就请你想几个法理上站得
住脚的其它理由出来?
【在 m*****t 的大作中提到】 : 你们脑残就不要显眼啊。 : 难道次次都必须是这一个理由不听安排啊? : 以后有了纠纷,但凡觉得自己有理的谁特么还听警察叽歪,反正反抗一下又不会死,一 : 不小心就发财了。 : 绝对是扯皮到底全机人一起耽搁看戏。
|
m******n 发帖数: 15691 | 37 现在就是陪几个亿和几千万的区别
其它乘客家门口的律师已经排长队了
【在 C*I 的大作中提到】 : 从丫ceo先前的嘴硬,到现在ua 董事长的表态认错,和ceo的一次又一次的道歉判断, : ua已经准备和解了。 因为官司打下去,丫根就赢不了,你打什么打?
|
c*****e 发帖数: 3226 | 38 跑出来装b,自己好好读读
this includes situations where passengers act in a “disorderly, offensive,
abusive, or violent” manner,
弹。
【在 m*****t 的大作中提到】 : 这么说,恐怖分子只要上机了,就不可以因为怀疑remove了是吧? : 因为人家安检也过了,gate也同意了,正安静地坐在那儿,只要还没劫持飞机,你就不 : 可以要求人家下机吧。 : 一群SB迟早被自己的自作聪明害死。不给机组和机警绝对的权威,飞机就是颗定时炸弹。
|
w*********e 发帖数: 6093 | 39 不不不,离开飞机才算,不然还是on board 状态的持续,就是boarding
【在 w*p 的大作中提到】 : 航空公司看完这个之后要重新定义“boarding”,从此以后,没关舱门boarding就没完 : 成。
|
s*******u 发帖数: 676 | 40 你的英文不会那么差吧,文章说得很清楚,腾座位可以“Deny Boarding”,但不适用
“Refusal of Transport”。再说了,怀疑还得看根据。像你这样信口就来的人怀疑当
然不能作为remove的根据。
It turns out that the contract has a specific rule regarding “Refusal of
Transport” (Rule 21), which lays out the conditions under which a passenger
can be removed and refused transport on the aircraft. This includes
situations where passengers act in a “disorderly, offensive, abusive, or
violent” manner, refuse to comply with the smoking policy, are barefoot or
“not properly clothed,” as well as many other situations.
弹。
【在 m*****t 的大作中提到】 : 这么说,恐怖分子只要上机了,就不可以因为怀疑remove了是吧? : 因为人家安检也过了,gate也同意了,正安静地坐在那儿,只要还没劫持飞机,你就不 : 可以要求人家下机吧。 : 一群SB迟早被自己的自作聪明害死。不给机组和机警绝对的权威,飞机就是颗定时炸弹。
|
|
|
C*I 发帖数: 4736 | 41 可不是嘛,现在ua担心的另外一个问题是,这一事件激怒了真个社会,更让当时在飞机
上的乘客受到了极大的震撼和产生严重的恐惧。 当时上演的抓扑,扭打,拖拉dao的暴
力血腥行为,让一个带着学生的老师当即决定带着她的学生不坐这恐怖飞机了,离开了
。
很多人因此产生了恐惧,被迫进行暴力观摩,特别是对未成年小孩和儿童的心理伤害是
严重的,可怕的,有些可能终生都会有心理阴影。如果ua在法庭上再胡搅蛮缠,满飞机
的人就会再一次被激怒,那合起来控告丫的概率就会大增,到时会怎么收场就不由它了。
现在,这一飞机的人都在看着,等着,ua乖乖给人赔钱息事宁人了,估计这些人也就看
着讨个公道算了。 要不然,filing class lawsuit, 逼迫ua赔个天文数字,甚至
suspense ua 的business license, 估计也不会是什么骇人听闻的事。
核心问题:ua先说是overbook, 后说是computer random 选人。 现在overbook 看起来
是说谎;那这computer random选人是不是也是说谎? 估计不久就会真相大白。
如果这些都是欺骗,那这满飞机的人可就都成了受骗者了,结果会是什么,我不知道,
大家不知道,估计ua现在也不知道。
【在 m******n 的大作中提到】 : 现在就是陪几个亿和几千万的区别 : 其它乘客家门口的律师已经排长队了
|
S***i 发帖数: 289 | 42 这些年被UA威逼下飞机的乘客好几千,都是UA违法措施的受害者,class lawsuit 已不
可避免,开始卖飞机赔钱吧 |
r*******e 发帖数: 680 | 43 那芝加哥律师已经说是class lawsuit
【在 S***i 的大作中提到】 : 这些年被UA威逼下飞机的乘客好几千,都是UA违法措施的受害者,class lawsuit 已不 : 可避免,开始卖飞机赔钱吧
|
s*****c 发帖数: 753 | 44 航空公司无权要求人下机。
如果警察有足够证据,他们可以上来抓人。抓错了他们被告。
ua本来就要甩锅给保安,可广大群众眼睛是雪亮的。类比你举的例子,航空公司诬陷该
人为恐怖分子,那最后负最大责任的当然是航空公司啦。
你希望什么?航空公司想remove谁就可以诬陷人而不用负责?
弹。
【在 m*****t 的大作中提到】 : 这么说,恐怖分子只要上机了,就不可以因为怀疑remove了是吧? : 因为人家安检也过了,gate也同意了,正安静地坐在那儿,只要还没劫持飞机,你就不 : 可以要求人家下机吧。 : 一群SB迟早被自己的自作聪明害死。不给机组和机警绝对的权威,飞机就是颗定时炸弹。
|
s*****c 发帖数: 753 | 45 你这是刚下船?不知道美国最讲程序正义?什么miranda rights。什么不合法证据不能
用。宁可放过一千,不可错杀一个?
这样放过的罪犯少吗?你是不是还是觉得国内好?
【在 m*****t 的大作中提到】 : 肯定是要上千万的。 : 一群愚民牺牲自己将来的飞行安全和便利来成就一个恶行累累的机闹的人权表演,真的 : 非要等到哪天发生无法移除安全隐患而造成事故后,才来重新解读法律? : 如果空乘包括空警说话都如放屁,随时担心被告,你还幻想飞行安全? : 真有有问题,以后哪个SB空警还会帮你remove , 说两句不肯下机人家就走了好了,最 : 后一起飞,真出事,摔死的又不是人家。
|
u***t 发帖数: 5899 | 46 这个倒好办,可以说怀疑飞机有故障,需要大家下机再检修,最后就说怀疑被排除就行
了。这么搞不行的原因是这招不能常用,否则你家飞机老是出现故障,长久乘客就不敢
坐了。
【在 h******k 的大作中提到】 : 如果被人发现飞机实际没有故障或者没有需要全体乘客下飞机的故障的话UA就惨了,美 : 国的法律不是就事论事,会以此类推追究你的历史责任,比如造假货的从你开始做生意 : 第一天就开始计算你的造假营业额罚款。
|
p***n 发帖数: 17190 | 47 要能舉證證明他是恐怖分子
不然將來更慘
OVERBOOK 不讓坐的都當恐怖份子
看誰還敢去book
弹。
【在 m*****t 的大作中提到】 : 这么说,恐怖分子只要上机了,就不可以因为怀疑remove了是吧? : 因为人家安检也过了,gate也同意了,正安静地坐在那儿,只要还没劫持飞机,你就不 : 可以要求人家下机吧。 : 一群SB迟早被自己的自作聪明害死。不给机组和机警绝对的权威,飞机就是颗定时炸弹。
|
a***e 发帖数: 27968 | 48 航班取消就行
临时给个号再上
或者说看到耗子了,然后看错了
★ 发自iPhone App: ChineseWeb 13
【在 w*p 的大作中提到】 : 这个想法不错,不过先得有个取消boarding的条款,用飞机故障的原因骗大家暂时下飞 : 机再重新登机,这个被抓到了也过不了法官那一关。
|
l*****y 发帖数: 2522 | |
m*****t 发帖数: 16663 | 50 程序正义就应该是警察让你干嘛你必须配合。
我就不信Dao这种无赖在外面也敢这样跟警察顶牛,丫就是看到无数的镜头,故意讹诈。
【在 s*****c 的大作中提到】 : 你这是刚下船?不知道美国最讲程序正义?什么miranda rights。什么不合法证据不能 : 用。宁可放过一千,不可错杀一个? : 这样放过的罪犯少吗?你是不是还是觉得国内好?
|
|
|
d*****t 发帖数: 7903 | 51 这话说得有智慧!
【在 h*********n 的大作中提到】 : 绝对亭外和解 : UA自己都不敢赢,赢了就没人坐他家飞机了
|
t***o 发帖数: 19256 | 52 Billion 是十亿,老大
[在 helpdesk () 的大作中提到:]
:这个事儿拖得越久UA损失越大,所以UA现在是跪求老中医和解,钱根本不是问题,一
天市值就跌了1个billion,赔个几亿UA不会有意见,只要赶紧收场了结就好。
:不过这事儿不是那么容易了结的,老中医的官司了结了,接下来很可能还有class
:action,赔一个或者几个billion不稀奇。 |
t***o 发帖数: 19256 | 53 SB
[在 mynight (一束星光) 的大作中提到:]
:肯定是要上千万的。
:一群愚民牺牲自己将来的飞行安全和便利来成就一个恶行累累的机闹的人权表演,真
的非要等到哪天发生无法移除安全隐患而造成事故后,才来重新解读法律?
:如果空乘包括空警说话都如放屁,随时担心被告,你还幻想飞行安全?
:真有有问题,以后哪个SB空警还会帮你remove , 说两句不肯下机人家就走了好了,最
:后一起飞,真出事,摔死的又不是人家。 |