Fook United Airlines

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aloha_Shooter

I hate the way they use the phrase "denied boarding" - yeah, that would be one thing if he was stopped FROM boarding but the guy was already seated. He wasn't "denied boarding", he was being deboarded involuntarily. Having said that, if the "staff" that they were trying to put on the flight were crew for follow-on flights, there would have been rolling impacts in not getting them down there that would have affected a lot more people so I understand the airline's urgency in trying to get them down there.

---

The term boarding has broad interpretation. For airlines it is generally applied to the whole process of loading passengers on the plane prior to takeoff. It is not the limit line of actually stepping on the plane and yelling "safe!". Even if you are on the plane, sitting and buckled, until they close the door everyone is still boarding. I wouldn't be surprised if it extended until wheels up such that a return to the gate to eject a passenger would still be considered boarding denial.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrPrena

Nice find.
Now his POTENTIAL civil settlement just had a HUGE haircut. lol

---

Who would he even sue though? And for what?

I haven't watched the whole video but if he suffered injuries wasn't it at the hands of the police, and not United? Which means he would have to sue the police - who of course have qualified immunity.

Unless United just wants to pay him "hush money" to go away I don't see that anything they did was actionable. If the rules allow them to bump passengers then they are allowed to bump passengers and their liability is limited to paying whatever the statutorily required amount is.

A "police brutality" (Section 1983) claim against the PD is always possible, I suppose, but I don't see United being a part of that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martinjmpr

Who would he even sue though? I haven't watched the whole video but if he suffered injuries wasn't it at the hands of the police, and not United? Which means he would have to sue the police - who of course have qualified immunity.

Unless United just wants to pay him "hush money" to go away I don't see that anything they did was actionable. If the rules allow them to bump passengers then they are allowed to bump passengers and their liability is limited to paying whatever the statutorily required amount is.

A "police brutality" (Section 1983) claim against the PD is always possible, I suppose, but I don't see United being a part of that.

---

Was it police or airport rent-a-cops?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CavSct1983

Was it police or airport rent-a-cops?

---

Do they even have those anymore? I would think that if a job requires putting hands on people then most likely it would be actual, sworn police officers. Either Chicago PD, Transit Cops, TSA or Air Marshals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martinjmpr

Do they even have those anymore? I would think that if a job requires putting hands on people then most likely it would be actual, sworn police officers. Either Chicago PD, Transit Cops, TSA or Air Marshals.

---

Chicago Department of Aviation security officers, whatever the hell those are...

http://kfor.com/2017/04/11/security-...united-flight/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martinjmpr

Do they even have those anymore? I would think that if a job requires putting hands on people then most likely it would be actual, sworn police officers. Either Chicago PD, Transit Cops, TSA or Air Marshals.

---

Chicago Department of Aviation security officers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clodhopper

The term boarding has broad interpretation. For airlines it is generally applied to the whole process of loading passengers on the plane prior to takeoff. It is not the limit line of actually stepping on the plane and yelling "safe!". Even if you are on the plane, sitting and buckled, until they close the door everyone is still boarding. I wouldn't be surprised if it extended until wheels up such that a return to the gate to eject a passenger would still be considered boarding denial.

---

Oh, I know that's how the airline is interpreting it but any reasonable person with a comprehension of the English language would say he had already boarded when they let him set foot on the plane. His past history does seem to explain his reaction with the shrieking when the cops came to get him as well as his persistent reboarding and "just kill me now" mantra so I don't think it's totally irrelevant. I also think it's important that it was Chicago PD that forcibly pulled him off -- yes, United (or Republic) called for them but Chicago LEO has a reputation for doing things "the Chicago Way."

I suspect the reason United didn't offer even more to get someone to leave voluntarily is that they are worried about setting a new high bar for the future across all overbooked flights ("are you kidding? $250? I'm not giving up my seat until they offer me $2000.") but it still would have been better to quietly try to get another volunteer with higher compensation than get the PR blackeye they're suffering today.

He was convicted for trading opiates for gay sex.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Seems to be quite the nutter. Soon to be a rich nutter who will no doubt lose the settlement money in some spectacularly odd action.

Apparently, you have to have LEO certification in that job...

https://www.indeed.com/m/viewjob?jk=...4844&from=serp

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 00tec

Chicago Department of Aviation security officers

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 00tec

Apparently, you have to have LEO certification in that job...

https://www.indeed.com/m/viewjob?jk=...4844&from=serp

---

Makes sense. Outside of maybe a bar or a nightclub anybody whose job it is to put people in handcuffs is likely going to be a sworn LEO. Sworn LEO = qualified immunity.

Doesn't mean they can't be sued, but it means the burden of proof will be higher. And I don't see how UA can be held liable for the actions of a sworn LEO.