l6632154j wrote:
目前看到91頁其實...(恕刪)
對，是被加碼的懲罰性賠償
這些細節我蠻早就看過了，個人還是認為她自己要負最大責任
個人積分：914分
文章編號：64045182
個人積分：13878分
文章編號：64047761
thron wrote:
沒惡意，只是覺得用21h2...(恕刪)
不會，我也只不過有沒有這個可能利用21h2。 畢竟我們不在當時不在場，只能更根據我們看到的資料來猜測。
TD4 wrote:
我認識的律師跟您一...(恕刪)
那你可以想想為什麼我和那個律師一樣。
你喜歡的那篇，是個法學生寫的，那個法學生念的法學院我本來聽都沒聽過，後來查了一下，被罵得很慘。
http://www.latimes.com/local/education/la-me-law-schools-20150726-story.html
那篇報導寫了不少那個法學生念的"法學校"。 Northwestern California University School of Law被寫得有點難看。 你真的應該去看一看，或許你就可以知道我當初看你給的那篇連結，很快地看一下就說我不認同這種字眼。
根據報導，那個加州西北"法學校"，2006年有404個新生。 只有54個學生念到第四年。 四年唸完後，只有1X%機會能有機會考到律師執照。 還有這一句，"They aren't even diploma mills, they are failure factories," said Robert Fellmeth, the Price Professor of Public Interest Law at the University of San Diego School of Law.
批判連學店都不算。
個人積分：581分
文章編號：64048417
個人積分：581分
文章編號：64048567
個人積分：581分
文章編號：64048653
Kanyil wrote:
無論是從法律角度，或是商業角度，你這個說法都是違約，沒有任何道理。
我並不是指省錢在合約上是合法趕人的理由之一喔，
UA可能可以用哪些理由合法趕人，前面也有討論過。
買回來是大多人都認同為合法的選項，搶回來是不是合法還有爭議。
但若兩個選項都合法，選擇省錢的選項並沒有什麼法律問題，
關鍵還是在於解除搭機權的過程是否合法。
這就是為什麼我說那問題沒殺傷力。
Kanyil wrote:
這個討論串很有意思，也看到了各方的說法。您很明顯有已經有了想法，這是你的自由，但至少在我(還有幾位其他網友)看來，無論從商業角度或是法律角度，你的想法都說不通。雖然說網路聊天本來大家都是胡說八道，但是有些人胡說的比較嚴重，而有些人則說的比較有道理。
既然你承認自己是在這胡說八道，
那你來說說看，為何你認為我的說法是違約?我的想法都說不通?
讓大家看看你是嚴重還是輕微的"胡說八道"。
Kanyil wrote:
如果您不是法律人，我建議您可以試著聽聽大家的說法，法律其實有很多和常理不同的細節和思考邏輯，尤其是英美法，不是一般人想當然爾。如果您是法律人，我有個建議。雖然真理越辯越明，律師也應該勇敢執著，但這不代表任何一個律師的看法一定是對的，就算是官司打到一半，也需要看情況改變策略。
這我認同，
我知道法律有很多和常理不同的細節和思考邏輯，
也不認為任何一個律師的看法一定是對的。
供勉之。
個人積分：1732分
文章編號：64048700
某個周日, 一位陶先生因為後腰疼痛, 直冒冷汗,去某家"聯航醫院"掛急診
急診醫生先幫他打了止痛劑, 驗了血,驗了尿, 照了X光, 研判是腎結石, 先讓陶先生簽了住院同意書, 幫他辦了住院, 隔天周一由腎臟科醫生接手
經過超音波等多項檢查確認是腎結石, 醫生交代陶先生從幾點後要開始禁食, 安排在周二中午為他開刀進行手術
周二陶先生依照程序, 換好了手術衣, 病床被推到在開刀房旁的等候室, 等候進行開刀(連手術同意書都簽了)
這時院方跟陶先生說, 不好意思, 早上我們醫院有四名員工吃了姑婆芋, 需要住院, 因為病房都已經客滿, 沒有空床, 所以我們現在需要拉掉四名住院病患, 騰出四張病床給我們這四名員工
你簽了住院同意書了, 那上面有個條款說我們醫院可以隨時自由解除你的住院資格, 所以現在你必須要離開醫院. 如果你不服氣,你不能霸病床(諷刺霸機), 你只能事後向法院控告我們醫院違約求償, 一般違約我們就是賠你一點點錢, 這樣好了, 你這兩天做的所有檢查跟住院費我們都不收你的錢, 就當作你沒來過, 請你現在馬上離開
陶先生手抓住病床欄杆, 說我不願意離開, 要嘛你拖我走, 要嘛我進監牢, 我就是不離開
醫院找來了警察, 把陶先生從病床上硬拉下來, 撞在地板上滿臉是血,沿著地板拖出去醫院門口, 那張病床就由某個醫院的員工躺了上去
這事被旁邊的群眾拍成影片傳上網, 引起軒然大波, 院長在發給醫院內部員工的信件中寫, 有關於這位好鬥而擾亂秩序的病人, 我們的同仁依照標準作業程序請來警方將他帶離醫院, 是很正確的舉動
個人積分：581分
文章編號：64048759
crab69 wrote:
在某個地方看到一篇寓言故事, 改編聯航事件寫的, 蠻好玩, 給大家看看
某個周日, 一位陶先生因為後腰疼痛, 直冒冷汗,去某家"聯航醫院"掛急診
急診醫生先幫他打了止痛劑, 驗了血,驗了尿, 照了X光, 研判是腎結石, 先讓陶先生簽了住院同意書, 幫他辦了住院, 隔天周一由腎臟科醫生接手
經過超音波等多項檢查確認是腎結石, 醫生交代陶先生從幾點後要開始禁食, 安排在周二中午為他開刀進行手術
周二陶先生依照程序, 換好了手術衣, 病床被推到在開刀房旁的等候室, 等候進行開刀(連手術同意書都簽了)
這時院方跟陶先生說, 不好意思, 早上我們醫院有四名員工吃了姑婆芋, 需要住院, 因為病房都已經客滿, 沒有空床, 所以我們現在需要拉掉四名住院病患, 騰出四張病床給我們這四名員工
你簽了住院同意書了, 那上面有個條款說我們醫院可以隨時自由解除你的住院資格, 所以現在你必須要離開醫院. 如果你不服氣,你不能霸病床(諷刺霸機), 你只能事後向法院控告我們醫院違約求償, 一般違約我們就是賠你一點點錢, 這樣好了, 你這兩天做的所有檢查跟住院費我們都不收你的錢, 就當作你沒來過, 請你現在馬上離開
陶先生手抓住病床欄杆, 說我不願意離開, 要嘛你拖我走, 要嘛我進監牢, 我就是不離開
醫院找來了警察, 把陶先生從病床上硬拉下來, 撞在地板上滿臉是血,沿著地板拖出去醫院門口, 那張病床就由某個醫院的員工躺了上去
這是被旁邊的群眾拍成影片傳上網, 引起軒然大波, 院長在發給醫院內部員工的信件中寫, 有關於這位好鬥而擾亂秩序的病人, 我們的同仁依照標準作業程序請來警方將他帶離醫院, 是很正確的舉動
如果過程被判為合法，那主要問題其實是群眾觀感。
個人積分：581分
文章編號：64049028
個人積分：1分
文章編號：64049040
Firstly, a lot of misinformation that has been spread about by the media and people who don’t know any better that needs to be corrected or clarified:
The flight was “Overbooked;” FALSE
Overbooking is when the airline sells more than 300 tickets for a flight with only 300 seats and more than 300 people show up at the gate to board. That kind of situation is identified at the gate and usually (but not always) involves one or more passangers who don't have a seat number printed on their tickets, were not able/allowed to check in, etc. That is not what happened here. The number of paying passenger who showed up at the gate were the same as the number of seats available. United decided it wanted to use some additional seats for their own employees. That may seem like a semantic difference, but it matters because now we're no longer legally talking about “overbooking.” This is a different scenario.
United has the RIGHT to throw anyone off a flight: COMPLETELY & UTTERLY FALSE
Under a few very specific conditions, including one know as “overbooking” (which this was not, per above), United’s “carriage contract” (the thing you agree to when you buy a ticket) says ticket holders may be “denied boarding” (this is the exact phrase used in the carriage contract and the corresponding DoT regulations). Throwing someone off the flight after they have boarded is not permitted anywhere in the “carriage contract.”
Now United’s new legal argument (which defies all common sense and normal use of English) is that you haven't actually “boarded” the aircraft until the aircraft pulls away from the gate. Unless that exact meaning of “boarding/boarded” is specifically defined in United’s “carriage contract” (and I seriously doubt it is but I haven't actually checked) I don't think they’ll find a judge or jury in the US would would agree with them.
The passenger didn't comply with flight crew instructions which is a crime; Probably False
The saying that it's a federal offense to disobey a member of the flight crew comes from this law 14 CFR 91.11 - Prohibition on interference with crewmembers; disobedience is considered “interference.” However, if you read the law it very clearly says “No person may assault, threaten, intimidate, or interfere with a crewmember in the performance of the crewmember's duties aboard an aircraft being operated.” Since the aircraft was still at the gate it could be argued that the aircraft was not being operated at that time. United’s (moronic) argument that no one has actually “boarded” the aircraft until it has pushed away from the gate could actually further support this line of logic. There are also limits to the crewmembers extremely wide latitude; specifically that they have to be “performing their duties.” Evicting a boarded passenger in violation of United’s “carriage contract” probably won't be seen as “performing their duties.”
So, currently the facts stand at:
United threatened to have a paying passenger violently removed from their flight in violation of their contract with him and very likely in violation of the law.
United called the Police to exercise this violence.
The police did not verify the facts of the situation because they felt pressured by United and the airport, they did not know the law nor United policy's, they blindly accepted United’s version of events, and perpetrated the violence requested against a passenger whose “crime” at this point was standing up for his rights under United’s contract.
He should take United and Chicago PD for every penny he can and drag United’s name through the mud for a long as he possibly can.
Does he deserve something like a couple Billion dollars? Probably not. Should United loose at least that much money? Probably.
Why?
Because they do this a lot (United passenger threatened with handcuffs to make room for 'higher-priority' traveler).
This guy is probably one of thousands wrongfully forced from their flight after they boarded and never given due compensation because they weren't willing to loose a couple of teeth and break their nose to assert their rights.
United (and every other airline) will just do the math. We do this 10,000 times a year, once in 5–10 years we’ll have to deal with this PR mess and pay up. So take the cost and divide by 50,000 to 100,000… that's the cost of illegally evicting a passenger (and/or busting up a couple of them up along the way).
So to get United to obey their own contract, the consequences need to be 50,000 to 100,000 times more than it should be for one incident. It's not about rewarding one passenger as much as it needs to be about punishing United to make similar transgressions by any airline financially unpalatable (this is the same concept behind a class action suit).
Fortunately, the PR damage United is suffering in China will cost them dearly. United is more invested in flights to China than any other US carrier. What people in China think of their brand matters; a lot. True or not, right now the consensus on Chinese social media (and further implied by Chinese State Media) is that United is racist against asians. This perception will severely damage their brand and undermines their entire long term growth strategy in the global marketplace.
That’s why the CEO actually started apologizing 3+ days later and why he’s on an “apology tour” right now making lots of hollow promises.
He couldn't care less about that one passenger or the horrible customer service that is typical on his airline.
He cares now because that flight crew and local manager just single handedly jeopardized United’s entire growth strategy for the next 5+ years.
個人積分：1732分
文章編號：64049463
