CUFOX wrote:
如果過程被判為合法...(恕刪)
那你知道群眾對於本棟樓的觀感嗎？都大喊鬼打牆好無聊，跑光光了
個人積分：1727分
文章編號：64049572
個人積分：581分
文章編號：64049704
個人積分：13536分
文章編號：64049923
robin_ld wrote:
I’ve waited a while for the dust to settle and more details to come to light before addressing this question.
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.
...(恕刪)
+1
個人積分：1727分
文章編號：64051740
個人積分：1727分
文章編號：64052154
個人積分：1580分
文章編號：64052654
個人積分：424分
文章編號：64053080
個人積分：72分
文章編號：64053281
robin_ld wrote:
I’ve waited a while for the dust to settle and more details to come to light before addressing this question.
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.
While I commend you for waiting for more details to surface before addressing this situation, but you've still got it wrong. There is no legal definition of "overbooked" or "overbooking". The closest I've seen is "oversold" in United's Contract of Carriage and that's not a legal definition.
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.
robin_ld wrote:
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.
United's Contract of Carriage permits United to refuse transport and remove passengers under certain conditions including "Passengers who fail to comply with or interfere with the duties of the members of the flight crew, federal regulations, or security directives;"
It is not entirely clear whether that would apply in this case, but some suspect it could.
robin_ld wrote:
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.”
Just because the aircraft was still at the gate doesn't mean it wasn't being operated. The crew performs pre-flight safety checks before departing the gate which would conceivably include starting the engines, turning on or activating various functions of the aircraft to make sure they're working properly. Now, I'm not sure whether that actually happened before or during the incident. I'm merely suggesting it's a possibility.
robin_ld wrote:
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.
The Aviation Security Officers in question belong to the Chicago Department of Aviation which is not to be confused with the Chicago Police Department. So there goes your "fact". Also, the internal investigation from the aviation department has yet to conclude, so I would say it's hardly a fact that the officers "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". That's purely your own conjecture.
Second, considering there is no legal definition of "overbooked" or "overbooking", nor is it clear whether United had the right to remove the passenger from the plane per its Contract of Carriage, and your own uncertainties as demonstrated by your use of probably and very likely, I would also say the rest of what you claim to be facts are in fact, not facts.
We will know all of the facts once the appropriate authorities conclude their investigation and after the courts render their decision on the case (might not even make it that far if they settle out of court).
個人積分：1727分
文章編號：64053609
個人積分：1208分
文章編號：64053706
robin_ld wrote:
I’ve waited a while for the dust to settle and more details to come to light before addressing this question....(恕刪)
Aznsilvrboy wrote:
While I commend you for waiting for more details ...(恕刪)
Well argued, both of you.
Robin_ld's argument covers both commercial and legal considerations, while Aznsilvrboy's argument is a much more legalistic one. Both have merits and both are equally valid until the courts decide.
In my view, this matter will almost certainly be settled. Irrespective of the technical legal analysis(and my view is United is not legally entitled to do what they did), United's management will have to be crazy or grossly incompetent to let this drag on any longer than it already has.
Just 1 suggestion for robin_ld. 語言總是越用越熟，多一個技術總是好的。如果你不是因為工作而無法打中文，有機會的話，可以多練練中打，你已經能讀中文，學中打很容易，中國式拼音輸入法更是容易。
