I’ll try this again, not phrased as a not-funny joke:
Again, I think I’m on more-or-less the same page as MikeKStar here. Getting bumped from flights does happen sometimes, even involuntarily; it’s just part of the social contract here. The passenger does bear some responsibility for not being reasonable. I know that if the same situation happened to me, in all particulars, I’d be furious with the cops, but I’d be furious with myself too for failing to deescalate.
I wonder if the victim has lived a life where being peremptory and digging his heels in in the event of a disagreement has in the past been a successful strategy, and if this was another factor that overdetermined the outcome. Of course, I do not know him; I just wonder slightly. I do find the notion of pulling rank with “I’m a doctor, I have patients to see” dubious. Everyone is the protagonist of their own story.
This is all small-bore stuff, though. Not getting beaten up if you step out of line is part of the social contract too. That is horrific.
There’s a fun fact. Boarding ends when the doors close. From that point onwards the plane is legally in-flight (regardless of what gravity has to say about the matter)
It’s absolutely not grounds for a beating. I’ll say it again, that’s horrific. We’re in total agreement on this. Also on the “oh, he just fell into the armrest, it was an accident” – that doesn’t pass muster for me either. Serious overtones of “stop hitting yourself! Why do you keep hitting yourself?” there.
I do take slight issue with the notion that the victim’s ticket purchase gave him an absolute ironclad guarantee to take that flight, though. It’s been discussed to death elsewhere, but that’s not how the CoC works; involuntary bumping does happen. Pretending that the injury was added to an unconscionable initial insult rubs me the wrong way.
But this is small potatoes. The injury by itself is, again, horrifying.
So I guess it was a delayed reaction, or investors had to sleep on it before deciding to sell, but the stock is down 3% in the first 45 minutes of trading this morning.
I disagree. The beating is what most people are focused on, but in my opinion, the real issue is that United involuntarily bumped a passenger off the plane. I don’t think they should be allowed to do that - they should have to pay whatever it takes to have someone voluntarily give up that seat. Anything else is a market failure.
You and others have said that involuntary denial of boarding is something that happens- I personally have never seen it. Do you have any numbers on how often that happens?
Also, in practical terms, what I would like to see come out of this is not United being sued but a law being passed that no-one can be involuntarily denied boarding, they have to be given enough compensation to volunteer,
The flight wasn’t overbooked. It was fully booked, and they wanted to put 4 (nonpaying) United employees on for whatever reason (they could have been needed for flight maintenance at the destination airport, or they could be going home after vacation).
They offered money (I assume only good for United flights) and they didn’t get any takers (or at least not all 4 spots). So they started pulling people “at random”.
That may or may not have followed the COC established rules (if they did, and if the rules followed all the FCC guidelines then taking that particular seat was legal, if they didn’t then it wasn’t; in either case it looks like a very bad move to have the passenger forcibly removed, I would guess they offered like $800 to $1000 for the seat, and in stock price lost business it will cost them many many many $100,000s; if they failed to follow their COC rules, or if those rules were improperly formed then they stand to lose far far more). NOTE: I’m not a lawyer, or an airline pilot. Don’t take legal advice from me, or let me fly your airplanes.
(note: all numbers below are made up, but having them there makes it easier to follow)
That’s not really how it works. The lawyer will look at the facts and say something like “well United followed regulations, but that video is pretty awesome, if the Judge admits it the jury is likely to give us $1-2mil” and if he thinks they can get the video in will advise the client to not settle for under $500k (“you will do much better if we get that video in, there is always the chance we can’t, but…”, but once the offer gets there they will start saying things like “well we might not get that video in, if it were me I would take it and be done”.
Or if in fact the CoC wasn’t followed and the whole thing wasn’t legal bigger numbers “Ok, we are likely to get $4mil to $6mil, with the video it is pretty much a lock…” but if the pre-trial settlement numbers are close to $4mil they will start saying “well you can avoid a lot of hassle and get a sure thing”, if the settlement numbers actually hit $4mil or over they really will start saying things like “this is a good case, a great case, but we can win it and still end up with less then they are offering”
It isn’t the lawyers job to win big in court, it is the lawyers job to get the best result for the client. For most clients that is some combination of biggest payout and highest likelihood of success. For some it is “money is no object, I want my day in court and I want a on the record precedent set!”. But, really, most people care more about getting money and getting the thing behind them then they do about making it easier for the next guy to get money.
I can’t really blame them.
(note: I’m not a lawyer, I don’t even play one on TV, so take this with a big rock of salt, and maybe some vodka; it isn’t legal advice, talk to a real lawyer for that)
If a lawyer thinks they have a strong enough case, they won’t settle unless the offer is stupendously high (which does happen). There is NO legal obligation to do so, and the rewards are much, MUCH higher, generally, if they directly win a civil suit. Yes, if United offers close to what they think they’d win, they probably would take it, but that’s simply not even remotely guaranteed.
You are also not considering the motivations of the client; often enough, plaintiffs WANT to fight it out, to make an example of the defendant. Their lawyer can not force them to settle.
It is the lawyer’s job to represent their clients as best as possible, while they are respecting the client’s wishes (as long as they are legal). If a lawyer tried to FORCE me to settle this case as the plaintiff, s/he would be out on their ass and I’d have another lawyer, that simple, and the 1st would have a strong complaint registered with the state’s Bar Association.
I do think reasonable people can disagree over whether airlines should have the right to involuntarily deny boarding or not. On the balance, I think there are reasons the system is set up like this. From the airlines’ POV, overbooking especially is the only rational response to the issue of no-shows; flying planes with empty seats is a HUGE money-loser.
This possibly admits a market-based solution: one airline can pledge never to overbook or bump flyers, and pass on the incremental costs of flying emptier planes to their customers.
The narrative seems to be that customers would turn up their noses at the higher fares and this carrier would go out of business, sadly.
