由买买提看人间百态

boards

本页内容为未名空间相应帖子的节选和存档,一周内的贴子最多显示50字,超过一周显示500字 访问原贴
Military版 - 这次UA挂定了, 机票合同条文分析
相关主题
UA完全不把乘客当人,在律师眼里是躺赢的案子垃圾国家!!!
Dao 被扔下飞机,康奈尔法学院教授,院长如是说!类似的航空超售标准作业程序是什么
跟踪了几天UA事件,弄明白了乘客的权利美国大公司就象中国政府,你必须服从
UA事件可能跟UA没什么直接关系为了亚裔利益,一定要搞大,转自知乎
说说我在UA升舱的故事。ZZ华人可以类比的是美国航空公司出钱找志愿者坐下一航班
所有airline都有法律权利赶人走United强行拖拽亚裔医生下飞机
Delta给赶下飞机那家人赔礼道歉了美联航应该至少遭到华人的抵制
美国人民被教育不要当overbook的volunteer。为啥上了飞机才说overbooking
相关话题的讨论汇总
话题: ua话题: reserved话题: boarding话题: rule话题: confirmed
进入Military版参与讨论
1 (共1页)
h*********n
发帖数: 11319
1
转发朋友的:那被强拖下去的医生当时可能咨询过他的律师了,UA这次根本无权强迫乘
客下飞机。有兴趣的可以仔细看看UA的合同。
Rule 25 (denied boarding) 可以随便拒绝乘客,但是这医生已经登机了,所以Rule
25就废掉了。
UA正常情况下只能用Rule 21 (refusal of transport)来赶已经登机的乘客,但是over
-sold不属于rule 21的范围。
UA平时可以随便挑个别的安全之类的借口赶人,但是UA当时显然没意识到,仍按over-
sold赶人,所以这次UA应该是输定了:
https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriage.aspx#sec21
f******t
发帖数: 19544
2
一千万美刀塞偷,应该可以。
v**e
发帖数: 8422
3
这好像能解释号称胆小怕事的亚裔,为什么很淡定的拒绝下飞机。
就是没想到UA和芝加哥机场警察会这么狠。

over

【在 h*********n 的大作中提到】
: 转发朋友的:那被强拖下去的医生当时可能咨询过他的律师了,UA这次根本无权强迫乘
: 客下飞机。有兴趣的可以仔细看看UA的合同。
: Rule 25 (denied boarding) 可以随便拒绝乘客,但是这医生已经登机了,所以Rule
: 25就废掉了。
: UA正常情况下只能用Rule 21 (refusal of transport)来赶已经登机的乘客,但是over
: -sold不属于rule 21的范围。
: UA平时可以随便挑个别的安全之类的借口赶人,但是UA当时显然没意识到,仍按over-
: sold赶人,所以这次UA应该是输定了:
: https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriage.aspx#sec21

v**e
发帖数: 8422
4
这好像能解释号称胆小怕事的亚裔,为什么很淡定的拒绝下飞机。
就是没想到UA和芝加哥机场警察会这么狠。

over

【在 h*********n 的大作中提到】
: 转发朋友的:那被强拖下去的医生当时可能咨询过他的律师了,UA这次根本无权强迫乘
: 客下飞机。有兴趣的可以仔细看看UA的合同。
: Rule 25 (denied boarding) 可以随便拒绝乘客,但是这医生已经登机了,所以Rule
: 25就废掉了。
: UA正常情况下只能用Rule 21 (refusal of transport)来赶已经登机的乘客,但是over
: -sold不属于rule 21的范围。
: UA平时可以随便挑个别的安全之类的借口赶人,但是UA当时显然没意识到,仍按over-
: sold赶人,所以这次UA应该是输定了:
: https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriage.aspx#sec21

d******3
发帖数: 1028
5
dinggg
t***s
发帖数: 4666
6
所以现在CEO 出来spin passenger unruly.

over

【在 h*********n 的大作中提到】
: 转发朋友的:那被强拖下去的医生当时可能咨询过他的律师了,UA这次根本无权强迫乘
: 客下飞机。有兴趣的可以仔细看看UA的合同。
: Rule 25 (denied boarding) 可以随便拒绝乘客,但是这医生已经登机了,所以Rule
: 25就废掉了。
: UA正常情况下只能用Rule 21 (refusal of transport)来赶已经登机的乘客,但是over
: -sold不属于rule 21的范围。
: UA平时可以随便挑个别的安全之类的借口赶人,但是UA当时显然没意识到,仍按over-
: sold赶人,所以这次UA应该是输定了:
: https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriage.aspx#sec21

s******r
发帖数: 5309
7
正解。这次显然是登机口出了问题。
h*********n
发帖数: 11319
8
现在还在扯jb蛋“超售”的都是他妈的UA枪手
专业民事律师眼里这根本就是躺赢的case
FW: Lawyer here. This myth that passengers don't have rights needs to go
away, ASAP. You are dead wrong when saying that United legally kicked him
off the plane.
法律上,航空公司没有权力无故把就座的乘客赶下飞机
1. First of all, it's airline spin to call this an
overbooking. The statutory provision granting them the ability to deny
boarding is about "OVERSALES", specifically defines as booking more reserved
confirmed seats than there are available. This is not what happened. They
did not overbook the flight; they had a fully booked flight, and not only
did everyone already have a reserved confirmed seat, they were all sitting
in them. The law allowing them to denying boarding in the event of an
oversale does not apply.
法律规定航空公司雇员的优先级低于付费旅客
2. Even if it did apply, the law is
unambiguously clear that airlines have to give preference to everyone with
reserved confirmed seats when choosing to involuntarily deny boarding. They
have to always choose the solution that will affect the least amount of
reserved confirmed seats. This rule is straightforward, and United makes
very clear in their own contract of carriage that employees of their own or
of other carriers may be denied boarding without compensation because they
do not have reserved confirmed seats. On its face, it's clear that what they
did was illegal-- they gave preference to their employees over people who
had reserved confirmed seats, in violation of 14 CFR 250.2a.
航空公司无权要求对没有危害飞行安全的旅客动用武力
3. Furthermore, even if you try and twist this into a legal application of
250.
2a and say that United had the right to deny him boarding in the event of an
overbooking; they did NOT have the right to kick him off the plane. Their
contract of carriage highlights there is a complete difference in rights
after you've boarded and sat on the plane, and Rule 21 goes over the
specific scenarios where you could get kicked off. NONE of them apply here.
He did absolutely nothing wrong and shouldn't have been targeted. He's going
to leave with a hefty settlement after this fiasco
o***o
发帖数: 11767
9
去年我也遇到跟美籍华人老中医一模一样的情况。但我是中国公民,大陆来的,有尊严
有素质,关键是还有钱。所以我既不吵也不闹,更不问人家为什么叫我下去不叫别人。
而是心平气和若无其事的一口答应航空公司的条件,然后让空服帮忙给广播一下,说我
愿意在航空公司赔偿的基础上再加两百块钱,问有没有人愿意把他的票让给我。结果整
个机舱的人都伸出手来,一半人手里举着机票,另一半人伸出大拇指给我点赞:“中国
,OK。中国人,了不起”
1 (共1页)
进入Military版参与讨论
相关主题
为啥上了飞机才说overbooking说说我在UA升舱的故事。ZZ华人
如果发生在中国航空公司怎么处理?所有airline都有法律权利赶人走
如果是真的overbooking的情况Delta给赶下飞机那家人赔礼道歉了
抽签可以,但头等舱也要一定概率被抽中美国人民被教育不要当overbook的volunteer。
UA完全不把乘客当人,在律师眼里是躺赢的案子垃圾国家!!!
Dao 被扔下飞机,康奈尔法学院教授,院长如是说!类似的航空超售标准作业程序是什么
跟踪了几天UA事件,弄明白了乘客的权利美国大公司就象中国政府,你必须服从
UA事件可能跟UA没什么直接关系为了亚裔利益,一定要搞大,转自知乎
相关话题的讨论汇总
话题: ua话题: reserved话题: boarding话题: rule话题: confirmed