B747-437B From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (11 years 6 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 2441 times:
Michael Dasrath, who was traveling on a Continental Airlines non-revenue standby pass obtained through his wife, has sued Continental Airlines for the "economic loss, humilitation, embarassment, emotional distress and the deprivation of the right to travel as a passenger in air transportation".
Mr. Dasrath, a US Citizen of Guyanese origin, believes that he was pulled out of his non-revenue First Class seat on a flight on NEW YEARS EVE from Newark to Tampa solely on the basis of his somewhat Middle Eastern appearance.
Continental later reaccomodated him as POSITIVE SPACE PASSENGER in FIRST CLASS on a flight to Orlando leaving 30 minutes later, as well as provided him VOUCHERS for ground transportation to Tampa. However, he allegedly suffered "financial injury" as a result of this.
Rootsgirl From Canada, joined Mar 2001, 530 posts, RR: 3 Reply 1, posted (11 years 6 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 2392 times:
I think we need all the facts here.
Non revs should go on last. Is it possible that a confirmed pax upgraded? If this is the case the airline will usually remove the pax that checked in last ( obviously the non-rev) It appears that Continental tried to make up for this by giving him a " confirmed" seat on the next flight as well as vouchers. I am in the industry and this is not abnormal.
But, I can't seem to get into the URL that has the text of the plaint, so I really don't know the pax side to it.
Erj-145mech From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 306 posts, RR: 1 Reply 2, posted (11 years 6 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2356 times:
Non-Rev's, or pass riders do not have legal recourse, due to the "terms and conditions" that they accept when they use the privilege. It is not policy to give the pass rider a first class seat and voucher if they are denied boarding for whatever reason. He must have been a first class upgrade to receive these.
If he was a bona fide pass rider, and he caused a scene, he would jeopardise his wife's pass riding privilege, or possibly cause for dismissal.
Looks2SkyOften From United States of America, joined Jun 2002, 5 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (11 years 6 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2332 times:
I personally think these race based lawsuits are ludicrous and are going to destroy the industry and eventually kill more Americans. This is falling right into the plan of our enemies, our rules and freedoms are playing against us and it will turn us against one another, it is unfortunate but things have changed, many things and if it means you have to put up with a little extra crap because people of your mother land infiltrated the trust of your fellow Americans and killed them, then deal with it or go back.
I do not consider my self racist but the facts remain, 19 men of middle eastern decent overtook four airliners and killed thousands of american citizens. Are we not supposed to take a closer look at these individuals, should we just let it happen again because we are afraid we will be sued, am I as a pilot supposed to suspect someone and not do anything about it only to find that individual jamming a plastic fork into my neck or trying to ignite his sneakers. These law suits are frivolous and greedy, they need to be thrown out immediately and the federal government needs to stand behind that decision. It is now an issue of national security, period!
Brick From United States of America, joined Aug 1999, 1572 posts, RR: 8 Reply 6, posted (11 years 6 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2329 times:
I've lost count how many times I've been settled into to first class and I've gotten yanked back into coach while flying non-rev with AA. Just about how many times I've been settled in coach and have had to get off the plane all together because of a late passenger check-in.
Mcringring From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (11 years 6 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2318 times:
Yeah, but I'm sure you weren't removed because another passenger thought you were acting suspicious, despite not talking to anyone or getting out of your seat - which is this man's (and the ACLU's ) claim. Even saying that the other CO employees recognized this as profiling and were apologetic and embrassed. They also probably didn't go through your luggage and destroy a computer you bought for your kids. Another claim.
I'd like to see what the crew on that flight has to say.
Looks2SkyOften From United States of America, joined Jun 2002, 5 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (11 years 6 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2291 times:
I have read the above complaint by the party suing and if they are the facts this man and the others were defiantly unfairly treated. They judged tried and punished based on anther passengers suspicion because they were of "brown skin" thats what she said, frankly continental should of removed her for starting a ruckus. A better solution would have been for the captain to speak to these men inquire about there travel, this is the kind of "extra crap" I mentioned above, but again this puts the captain on the hook for a law suit based on discrimination. Can we be safe without being discriminatory.
Hmflyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 83 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (11 years 6 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 2247 times:
If you read the facts it is clear that the passenger was not removed to let revenue passengers take their seats. If that had been the case, CO would not have gone through great lengths to get the nonrevs on the Orlando flight.
People seem to feel that when you are flying nonrev, you are not entitled to basic respect, this is not the case. True you are at the bottom of the food chain when it comes to getting a seat or meals, but when it comes to being treated with respect, nonrevs are entitled to as much as anyone else.
If in fact CO removed this nonrev for no other reason but their appearance than CO should be held liable. Nonrev or not, that passenger had as much right to be on the plane as anyone else. If some other passenger has a problem with his appearance, she should have been given the option to leave.
Remember the blind passenger that sued America West because they were removed from First Class because another passenger objected to the seeing-eye dog. The passenger won the suit and was in fact a non-rev.
I guarantee that the LAST thing CO will do is pull the wife's nonrev passes. To do so would only give another reason, rightfully so, to sue.
Alpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 13, posted (11 years 6 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2222 times:
I guarantee that the LAST thing CO will do is pull the wife's nonrev passes. To do so would only give another reason, rightfully so, to sue.
No, they won't pull her pass privelages, but if she and her hubby are suing, over something the airline has a right to do-airlines have a right to deny anyone boarding), then they'll just terminate her employment with the company.
Fly_emirates From United Arab Emirates, joined Oct 2000, 1046 posts, RR: 9 Reply 14, posted (11 years 6 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2201 times:
when i saw the post first of all and saw that he is a non rev passenger, i thought well he cant sue, but while reading the complaint, i can only say that America is getting paranoia all over the place! I mean true that the people who hijacked the planes were of a middleastern descent, but the terrorists are not that stupid to play the same game again, and they would want to use another method.
I travel as a non-rev on myairline, just paying 5% of the ticket price, and i would understand that i should giveup my seat if there was a revenue passegner, the thing is when i am working on that flight and a passenger comes to me and she is like "Oh, i dont feel comfortable flying with that passenger because he is from such race," i would rather deplane her, and put her on another flight. in addition, she was seated in economy, what would bring her to the first class? and why did the captain listen to her instead of calming her down? this is a real case of racial discrimination.
the only case of deplaning that i agree with is the case that occured on American airlines, when they had to deplane the armed secret agent.
and ual777contrail, when ever i read your comments, they are just as sick! please consider reading the facts when you post next time, rather than making your self appear as a mindless idiot.
Nonrevman From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 1289 posts, RR: 1 Reply 15, posted (11 years 6 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2201 times:
I have to go with HMflyer on this one. If he was removed because of skin color and not because of another check-in, then we have a problem here (nonrev or not). Since none of us likely observed the actual situation, who knows exactly what happened?
As a nonrev, I would say that we are simply lucky to get on the plane these days. First Class is a great benefit, but the paying people must be accomodated first. However, if a nonrev is removed due to discrimination alone, then they do have a case.
Artsyman From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 4745 posts, RR: 36 Reply 17, posted (11 years 6 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2169 times:
I am interested to see how he suffered financial injury. I hope that he was trying to get to a business meeting or something as we are not allowed to use our passes for business travel, they are for pleasure only, so if he missed a business meeting or something because of this, then he is up the creek
Padcrasher From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 18, posted (11 years 6 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 2164 times:
The fact that he was non-reving does not mean squat. If it is determined CO was grossly negligent then damages can be awarded. No company can waive away liability for actions that are determined to be "grossly negligent". No matter what the terms and conditions of his ticket read. To make an extreme case, the gate agent cannot shoot non-revs they dislike can they? Or do the terms and conditions of his ticket allow this.
Mcringring From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 19, posted (11 years 6 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 2154 times:
Artsyman: read the link at the top of the page. He was just trying to get home to his family for New Year's. I doubt that's against company policy. He claims the laptop he bought for his kids was destroyed because someone tore open his bag. Then again, I guess they can always post a "not responsible for theft or damage" sticker somewhere to relieve themselves of even more responsibility. Better yet, a "we can do anything we want" sticker would advise travellers that they have no rights, as some here would have us believe.
BTW, you would think people would actually read the link before spouting their "airlines can never do wrong" rhetoric. Not aimed at anyone in particular, but I'm sure you know who you are. We'll have a better idea of the whole picture if and when CO issues a statement about this, but I'm sure it will be along the lines of "can't comment on litigation."
777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 20, posted (11 years 6 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 2134 times:
over something the airline has a right to do-airlines have a right to deny anyone boarding
Despite what's said on the ticket, airlines need a reason to offload somebody. Their legislation does not superceed state and federal legislation. If a person is offloaded because they're black or asian or female or a lowly coach customer or just because the captain didn't like them, the airline is in the wrong, DESPITE what's written on the ticket, and the passenger should (rightfully) sue and win damages.
Artsyman From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 4745 posts, RR: 36 Reply 21, posted (11 years 6 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 2119 times:
Despite what you guys think, a non rev has no rights when it comes to getting a seat, none. We are told this, it is on a waiver that we have to acknowledge everytime we go to list ourselves for a flight. There are lots of times that non revs are pulled off a flight because a full fare showed up last minute. Non revving is a perk, it is a space available perk. I am not sure what the guy is expecting to gain, his wives job will be strained severely, and he is never going to get much money out of this if any at all, so all he is doing is making life difficult for everyone.
ExitRow From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 23, posted (11 years 6 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 2098 times:
After reading the complaint (which I recommend to everyone), it seems like an unfortunate experience for Mr. Dasrath. It also has almost nothing to do with "non-revenue" service. Based on this account, this man was needlessly pulled from the plane and subjected to stress he did not deserve.
The key phrase in the complaint IMO is:
Mr. Dasrath was cleared by airport security to proceed to gate C-91, where his flight was scheduled to depart at 4:10 p.m.
Whether the woman with the dog was suspicious or not, Mr. Dasrath PASSED two security checks. (Including the "random" second check.) Would she and her dog be more at ease if they strip-searched him in the cabin and duct-taped him to his seat?
"...brown-skinned men are behaving suspiciously."
If this phrase was indeed spoken aloud and confirmed, and the Captain removed the passenger based on that complaint despite being cleared by airport security personnel, the airline seems to have discriminated against Mr. Dasrath and he should be entitled to damages based on the law and not opinion.
As President George W. Bush himself said, "no one should be singled out for unfair treatment or unkind words because of their background or religious faith." Attorney General Ashcroft affirmed, "we must not descend to the level of those who perpetrated Tuesday's violence by targeting individuals based on their race, their religion, [or] their national origin."
Seems like a no-brainer to me. Selective employees of Continental airlines made a bad decision in this case, and unfortunately, the company will have to pay the consequences.
These things should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis and not overly generalised as "playing the race card."