Author Topic: United Airlines - video  (Read 5532 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: United Airlines - video
« Reply #105 on: April 17, 2017, 01:38:01 PM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33225
  • Tommy Points: -27967
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Quote
Once they let Dr. Dao on the plane, different rules applied.  They could no longer remove him because the plane was overbooked

But they could remove him because the inadvertent overseating of the plane created a safety issue. Nothing in the overbooking section precludes overseating also being a safety issue.

Is United's interpretation of this creating a safety issue arbitrary and capricious? Nope. If United wasn't scared of more bad PR, they'd win this on summary judgment.
Yes, you can wring this any way you want to make it a "safety" issue or an "overbooking" issue, or whatever you might want to call it (for the record, "overbooking" has an actual definition and "overseating" is... well, the affluenza of this conversation, for lack of a better term).

At this point, however, we have to recognize that what you're doing is simply arguing the good old point that businesses are allowed to do whatever their little little heart desire to optimize profits, and consumer rights aren't worth squat.

How does this have anything to do with optimizing profits? If anything, the airline was going to lose money no matter what decision was made.

From my perspective, it's about what's legal. The only potential illegality here is by the police.


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: United Airlines - video
« Reply #106 on: April 17, 2017, 01:41:00 PM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33225
  • Tommy Points: -27967
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Quote
Once they let Dr. Dao on the plane, different rules applied.  They could no longer remove him because the plane was overbooked

But they could remove him because the inadvertent overseating of the plane created a safety issue. Nothing in the overbooking section precludes overseating also being a safety issue.

Is United's interpretation of this creating a safety issue arbitrary and capricious? Nope. If United wasn't scared of more bad PR, they'd win this on summary judgment.

You have just moved the goalposts by going from overbooking to overseating. The published accounts say that the aircraft was full, and there were four United employees AT THE GATE (not on the aircraft) that wanted seats.Saying that a full airplane is unsafe, and that swapping four passengers for different passengers will make it safe, is ridiculous,and a judge who is paying attention will recognize that.

The United crew also had a legal right to seats, and it's up to the airline to decide who flies. As the name implies, "must fly" / "must ride" passengers get first priority, not last.


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: United Airlines - video
« Reply #107 on: April 17, 2017, 01:44:45 PM »

Offline KGs Knee

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9514
  • Tommy Points: 1055
Quote
Once they let Dr. Dao on the plane, different rules applied.  They could no longer remove him because the plane was overbooked

But they could remove him because the inadvertent overseating of the plane created a safety issue. Nothing in the overbooking section precludes overseating also being a safety issue.

Is United's interpretation of this creating a safety issue arbitrary and capricious? Nope. If United wasn't scared of more bad PR, they'd win this on summary judgment.

You have just moved the goalposts by going from overbooking to overseating. The published accounts say that the aircraft was full, and there were four United employees AT THE GATE (not on the aircraft) that wanted seats.Saying that a full airplane is unsafe, and that swapping four passengers for different passengers will make it safe, is ridiculous,and a judge who is paying attention will recognize that.

The United crew also had a legal right to seats, and it's up to the airline to decide who flies. As the name implies, "must fly" / "must ride" passengers get first priority, not last.

They had no legal right to seats if all the seats were filled with boarded passengers already.  There are no seats available to them, as boarded passengers cannot be deplaned for business needs.

Re: United Airlines - video
« Reply #108 on: April 17, 2017, 01:52:01 PM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33225
  • Tommy Points: -27967
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Quote
Once they let Dr. Dao on the plane, different rules applied.  They could no longer remove him because the plane was overbooked

But they could remove him because the inadvertent overseating of the plane created a safety issue. Nothing in the overbooking section precludes overseating also being a safety issue.

Is United's interpretation of this creating a safety issue arbitrary and capricious? Nope. If United wasn't scared of more bad PR, they'd win this on summary judgment.

You have just moved the goalposts by going from overbooking to overseating. The published accounts say that the aircraft was full, and there were four United employees AT THE GATE (not on the aircraft) that wanted seats.Saying that a full airplane is unsafe, and that swapping four passengers for different passengers will make it safe, is ridiculous,and a judge who is paying attention will recognize that.

The United crew also had a legal right to seats, and it's up to the airline to decide who flies. As the name implies, "must fly" / "must ride" passengers get first priority, not last.

They had no legal right to seats if all the seats were filled with boarded passengers already.  There are no seats available to them, as boarded passengers cannot be deplaned for business needs.

Every neutral (in other words, not a plaintiff's attorney)  aviation attorney and expert I've seen weigh in on this says United acted within its rights. The cre had a valid right to board, and was in a higher classification level than the displaced passengers.

And, as mentioned before, any hypothetical fault that United has here wasn't the direct and proximate cause of Dao's injuries. He resisted a police officer.


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: United Airlines - video
« Reply #109 on: April 17, 2017, 02:15:52 PM »

Offline KGs Knee

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9514
  • Tommy Points: 1055
Quote
Once they let Dr. Dao on the plane, different rules applied.  They could no longer remove him because the plane was overbooked

But they could remove him because the inadvertent overseating of the plane created a safety issue. Nothing in the overbooking section precludes overseating also being a safety issue.

Is United's interpretation of this creating a safety issue arbitrary and capricious? Nope. If United wasn't scared of more bad PR, they'd win this on summary judgment.

You have just moved the goalposts by going from overbooking to overseating. The published accounts say that the aircraft was full, and there were four United employees AT THE GATE (not on the aircraft) that wanted seats.Saying that a full airplane is unsafe, and that swapping four passengers for different passengers will make it safe, is ridiculous,and a judge who is paying attention will recognize that.

The United crew also had a legal right to seats, and it's up to the airline to decide who flies. As the name implies, "must fly" / "must ride" passengers get first priority, not last.

They had no legal right to seats if all the seats were filled with boarded passengers already.  There are no seats available to them, as boarded passengers cannot be deplaned for business needs.

Every aviation attorney and expert I've seen weigh in on this says United acted within its rights.

And, as mentioned before, any hypothetical fault that United has here wasn't the direct and proximate cause of Dao's injuries. He resisted a police officer.

Well, United's part in this I just disagree with you on.  I'd bet I'm right here.  But it doesn't matter, Untied will never let it go that far, even if they win, they still lose (something you have already admitted yourself).

As for Dao's interactions with the law enforcement officers, I can't make a definitive judgement, because the video of the incident is blurry and incomplete, nor was I a witness.  On the surface, though, it seems that while law enforcement may have used excessive force I'm not sure they actually did.  I'm assuming they were under the impression United had a legal right to request Dao's removal from the plane, regardless of whether United did or did not have this right.  As such, they had no choice but to treat Dao as "resisting".  They are under legal obligation to remove him from the plane by, essentially, any reasonable means.  I doubt there will be any meaningful punishment for the officers involved, if any at all.

Re: United Airlines - video
« Reply #110 on: April 17, 2017, 02:45:45 PM »

Offline FatKidsDad

  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 360
  • Tommy Points: 44
Quote
Once they let Dr. Dao on the plane, different rules applied.  They could no longer remove him because the plane was overbooked

But they could remove him because the inadvertent overseating of the plane created a safety issue. Nothing in the overbooking section precludes overseating also being a safety issue.

Is United's interpretation of this creating a safety issue arbitrary and capricious? Nope. If United wasn't scared of more bad PR, they'd win this on summary judgment.

You have just moved the goalposts by going from overbooking to overseating. The published accounts say that the aircraft was full, and there were four United employees AT THE GATE (not on the aircraft) that wanted seats.Saying that a full airplane is unsafe, and that swapping four passengers for different passengers will make it safe, is ridiculous,and a judge who is paying attention will recognize that.

The United crew also had a legal right to seats, and it's up to the airline to decide who flies. As the name implies, "must fly" / "must ride" passengers get first priority, not last.

They had no legal right to seats if all the seats were filled with boarded passengers already.  There are no seats available to them, as boarded passengers cannot be deplaned for business needs.
KGK is correct. And it is true that "must fly" / "must ride" passengers get first priority. But we covered this earlier in the thread. These employees are not entitled to "must fly" status, which has a legal definition in Federal regulation. Even if company policy grants them priority, that does not give them rights superior to those granted to the passenger under the Contract of Carriage (https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriage.aspx#sec21).

In fact, Rule 21 of the contract spells out the only conditions under which a passenger may be denied transport, for which the only compensation is a refund of fare. Apparently, United does not believe those conditions were met, because they offered compensation under Rule 25.

So if , as you say, it's up to the airline to decide who flies, and they choose the crew, they do so at the risk of a breach of contract charge.

Still, this is not a clear-cut case. Three points could be argued.

1. United's mishandling of the situation led to Dr. Dao's improper removal, which he justifiably protested. Even though security personnel and not United caused Dr. Dao's injuries, security acted on a customer service issue at United's improper request and became United's agent. United is responsible. or,

2. Once Dr. Dao became vocal in his refusal to comply with United's improper removal, he crossed the line. He was then belligerent and non-compliant, and a security-based removal was justified. He is responsible for his own injuries. or;

3. Security used excessive force. They are responsible for the injuries.

This looks nuanced enough to preclude summary judgement, and there is a good probability that if this isn't settled out of court, proportionate liability could come in to play.

And to think that if only United had offered future flight vouchers they might have found a volunteer and avoided all this.
"If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking." - George S. Patton
   
"Live so that when your children think of fairness and integrity,they think of you." -   H. Jackson Brown, Jr.

Re: United Airlines - video
« Reply #111 on: April 17, 2017, 02:54:30 PM »

Offline kozlodoev

  • JoJo White
  • ****************
  • Posts: 16457
  • Tommy Points: 1171
Quote
Once they let Dr. Dao on the plane, different rules applied.  They could no longer remove him because the plane was overbooked

But they could remove him because the inadvertent overseating of the plane created a safety issue. Nothing in the overbooking section precludes overseating also being a safety issue.

Is United's interpretation of this creating a safety issue arbitrary and capricious? Nope. If United wasn't scared of more bad PR, they'd win this on summary judgment.
Yes, you can wring this any way you want to make it a "safety" issue or an "overbooking" issue, or whatever you might want to call it (for the record, "overbooking" has an actual definition and "overseating" is... well, the affluenza of this conversation, for lack of a better term).

At this point, however, we have to recognize that what you're doing is simply arguing the good old point that businesses are allowed to do whatever their little little heart desire to optimize profits, and consumer rights aren't worth squat.

How does this have anything to do with optimizing profits? If anything, the airline was going to lose money no matter what decision was made.

From my perspective, it's about what's legal. The only potential illegality here is by the police.
How does this have anything to do with anything but optimizing profits? The airline had a host of other options, including offering higher compensation, rerouting them via another airline, or even commissioning an urgent charter.

I'm having a bit of a difficult time pinning down the nature of the argument, since you've pivoted a handful of times from "normal overbooking practice" to "hardship to a large(r) number of passengers on potentially cancelled flights" to "safety issues". Feel free to correct me if I am wrong and pinpoint specifically to what you're trying to argue here.

There's nothing in United's Contract of Carriage that stipulates that boarded passengers can be delplaned in favor of "must fly" employees. This doesn't contradict the nature of having "must fly" regulations -- there are other ways to fly.
(Formerly) managing Rilski Sportist to glory at http://www.buzzerbeater.com

Re: United Airlines - video
« Reply #112 on: April 19, 2017, 10:42:34 PM »

Offline FatKidsDad

  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 360
  • Tommy Points: 44
"If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking." - George S. Patton
   
"Live so that when your children think of fairness and integrity,they think of you." -   H. Jackson Brown, Jr.

Re: United Airlines - video
« Reply #113 on: April 19, 2017, 11:13:34 PM »

Offline Moranis

  • Global Moderator
  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17139
  • Tommy Points: 816
Below is Rule 21 from United's contract.  There is nothing that allows United to remove Dr. Dao from the plane in this situation.  That is why letting him board was the problem and that is also why United has now changed their own policy regarding crew members on flights.  Now the gate staff will be given at least an hour's notice that a deadhead crew will be on the flight so that the gate staff can find people to give up seats and to ensure that no one boards the plane until a sufficient number of seats have been given up. 

It should also be emphasized again, that United will have a difficult time even proving this was an oversold flight triggering Rule 25 and the ability to offer compensation.  Here is the definition of oversold flight from the United contract "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."  And here is the definition of Passenger from the United Contract. "Passenger means any person, except members of the crew, carried or holding a confirmed reservation to be carried in an aircraft with the consent of the carrier."
It is possible that all 4 of those United employees had valid confirmed Tickets, checked-in within the prescribed time, and meet the definition of Passenger, but it is also possible they did not. 

Here is the contract (specifically Rule 21 but it is all there)

https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriage.aspx#sec21

(the formatting is a bit strange in the cut and paste)

Rule 21 Refusal of Transport
UA shall have the right to refuse to transport or shall have the right to remove from the aircraft at any point, any Passenger for the following reasons:
Breach of Contract of Carriage – Failure by Passenger to comply with the Rules of the Contract of Carriage.
Government Request, Regulations or Security Directives – Whenever such action is necessary to comply with any government regulation, Customs and Border Protection, government or airport security directive of any sort, or any governmental request for emergency transportation in connection with the national defense.
Force Majeure and Other Unforeseeable Conditions – Whenever such action is necessary or advisable by reason of weather or other conditions beyond UA’s control including, but not limited to, acts of God, force majeure, strikes, civil commotions, embargoes, wars, hostilities, terrorist activities, or disturbances, whether actual, threatened, or reported.
Search of Passenger or Property – Whenever a Passenger refuses to submit to electronic surveillance or to permit search of his/her person or property.
Proof of Identity – Whenever a Passenger refuses on request to produce identification satisfactory to UA or who presents a Ticket to board and whose identification does not match the name on the Ticket. UA shall have the right, but shall not be obligated, to require identification of persons purchasing tickets and/or presenting a ticket(s) for the purpose of boarding the aircraft.
Failure to Pay – Whenever a Passenger has not paid the appropriate fare for a Ticket, Baggage, or applicable service charges for services required for travel, has not paid an outstanding debt or Court judgment, or has not produced satisfactory proof to UA that the Passenger is an authorized non-revenue Passenger or has engaged in a prohibited practice as specified in Rule 6.
Across International Boundaries – Whenever a Passenger is traveling across any international boundary if:
The government required travel documents of such Passenger appear not to be in order according to UA's reasonable belief; or
Such Passenger’s embarkation from, transit through, or entry into any country from, through, or to which such Passenger desires transportation would be unlawful or denied for any reason.
Safety – Whenever refusal or removal of a Passenger may be necessary for the safety of such Passenger or other Passengers or members of the crew including, but not limited to:
Passengers whose conduct is disorderly, offensive, abusive, or violent;
Passengers who fail to comply with or interfere with the duties of the members of the flight crew, federal regulations, or security directives;
Passengers who assault any employee of UA, including the gate agents and flight crew, or any UA Passenger;
Passengers who, through and as a result of their conduct, cause a disturbance such that the captain or member of the cockpit crew must leave the cockpit in order to attend to the disturbance;
Passengers who are barefoot or not properly clothed;
Passengers who appear to be intoxicated or under the influence of drugs to a degree that the Passenger may endanger the Passenger or another Passenger or members of the crew (other than a qualified individual whose appearance or involuntary behavior may make them appear to be intoxicated or under the influence of drugs);
Passengers wearing or possessing on or about their person concealed or unconcealed deadly or dangerous weapons; provided, however, that UA will carry law enforcement personnel who meet the qualifications and conditions established in 49 C.F.R. §1544.219;
Passengers who are unwilling or unable to follow UA’s policy on smoking or use of other smokeless materials;
Unless they comply with Rule 6 I), Passengers who are unable to sit in a single seat with the seat belt properly secured, and/or are unable to put the seat’s armrests down when seated and remain seated with the armrest down for the entirety of the flight, and/or passengers who significantly encroach upon the adjoining passenger’s seat;
Passengers who are manacled or in the custody of law enforcement personnel;
Passengers who have resisted or may reasonably be believed to be capable of resisting custodial supervision;
Pregnant Passengers in their ninth month, unless such Passenger provides a doctor’s certificate dated no more than 72 hours prior to departure stating that the doctor has examined and found the Passenger to be physically fit for air travel to and from the destination requested on the date of the flight, and that the estimated date of delivery is after the date of the last flight;
Passengers who are incapable of completing a flight safely, without requiring extraordinary medical assistance during the flight, as well as Passengers who appear to have symptoms of or have a communicable disease or condition that could pose a direct threat to the health or safety of others on the flight, or who refuse a screening for such disease or condition. (NOTE: UA requires a medical certificate for Passengers who wish to travel under such circumstances. Visit UA’s website, united.com, for more information regarding UA’s requirements for medical certificates);
Passengers who fail to travel with the required safety assistant(s), advance notice and/or other safety requirements pursuant to Rules 14 and 15;
Passengers who do not qualify as acceptable Non-Ambulatory Passengers (see Rule 14);
Passengers who have or cause a malodorous condition (other than individuals qualifying as disabled);
Passengers whose physical or mental condition is such that, in United’s sole opinion, they are rendered or likely to be rendered incapable of comprehending or complying with safety instructions without the assistance of an escort. The escort must accompany the escorted passenger at all times; and
Unaccompanied passengers who are both blind and deaf, unless such passenger is able to communicate with representatives of UA by either physical, mechanical, electronic, or other means. Such passenger must inform UA of the method of communication to be used; and
Passengers who are unwilling to follow UA’s policy that prohibits voice calls after the aircraft doors have closed, while taxiing in preparation for takeoff, or while airborne.
Any Passenger who, by reason of engaging in the above activities in this Rule 21, causes UA any loss, damage or expense of any kind, consents and acknowledges that he or she shall reimburse UA for any such loss, damage or expense. UA has the right to refuse transport, on a permanent basis, to any passenger who, by reason of engaging in the above activities in this Rule 21, causes UA any loss, damage or expense of any kind, or who has been disorderly, offensive, abusive, or violent. In addition, the activities enumerated in H) 1) through 8) shall constitute a material breach of contract, for which UA shall be excused from performing its obligations under this contract.
UA is not liable for its refusal to transport any passenger or for its removal of any passenger in accordance with this Rule. A Passenger who is removed or refused transportation in accordance with this Rule may be eligible for a refund upon request. See Rule 27 A). As an express precondition to issuance of any refund, UA shall not be responsible for damages of any kind whatsoever. The passenger’s sole and exclusive remedy shall be Rule 27 A).
Ohio State 2014/15 National Champions.

Re: United Airlines - video
« Reply #114 on: April 29, 2017, 02:06:32 PM »

Offline KGs Knee

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9514
  • Tommy Points: 1055
Well, as was expected, United has reached a settlement with Dr Dao.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/united-airlines-chief-executive-set-to-testify-before-congress/ar-BBAuGen?OCID=ansmsnnews11

Furthermore, United's CEO and other top ranking officials have been compelled to testify before Congress, in an effort to determine, "what can be done to improve the flying experience for American travelers".

Also, United, and other airlines, have made major changes to internal policies regarding how they handle overbooked flights.  Southwest Airlines has stated they will end the practice of overbooking flights all-together.

Quote
United said on Thursday it would offer passengers who give up their seats up to $10,000, reduce the practice of overbooking flights and repeated it would no longer call on law enforcement officers to deny ticketed passengers their seats.

Southwest Airlines said on Thursday it would end the overbooking of flights.

I guess these airlines are finally getting the message.  About [dang] time.

Re: United Airlines - video
« Reply #115 on: May 02, 2017, 10:11:45 PM »

Offline indeedproceed

  • In The Rafters
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 41485
  • Tommy Points: 2304
  • You ain't the boss of the freakin' bedclothes.
Well, as was expected, United has reached a settlement with Dr Dao.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/united-airlines-chief-executive-set-to-testify-before-congress/ar-BBAuGen?OCID=ansmsnnews11

Furthermore, United's CEO and other top ranking officials have been compelled to testify before Congress, in an effort to determine, "what can be done to improve the flying experience for American travelers".

Also, United, and other airlines, have made major changes to internal policies regarding how they handle overbooked flights.  Southwest Airlines has stated they will end the practice of overbooking flights all-together.

Quote
United said on Thursday it would offer passengers who give up their seats up to $10,000, reduce the practice of overbooking flights and repeated it would no longer call on law enforcement officers to deny ticketed passengers their seats.

Southwest Airlines said on Thursday it would end the overbooking of flights.

I guess these airlines are finally getting the message.  About [dang] time.

As a 6'3 fat guy I'd really like it if they made seats bigger. Not like a lot bigger, but a little bit. My knees, man. My GD knees!

"You've gotta respect a 15-percent 3-point shooter. A guy
like that is always lethal." - Evan 'The God' Turner

Re: United Airlines - video
« Reply #116 on: May 03, 2017, 05:23:12 PM »

Offline Big333223

  • NCE
  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3564
  • Tommy Points: 322
Well, as was expected, United has reached a settlement with Dr Dao.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/united-airlines-chief-executive-set-to-testify-before-congress/ar-BBAuGen?OCID=ansmsnnews11

Furthermore, United's CEO and other top ranking officials have been compelled to testify before Congress, in an effort to determine, "what can be done to improve the flying experience for American travelers".

Also, United, and other airlines, have made major changes to internal policies regarding how they handle overbooked flights.  Southwest Airlines has stated they will end the practice of overbooking flights all-together.

Quote
United said on Thursday it would offer passengers who give up their seats up to $10,000, reduce the practice of overbooking flights and repeated it would no longer call on law enforcement officers to deny ticketed passengers their seats.

Southwest Airlines said on Thursday it would end the overbooking of flights.

I guess these airlines are finally getting the message.  About [dang] time.

As a 6'3 fat guy I'd really like it if they made seats bigger. Not like a lot bigger, but a little bit. My knees, man. My GD knees!
I'm 5'7" and I think their isn't enough leg room. I feel for you.

Re: United Airlines - video
« Reply #117 on: May 03, 2017, 05:41:35 PM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33225
  • Tommy Points: -27967
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
I thought the American Airlines video was much worse. It's interesting that the United video got a lot more attention.


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: United Airlines - video
« Reply #118 on: May 03, 2017, 06:18:50 PM »

Offline Big333223

  • NCE
  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3564
  • Tommy Points: 322
I thought the American Airlines video was much worse. It's interesting that the United video got a lot more attention.
Worse for the airline or just worse in that the video itself showed a much more violent/dangerous confrontation?

Re: United Airlines - video
« Reply #119 on: May 03, 2017, 06:20:11 PM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33225
  • Tommy Points: -27967
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
I thought the American Airlines video was much worse. It's interesting that the United video got a lot more attention.
Worse for the airline or just worse in that the video itself showed a much more violent/dangerous confrontation?

The latter. It shows the airline employee being an active aggressor.


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...