Did United Airlines have any other choice than to eject that passenger?

[coloradoatheist]

Are they required by law to have at least 10 hours rest prior to working? Nobody else on the plane said, "I'll go since he is a doctor"

Pilots are not required "by law" to get their rest at the expense of someone else's job. Moreover, no one else on the plane said "I'll go because he's a pilot" either. And finally, to the best of my knowledge, no one has even supported the claim that we are discussing 4 pilots if the first place. "Crew" refers to flight attendants, ground crew, and others that don't even have the same rest requirements.

Flight attendants get 9 hours of required rest, pilots 10. If it was ground that didn't require any rest then they wouldn't have been put on a must fly list.

 

[RavenSky]

Flight attendants get 9 hours of required rest, pilots 10. If it was ground that didn't require any rest then they wouldn't have been put on a must fly list.

Do you have factual evidence, are you guessing, or are you using Loren as your authority?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You have no idea what you are talking about. you are pulling random numbers out of your ass here.

You don't realize how many passengers don't fill seats for one reason or another.

there is already a price point for "first come first served" seating. it's called flying standby. That is how they profit even more on the refundable seats, and double their take on the non-refundable ones.

You realize standby isn't cheap anymore?

What is the net profit of UA last year? do you even know? If regulating the airlines such that they are forced to provide services that they accept payment for reduces their profit by (random number you used) 20%, why is that bad.

1) United made about $10/seat last year.

2) I didn't say reduce their profit by 20%, I said increase their tickets by about 20%.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You better believe they will aggressively try to settle. This is hugely bad for them. Expect to see this go to jury and expect a punitive damages award severe enough for all airlines to restructure their procedures for survival.

You think you can find a jury that doesn't have a single person on it that has been unfairly treated in an airport anywhere, ever?

The punitive damages will be the net sales (not profit) of UA and UA holdings on all routes, globally, for one day. In 2016 that was 2.3 BILLION dollars for the year. So one day would be over 6 million.

This guy is getting over 10 million in combined awards.... without a doubt in my mind.

Before I did the math I estimated closer to 100 million in punitive, to ensure the industry is HIGHLY motivated to change. Now that I did the math, I see that would be a bit over the top.. .but still possible.

If such an award is made it will be reduced on appeal.

United's liability is $1,350, the IDB limit. Punitive damages are almost never allowed to be more than 10x actual.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Flight attendants get 9 hours of required rest, pilots 10. If it was ground that didn't require any rest then they wouldn't have been put on a must fly list.

Do you have factual evidence, are you guessing, or are you using Loren as your authority?

Factual evidence that flight attendants get 9 hours mandated rest between duties? Or that these 4 were flight attendants?

 

[Keith&Co.]

I'm not disagreeing with you, but they can update the Carriage of Contract to include that these provisions apply until the door is closed, just so everyone knows.

Well, yeah. If 'boarding' is not going to be defined as 'individual with two feet inside the aircraft,' then they CAN define it any damned way they want. I don't think it's any less rational to say 'once the computer scans the boarding pass' than to say 'once the door is shut and dogged.'

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The irony of this board is that United was prioritizing their employees over their customers, something people criticize companies when they do the opposite. It was union rules and government regulations that made it that United had to get those 4 people to the destination so they had enough time to rest before a flight the next day.

Had United not done it far more passengers would not have gotten to fly. The approach they took actually reduced the harm to passengers, except this guy chose to fight the cops.

- - - Updated - - -

A guy who clearly knows he is in the wrong does not calmly tell the police rent-a-cops that he will be filing a lawsuit if they persist, and further call their bluff by telling them to go ahead and take him to jail.

It's called intimidation. He was trying to make the cops back down.

If he truly believed that why did he resist being removed, and then break free and run back onto the airplane?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This guy was not shouting. He was calm in stating the facts as he saw them. The fact that he has now filed a lawsuit shows that he was not bluffing, the fact that he was not jailed shows that the rent-a-cops were bluffing. Loren's new video evidence was an epic fail when it comes to supporting his argument.

The point of the video is that it shows he was informed of the situation and chose to resist, it wasn't a case of the cops simply grabbing him and dragging him off. He was given a chance to obey the law, he refused and they used force.

 

[coloradoatheist]

I'm not disagreeing with you, but they can update the Carriage of Contract to include that these provisions apply until the door is closed, just so everyone knows.

Well, yeah. If 'boarding' is not going to be defined as 'individual with two feet inside the aircraft,' then they CAN define it any damned way they want. I don't think it's any less rational to say 'once the computer scans the boarding pass' than to say 'once the door is shut and dogged.'

I am not saying they have to use boarding in that term or not. They can write that says until the aircraft doors are closed the airline can bump your seat for the following conditions and also include crew re-alignment.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'm not disagreeing with you, but they can update the Carriage of Contract to include that these provisions apply until the door is closed, just so everyone knows.

Well, yeah. If 'boarding' is not going to be defined as 'individual with two feet inside the aircraft,' then they CAN define it any damned way they want. I don't think it's any less rational to say 'once the computer scans the boarding pass' than to say 'once the door is shut and dogged.'

I believe that prior to 9/11, if a known terror suspect had a ticket on a plane, they waited to load their baggage until after the suspect had boarded the plane. This would mean, get in the plane.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Just because UA were following the *rules* doesn't mean they can treat passengers with such disdain.

1 They could have continued to increase the incentive

Which is what they should have done.

2 Put the remaining crew member on a greyhound bus for the 5.5 hour ride

No point to this. Crew rest rules.

3 Paid for a ticket on another airline for the passenger

That's assuming there was another flight in time and it had space.

4 Put the remaining crew member on another airline

This is just a variation on #3.

5 Rented a car for the crew members

Same as #2--counterproductive.

6 put the crew member in a dog crate and put him in the cargo bay.

Illegal.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, to be fair legally it might be that way, I don't know. Legal definitions are necessarily coherent with "what reasonable people would agree on."

The Contract of Carriage has a "definitions" section and they don't define "board", therefore we are left to the use the ordinary meaning of the word. If you're sitting in your seat ready to go, you have boarded.

The airlines always refer to the "boarding process" and they do not consider it complete until the doors close. The consistency makes me suspect FAA rules are involved but I do not know.

- - - Updated - - -

He can't be punished for not following an unlawful order. That's how you get out of the catch 22.

Barring specific protections to the contrary a business can always order you to leave their property. Failure becomes trespassing and awards you a trip to jail.

 

[Artemus]

If such an award is made it will be reduced on appeal.

United's liability is $1,350, the IDB limit. Punitive damages are almost never allowed to be more than 10x actual.

No legal expert on the planet who has commented agrees with this assessment. Please, explain why they are all wrong.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The airlines always refer to the "boarding process" and they do not consider it complete until the doors close. The consistency makes me suspect FAA rules are involved but I do not know.

Yes, the boarding process... however, that involves lots of people, including the people that boarded the damn plane already. When they close the door, the process is over, not because they consider everyone on the plane being official onboard, but because people can't get through closed doors.

In general, it is extremely rare to ever have someone get on a plane and not go on the flight. I'm sure you have an anecdotal experience to the contrary or even better... a hypothetical.

But in the real world, a person on a plane has boarded the plane. You would need to disembark or unboard a plane to get off it.

 

[Artemus]

The airlines always refer to the "boarding process" and they do not consider it complete until the doors close.

Saying it over and over does not make it true. Please cite the relevant passage of any legally valid document that supports your claim that the passenger had not boarded the aircraft at the point that he was forcefully removed.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Honestly, the biggest failure of United wasn't to mile-high club the entire plane to keep them happy and from publishing the videos.

Barring specific protections to the contrary a business can always order you to leave their property. Failure becomes trespassing and awards you a trip to jail.

In the case of the passenger, he probably can state that he felt he had an extremely legal obligation to being on the plane seeing he paid to be on it. He may not have been aware that United may have possibly had the right to kick him off.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But the employees when they are flying to get in position for the flights they are assigned to crew they are paid. It is also a requirement by the FAA that these crews have certain amounts of rest prior to their flight.

You are honestly trying to claim that the Rule 22 "well-rested crew" clause applies not just to the crew of the current flight, but also to the crew of a flight scheduled to depart the next day? Really? Please cite a legal precedent that backs up that fantastical interpretation.

If they don't get there in time to have enough sleep they won't be allowed to fly the flight they are intended to fly. The FAA is serious about crew rest rules.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Are they required by law to have at least 10 hours rest prior to working? Nobody else on the plane said, "I'll go since he is a doctor"

Pilots are not required "by law" to get their rest at the expense of someone else's job. Moreover, no one else on the plane said "I'll go because he's a pilot" either. And finally, to the best of my knowledge, no one has even supported the claim that we are discussing 4 pilots if the first place. "Crew" refers to flight attendants, ground crew, and others that don't even have the same rest requirements.

The flight crew doesn't get it's rest, they don't fly the plane. Doesn't matter if that means 300 people get stranded for a week in the wrong country.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Barring specific protections to the contrary a business can always order you to leave their property. Failure becomes trespassing and awards you a trip to jail.

So, you disagree with the lawyers and the actual Contract of Carriage? They specifically outlined in their contract the reasons why they can refuse transport. I have yet to see an argument from United saying that what they did was in conformance with that contract.

It'd be interesting to look at any court precedent for someone selling entry to a venue, then revoking that sale and declaring the person to whom they sold entry a trespasser.

I know you can say this stuff, but that doesn't mean it conforms with reality and legal/judicial precedent.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Honestly, the biggest failure of United wasn't to mile-high club the entire plane to keep them happy and from publishing the videos.

Barring specific protections to the contrary a business can always order you to leave their property. Failure becomes trespassing and awards you a trip to jail.

In the case of the passenger, he probably can state that he felt he had an extremely legal obligation to being on the plane seeing he paid to be on it. He may not have been aware that United may have possibly had the right to kick him off.

Ignorance of the law is not a defense.

 

[Lion IRC]

Excellent thread.
Can't wait for driverless cars and the same smart technology which issues one too many boarding passes can 'decide' which vehicle gets priority.