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

[J842P]

^^^ A Libertarian, folks.

There are means to deal with this peacefully. You go with the officer and sue the airlines for breach of contract.

Right, we should just accept that agents of the state can use force to coerce us at the bidding of rent seekers. It's like Ayn Rand herself envisioned!

 

[Elixir]

There are means to deal with this peacefully. You go with the officer and sue the airlines for breach of contract.

Right, we should just accept that agents of the Corporate State can use force to coerce us at the bidding of rent seekers. It's like Ayn Rand herself envisioned!

FIFY

 

[RavenSky]

I believe this has already been mentioned, but it bears repeating given how many people are still insisting United did nothing wrong:



Note to those people trying to insist that Dr. Dao was not "boarded" because the airplane doors weren't yet closed: "passengers who have already boarded". Even United acknowledges that 'on airplane' is "boarded"

http://www.bizjournals.com/southflo...united-changes-policy-wont-force-boarded.html

Except they are mechanisms for Dr Dao to do something about it. He gets off the plane and sues and then the courts settle the issue of whether or not it was a breach of contract.

And the other mechanism is passive resistance. Had he gotten off the airplane, United would have said he did so voluntarily There was nothing "voluntary" about it, obviously.

United was in the wrong. They know & acknowledge it, even if you refuse to do so. As I said before, I am frankly shocked at your position on this topic. I never thought of you as one of the authoritarian boot-licker bunch. I guess I was wrong.

 

[RavenSky]

The disturbing thing about all this is that a mega-corp used taxpayers' money to violently impose their will upon a customer, and nobody seems to see that as a harbinger of the way things are going. It's a cultural outgrowth of the Cheato "philosophy".

This, unfortunately, long pre-dates Cheato, but yes - it is not a good sign

 

[Keith&Co.]

I agree with you on the pause part. If they were not cops and can't, then they have to call the real cops. But no, cops in general do not have to wait for you to call a lawyer to get an opinion.
.

These weren't cops.
They'd been told to stop wearing uniforms that indicated that they were.

So THESE GUYS in THIS SITUATION should have let him finish his damned phone call.
THESE GUYS should not have been called.

 

[RavenSky]

How is it a screw up when weather delays cause your flight crew to go over FAA working hours limit? So they find another crew that's eligible to go on the plane and they work on getting them in time.

Provide factual evidence with links to your sources showing that "weather delays" caused the problem.

Or are you just making shit up again?

 

[RavenSky]

...Also, he had paid for his seat and taken it, which is the equivalent of renting someone's property. If you're about to move into an apartment and the landlord says he doesn't want you taking up residence, he has a lot more leeway on the matter than if you'd paid him rent and moved in. At that point, police officers cannot just remove you from the apartment simply because the owner of the property decided that he wanted to give it to someone else. Similarly, he had rented the seat for the duration of the flight and taken it, which is an entirely different situation than being outside the plane and wanting to take the seat. If the law is unclear, the police need to find out the specifics of the law before they proceed and especially before they resort to violence.

Except cops don't have to do that. They don't have to be experts in the law of every fine print. That's the courts. There is a dispute between parties where one is on another person's property and the laws have given airlines a lot of leeway to say no... They settle the issue by asking someone to leave peacefully and then work it out

Tom's point is an excellent analogy, and I can confirm for a fact that a police officer will NOT throw a tenant out once they have taken possession of the property unless there is a court order telling them to do so. This applies even when the "tenant" is a fraudster who has broken into a property and taken possession of it, and the property owner is 100% in the right.

The police most certainly do NOT drag the tenant out of the property and then tell them to settle it in court. Quite the opposite. They tell the property owner to go to court first and get a court order to remove the tenant.

Being bumped is a well known turn.

Dr. Dao was not "bumped"

 

[RavenSky]

And they asked this and the guy was checking with his lawyer to see if it was something that they could ask. Then they grabbed him and threw him out before he could determine that. If police tell me I need to leave an apartment I'm renting, I'm not going anywhere until I call my lawyer and find out if that's a valid order. I know that tenants have rights and I may find myself in weaker legal situation if I voluntarily leave the premises, so I need to find that out before I go. If the cops aren't totally sure of what the law is in the situation, picking one side and saying that that party is correct and beating on the other guy isn't part of a decent procedure.

This isn't an occupancy issue, it's a business service issue and you are on the property of someone else. It would be the rules of shopping at Target and when they can refuse you service and there are a lot of cases where the airline can refuse service and post 9/11 the airline and security have even more rights. The pilot should have left and evaluated the situation and said that we don't think you can handle your respoinsibilities on this plane and we'll work with you on getting you to your destinate at the counter. Final word of the pilot.

People shopping at Target have not already paid. Dr. Dao had already paid AND already by boarded. He is far more like a tenant than a shopper at Target.

 

[TSwizzle]

And the other mechanism is passive resistance. Had he gotten off the airplane, United would have said he did so voluntarily There was nothing "voluntary" about it, obviously.

No, I don't think so. It was already established he had been selected for being bumped off the flight involuntarily.

 

[RavenSky]

Don't think so. I think tourists will continue to only stare at the price tag. "Sure, they beat an innocent traveller up and threw him off the plane, but it is 5 dollar cheaper". Won't really affect business travellers since they're not thrown off planes anyway. I don't think much will happen. But it has still been a disaster for the PR. Their staff won't want to work their. The good staff will find other employers. Stuff like that will happen.

My company just booked me to fly United. So yeah...

 

[RavenSky]

Better than your automatic assumption the company is wrong if you don't like the outcome.

You're not exactly the person who should be throwing out accusations of automatic assumptions.

Or accusations of being a know-it-all

Yet you seem to think you know more about what they can do than they do. If they can't get it right, how can you--an outsider who doesn't even know the applicable rules--hope to do better?

 

[RavenSky]

He refused to come peacefully so they pulled and hit one of the myriad of bad things in the space. Excessive force would have been shooting the guy for not moving. Maybe they should have tazed him instead???

^^^ A Libertarian, folks.

cr;jq

 

[RavenSky]

Weird how property rights can be discarded so quickly by property rights advocates when it suits them.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

Property rights, if we are going with property rights it would be Uniteds property rights.

Not when Dr. Dao has already paid for and taken possession of that property with the legal and valid expectation of occupying it for the agreed upon length of time.

 

[RavenSky]

There are means to deal with this peacefully. You go with the officer and sue the airlines for breach of contract.

Right, we should just accept that agents of the state can use force to coerce us at the bidding of rent seekers. It's like Ayn Rand herself envisioned!

dammit - still can't rep!

perfect response!

 

[Keith&Co.]

Don't think so. I think tourists will continue to only stare at the price tag. "Sure, they beat an innocent traveller up and threw him off the plane, but it is 5 dollar cheaper". Won't really affect business travellers since they're not thrown off planes anyway. I don't think much will happen. But it has still been a disaster for the PR. Their staff won't want to work their. The good staff will find other employers. Stuff like that will happen.

My company just booked me to fly United. So yeah...

Some coworkers were flying United out of Albany on the day... One of them, Bob, has SUCH incredible bad luck that if we travel and get any outrageous delay, we refer to it as being 'bobbed.'
"I got bobbed in Chicago with a 12 hour layover" or "I got bobbed on the way home and had to change planes six times."

That day, they were told at the gate that United had no flights at all, go home and come back tomorrow.
He's now insisting that 'bobbed' be a verb for ducking calamity, not suffering it.

 

[RavenSky]

My company just booked me to fly United. So yeah...

Some coworkers were flying United out of Albany on the day... One of them, Bob, has SUCH incredible bad luck that if we travel and get any outrageous delay, we refer to it as being 'bobbed.'
"I got bobbed in Chicago with a 12 hour layover" or "I got bobbed on the way home and had to change planes six times."

That day, they were told at the gate that United had no flights at all, go home and come back tomorrow.
He's now insisting that 'bobbed' be a verb for ducking calamity, not suffering it.

well I will let you all know if I get bobbed (by either definition) or bumped or just plain old beat up by anyone associated with United later this week.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Property rights, if we are going with property rights it would be Uniteds property rights.

Not when Dr. Dao has already paid for and taken possession of that property with the legal and valid expectation of occupying it for the agreed upon length of time.

As I Recall, Dr. Ken Hovind, "Dr. Dino" of creationist and tax fraud fame, was once in tax court where he swore to the court that he owned no property.
He left court and went immediately to an apartment he owned and told the renters that they had to get out, right then and there.
They made strange noises about notification and reasonable time and they had a lease... And he began to attempt to drive them out by violently beating them.
When the cops arrived, he insisted that because he owned the property, he had the right to do that to people on his property.

Not only did the IRS take issue with his perjury, when they heard about the incident, but the cops had this odd idea that he could not, in fact, use violence to eject renters.
Funny world...

 

[RavenSky]

While there seems to be a valid discrepancy in the accounts, this was really really really not the time for United Airlines to be complete assholes to yet more paying customers... especially a couple on their way to their wedding:

The turbulence continues for United Airlines.

A bride and groom from Utah headed to their wedding in Costa Rica were kicked off their flight out of Houston on Saturday, KHOU reported.

Michael Hohl and his fianceé, Amber Maxwell, arrived from Salt Lake City for a layover at George Bush Intercontinental Airport, where they boarded Flight 1737 bound for the city of Liberia.

The couple noticed a man spread across their row snoozing when they approached their seats, Hohl told the station.

Not wanting to wake him, Hohl said they decided to sit three rows up — thinking it would not matter because the flight was half-full with several empty rows.

“We thought not a big deal, it’s not like we are trying to jump up into a first-class seat,” Hohl said. “We were simply in an economy row a few rows above our economy seat.”

But in a Boeing 737-800 like the one the couple was on, the airline considers Row 21 “economy plus,” an upgrade.

A flight attendant asked the couple if they were in their ticketed seats. The couple said they weren’t and asked if they could get an upgrade, but instead they were told to return to their assigned seats, Hohl said.

He said that after complying with the flight attendant’s instruction, a sky marshal asked them to get off the plane.

But the Transportation Security Administration disputed his assertion.

“No Federal Air Marshals were involved in this alleged incident,” the agency, which supervises the Federal Air Marshal Service, told The Post in a statement.

United also told The Post that no air marshal or authorities other than the flight crew were involved in the incident.

http://nypost.com/2017/04/17/couple-on-the-way-to-their-wedding-kicked-off-united-flight/

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Lets try some honest reporting.

How do you strike your face against an armrest while being pulled out of a seat? That doesn't pass the laugh test. The only way you strike your face against your armrest while being pulled out of your seat is if you break free of the people doing the pulling and fall. If they simply dropped you you would fall back into your seat which puts your face nowhere near an armrest.

First, let's try some basic reading comprehension. The report referred to an armrest not a particular armrest. Now, let's try some intellectually honest thinking. Pulling someone out of seat can occur a number of ways. If the pulled person loses balance or is suddenly pulled more forward than upwards, it is possible for a face to hit an armrest or part of a seat or even the back of the seat in front of him.

Your assumption of what must have happened is not a fact of what actually happened. It is possible the report is incorrect. It is possible that the report is accurate. Do you have any actual evidence (not biased conjecture) that calls that report into question?

Sure, he could hit the seat in front. That's not an armrest, though. I'm saying it's pretty hard to hit an armrest in the situation without having resisted. There is no question he resisted soon thereafter, why are you doubting he resisted then?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm confused what were arguing here. They asked him to leave he said no, they pulled and it looks like he flung forward into one of the armrest, probably the other side of the aisle. So is the argument that after that issue did the police throw him against more armrests on purpose down the aisle?

No, the report said he hit his head against an armrest because of the use of force. LP is rejecting that as a realistic outcome. As usual, he is blaming the victim as the only possible realistic outcome of the encounter.

I am rejecting it as a reasonable outcome from the use of force. It only makes sense as an outcome of resistance to being dragged off the plane.