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

[coloradoatheist]

The scheduling crew isn't going to say, "Shoot we can't make that decision because some guy on that flight isn't going behave like an adult and accept that sometimes scheduling issues happen.

But the manager COULD say, "Okay, it's too late to involuntarily bump anyone from THIS flight, but we will try really hard to get volunteers."

Rather than "Okay, it's too late to involuntarily bump anyone from THIS flight, but we will give a limited try to get volunteers, then violate contracts and try violence."

The other option which should have be done was that the pilot gets out and investigates and makes a final stance. If he says that he doesn't believe the passenger in a position to comply with flight attendants instructions he can be kicked. Or they canel the flight.

 

[Keith&Co.]

but that changed when another crew went illegal and they had to find a crew to get to that flight and now they needed four seats to do that.

Is there anything that required all four of the replacements to travel to their destination on the same plane?

I realize it's more convenient for the manager.

Find one plane that meets the requirements, get four people on it, problem solved, but is there anything that actually prevented them from putting three on that plane, with the three volunteers they managed to acquire, and putting the fourth guy on a second airplane?

 

[LordKiran]

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.

I prefer to call them "Uncle Sams"

 

[Keith&Co.]

The other option which should have be done was that the pilot gets out and investigates and makes a final stance. If he says that he doesn't believe the passenger in a position to comply with flight attendants instructions he can be kicked.

So, because he wouldn't cooperate with the manager's abuse of her power, someone else should abuse their power to solve the problem.
An incisive solution to a knotty legal problem, there.

Or they canel the flight

Ah. So, if they couldn't get four crewmen where they needed to go, they should make SURE not to get four crewmen where they needed to go, to punish the uncooperative ticket holder.

 

[LordKiran]

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?

By the by, Loren. I hope you don't think I've forgotten about this. I still expect for you to explain to me how my observations are demonstrably incorrect or to acknowledge that you were talking out of your rear when you said this.

 

[coloradoatheist]

but that changed when another crew went illegal and they had to find a crew to get to that flight and now they needed four seats to do that.

Is there anything that required all four of the replacements to travel to their destination on the same plane?

I realize it's more convenient for the manager.

Find one plane that meets the requirements, get four people on it, problem solved, but is there anything that actually prevented them from putting three on that plane, with the three volunteers they managed to acquire, and putting the fourth guy on a second airplane?

I will ask but then you have a worse scheduling mess. You have a flight crew that needs four 4 people and you only have 3, you would have to delay the flight then since you don't have enough.

- - - Updated - - -

So, because he wouldn't cooperate with the manager's abuse of her power, someone else should abuse their power to solve the problem.
An incisive solution to a knotty legal problem, there.

Or they canel the flight

Ah. So, if they couldn't get four crewmen where they needed to go, they should make SURE not to get four crewmen where they needed to go, to punish the uncooperative ticket holder.

40,000 people were involuntarily bumped last year so missing a flight because of scheduling, equipment, plan is a well know item when flying.

 

[TSwizzle]

So, because he wouldn't cooperate with the manager's abuse of her power, someone else should abuse their power to solve the problem. An incisive solution to a knotty legal problem, there.

Not that I'm defending UA, but how is it an abuse of power and I still don't see how it's a legal issue yet.

Ah. So, if they couldn't get four crewmen where they needed to go, they should make SURE not to get four crewmen where they needed to go, to punish the uncooperative ticket holder.

The crew thing is just a red herring, it doesn't matter whether it's crew or another passenger with more air miles. It's just crappy customer service up until the forceful and violent removal of the passenger where it gets out of hand.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I will ask but then you have a worse scheduling mess. You have a flight crew that needs four 4 people and you only have 3, you would have to delay the flight then since you don't have enough.

Well, you only have 3 if there were absolutely no other options to get them where they needed to go. I believe that has been shown not to be the case, hasn't it?

40,000 people were involuntarily bumped last year so missing a flight because of scheduling, equipment, plan is a well know item when flying.

You could just type 'refrain' and save yourself a lot of useless typing of off-point nonsense.

 

[Ford]

But the manager COULD say, "Okay, it's too late to involuntarily bump anyone from THIS flight, but we will try really hard to get volunteers."

Rather than "Okay, it's too late to involuntarily bump anyone from THIS flight, but we will give a limited try to get volunteers, then violate contracts and try violence."

The other option which should have be done was that the pilot gets out and investigates and makes a final stance. If he says that he doesn't believe the passenger in a position to comply with flight attendants instructions he can be kicked. Or they canel the flight.

No, the other options have already been explained several times. Putting the crew on a later flight. Putting the crew on another airline's flight. Putting them in a cab to catch a flight out of Midway. Renting them a car for the 4 1/2 hour drive to Louisville.

All these options could have been explored before making the decision to forcibly remove passengers from an airplane.

Of course, we don't know what time the crew's next flight was scheduled to leave Louisville, leaving the question of "rest rules" unanswered and unanswerable for the time being. If it was the first flight the next morning, then the delay caused by the fracas guaranteed that they would not be able to comply with the rules, thus stranding that flight as well. Since that flight apparently took off on time the next day, I think we can safely say they weren't that crew.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Well, you only have 3 if there were absolutely no other options to get them where they needed to go. I believe that has been shown not to be the case, hasn't it?

40,000 people were involuntarily bumped last year so missing a flight because of scheduling, equipment, plan is a well know item when flying.

You could just type 'refrain' and save yourself a lot of useless typing of off-point nonsense.

No, nobody has shown what flight and the requirements were needed for the flight the next day.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Not that I'm defending UA, but how is it an abuse of power and I still don't see how it's a legal issue yet.

They had already allowed the passengers to board the aircraft. The legal options available to the manager become more limited. Where she could have bumped him before he got the seat, she could not do so after.

The crew thing is just a red herring,

I would agree, except some people keep insisting that there are federal regulations that support the manager's choices in this.

 

[LordKiran]

Well, you only have 3 if there were absolutely no other options to get them where they needed to go. I believe that has been shown not to be the case, hasn't it? You could just type 'refrain' and save yourself a lot of useless typing of off-point nonsense.

No, nobody has shown what flight and the requirements were needed for the flight the next day.

Because that's tied to your claim about rest rules.

It's not our job to do your work for you.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Well, you only have 3 if there were absolutely no other options to get them where they needed to go. I believe that has been shown not to be the case, hasn't it?

No, nobody has shown what flight and the requirements were needed for the flight the next day.

Then no one has shown that the other options could noave have been used.
So there's nothing yet shown that they couldn't have used 3 seats on that flight and gotten 1 on another.

 

[laughing dog]

But the manager COULD say, "Okay, it's too late to involuntarily bump anyone from THIS flight, but we will try really hard to get volunteers."

Rather than "Okay, it's too late to involuntarily bump anyone from THIS flight, but we will give a limited try to get volunteers, then violate contracts and try violence."

The other option which should have be done was that the pilot gets out and investigates and makes a final stance. If he says that he doesn't believe the passenger in a position to comply with flight attendants instructions he can be kicked. Or they canel the flight.

Or they up the compensation until someone says "I'll leave".

- - - Updated - - -

How is a not free market solution that says here is the penalty for not getting you on a flight that the flyer and airline have agreed to?

Because as everyone who can read understands, that is not what was agreed to.

 

[TSwizzle]

They had already allowed the passengers to board the aircraft. The legal options available to the manager become more limited. Where she could have bumped him before he got the seat, she could not do so after.

I don't think it is illegal to inform a passenger they've been bumped and ask them to leave the aircraft, even if they are sitting in their seat with a cocktail. It's just shoddy customer service at this point. When the passenger refuses (rightly) then it becomes something else.

 

[Artemus]

Arguing against the analyses of every single Professor of Law and aviation-law Attorney who has read the Contract of Carriage and FAA Regulations and offered an opinion is very stupid.

Can you site a legal case on it?

Arguing against the analyses of every single Professor of Law and aviation-law Attorney who has read the Contract of Carriage and FAA Regulations and then offered an opinion, all of whom can cite literally tens of thousands of breach-of-contract judgments, is very stupid.

And every single law attorney has put up an opinion?

Relying on a straw man during a discussion is very stupid.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Can you site a legal case on it?

Arguing against the analyses of every single Professor of Law and aviation-law Attorney who has read the Contract of Carriage and FAA Regulations and then offered an opinion, all of whom can cite literally tens of thousands of breach-of-contract judgments, is very stupid.

And every single law attorney has put up an opinion?

Relying on a straw man during a discussion is very stupid.

You made the argument that every lawyer said the same thing. Can you prove that?

 

[Artemus]

Arguing against the analyses of every single Professor of Law and aviation-law Attorney who has read the Contract of Carriage and FAA Regulations and then offered an opinion, all of whom can cite literally tens of thousands of breach-of-contract judgments, is very stupid.

And every single law attorney has put up an opinion?

Relying on a straw man during a discussion is very stupid.

You made the argument that every lawyer said the same thing. Can you prove that?

Repeating the straw man yet again is incredibly stupid.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

How is this incident unique?

There must be cases every day of a dispute between a passenger and the company over limited seating, where the passenger has to get off the plane.

So, what makes this incident different than all the others? It's that in this case only, the passenger required to leave the plane refused to do so. In all other cases the passengers complied with the requirement.

If the company was wrong in this case, it's only because this passenger made a much bigger fuss than normal, and so the moral of the story is: Just make a much bigger fuss, and maybe you'll get them to set aside the rules in your case. I.e.,

Decisions in society should be based on who screams the loudest.

Or, if the company was right, then it means that society is best served if the agreed rules are enforced, even when an individual is inconvenienced, and special exceptions are not made for those who scream louder.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Or, if the company was right, then it means that society is best served if the agreed rules are enforced, even when an individual is inconvenienced, and special exceptions are not made for those who scream louder.

If the agreed upon rules were enforced, that would be a valid argument. Given the topic of the thread, however, it's not really related.