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

[atrib]

When the airline asked him to leave and he refused he became a trespasser on the plane.

Prove it. Show me the law or the case in which this precedence was established. The airlines own policies appear to indicate that Mr Dao was within his rights to remain seated once he had boarded and seated.

Things are better if you make sure your customers don't have to make a dumb decision, but it was his dumb decision to stay and not get off.

Things are better if nonviolent airline passengers are not subjected to a beating that causes broken teeth, a broken nose and concussion.

 

[Keith&Co.]

No. The only thing that changes is where they can do it.

Wrong. Following a court vindicating their actions, and holding the doc responsible for the delays and costs, they won't have to offer nearly as much for volunteers because they'll be able to go straight to forcible ejection whenever they want. It'll be a threat they can use to get people to accept any damned thing they feel like offering because they can always sic security on the passengers.

 

[zorq]

The worshipers of authoritarianism in this thread seem to be ignoring a serious distinction. There is a difference between the bumps, delays, and cancellations that airline travelers endure and accept thousands of times a year and this case. Travelers understand that they may be inconvenienced when safety situations are below acceptable levels due to circumstances beyond the control of the airline. This is implicit in all service industries. You may not get to eat a hamburger if all the beef was recalled due to E. Coli and you may not be able to board your scheduled airplane if the wing has fallen off, a bomb was detected in luggage, or there is a white out blizzard going on. All of these types of cancellations are necessary to guarantee the safety of the customers.

But that's not what happened here. The product that the customer purchased existed and was safe to use but the airline decided to revoke the product last minute because it was more convenient for the airline. Not necessary, just convenient. And the choice of which passenger should be inconvenienced was absolutely arbitrary. This might seem unbiased but it highlights exactly how unfair the selection was. ANYONE could have been kicked off the plane because United only needed to satisfy their convenience.

United chose it's own convenience over that of it's customers and when a customer objected to this selfish power play the airline enforced it with violence. VIOLENCE. How disgraceful.

 

[Malintent]

The worshipers of authoritarianism in this thread seem to be ignoring a serious distinction. There is a difference between the bumps, delays, and cancellations that airline travelers endure and accept thousands of times a year and this case. Travelers understand that they may be inconvenienced when safety situations are below acceptable levels due to circumstances beyond the control of the airline. This is implicit in all service industries. You may not get to eat a hamburger if all the beef was recalled due to E. Coli and you may not be able to board your scheduled airplane if the wing has fallen off, a bomb was detected in luggage, or there is a white out blizzard going on. All of these types of cancellations are necessary to guarantee the safety of the customers.

But that's not what happened here. The product that the customer purchased existed and was safe to use but the airline decided to revoke the product last minute because it was more convenient for the airline. Not necessary, just convenient. And the choice of which passenger should be inconvenienced was absolutely arbitrary. This might seem unbiased but it highlights exactly how unfair the selection was. ANYONE could have been kicked off the plane because United only needed to satisfy their convenience.

United chose it's own convenience over that of it's customers and when a customer objected to this selfish power play the airline enforced it with violence. VIOLENCE. How disgraceful.

Precisely.

 

[Malintent]

except you keep on missing the very important distinction between airlines and your examples... in every one of your examples, payment has not been given for any services or products. In reality, people pay for their seat IN ADVANCE. Please provide a relevant example that supports your position. Target cannot legally take your money for a an item they have for sale, and then "kick you off their property" without providing the item (or service) you paid for.

And there is another problem with that logic in this case, it's already accepted by the buyer that there is a chance that they will breach their contract when you purchase the ticket. You would have a case if the purchase of the ticket was at the gate but the actually location a person sits waiting to be transported is artificial.

no, that is not accepted, as evidence by this incident and the responses of most participants in this thread. YOU may accept that airlines get to bully you however they want for whatever reason, or no reason, that exists or doesn't. but most reasonable people disagree. This is not about safety or security, it is about the airlines' desire to maximize profits and minimize loss, with the customer bearing full responsibility for the airlines' whims.

would United have paid the cost of the lost hotel stay, car rental, kennel costs for pets at home, baby sitters, time off of work... all of the expense that their own actions caused a loss of? Of course not. Their maximum compensation falls FAR short of that.

When an organization renegs on a service agreement, they are liable for all of the financial damage that occurs as a result of the breach. How much does a doctor make in 1 day? That would be part of it in this case. what is the cost to reputation if he has to cancel on a patient and send them to the hospital or another doctor? liable.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I admit I did not know about over-boarding thing, but I do know that fighting Police or in this case security over minor (on the grand schemes of things) thing is stupid. You are not gonna win, unless your goal is to get beaten and then successfully sue. Doctors should know better.
Having said that, the relevant rule I know and knew before is that plane's captain is the boss there and he can throw anybody out and give explanation later.

It's just not the way to treat customers.

Did he initiate a fight? Or did he simply refuse to comply?

His non compliance and perhaps growing belligerence at being forced to give up his seat causing the airport police to get frustrated, consequently resorting to physically removing him from his seat?

However it went, it was a bad choice to physically remove passengers on the part of airlines decision makers.

Depends on how you define "initiate".

As far as I'm concerned resisting the cops dragging you off is a form of initiating a fight. I don't think belligerence entered into it. The airline wanted him gone, he refused to leave when ordered to do so. That's grounds enough for the police to drag him off, no belligerence needed.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Because most projects are point of sale, but there are times where you pre-pay for services. If I ask you to paint my house and I can pay up front or some up front but I have the option at any time to say no I don't want you on my property to paint any more I can do that though I can be subject to breach of contract.

Exactly.

Airlines are a form of pre-paid service. In general a company can say "we don't want to deal with you anymore, here's your money back."

 

[J842P]

It's just not the way to treat customers.

Did he initiate a fight? Or did he simply refuse to comply?

His non compliance and perhaps growing belligerence at being forced to give up his seat causing the airport police to get frustrated, consequently resorting to physically removing him from his seat?

However it went, it was a bad choice to physically remove passengers on the part of airlines decision makers.

Depends on how you define "initiate".

As far as I'm concerned resisting the cops dragging you off is a form of initiating a fight. I don't think belligerence entered into it. The airline wanted him gone, he refused to leave when ordered to do so. That's grounds enough for the police to drag him off, no belligerence needed.

^^^ A "moderate" libertarian, everybody.

 

[untermensche]

It's just not the way to treat customers.

Did he initiate a fight? Or did he simply refuse to comply?

His non compliance and perhaps growing belligerence at being forced to give up his seat causing the airport police to get frustrated, consequently resorting to physically removing him from his seat?

However it went, it was a bad choice to physically remove passengers on the part of airlines decision makers.

Depends on how you define "initiate".

As far as I'm concerned resisting the cops dragging you off is a form of initiating a fight. I don't think belligerence entered into it. The airline wanted him gone, he refused to leave when ordered to do so. That's grounds enough for the police to drag him off, no belligerence needed.

That they could drag one man off is clear.

That they should not have is also clear.

The question is, what should they have done instead of assaulting somebody?

 

[Keith&Co.]

As far as I'm concerned resisting the cops dragging you off is a form of initiating a fight. I don't think belligerence entered into it. The airline wanted him gone, he refused to leave when ordered to do so. That's grounds enough for the police to drag him off, no belligerence needed.

Resisting being dragged off is grounds for the police to drag you off...
There's something about that...

 

[coloradoatheist]

Depends on how you define "initiate".

As far as I'm concerned resisting the cops dragging you off is a form of initiating a fight. I don't think belligerence entered into it. The airline wanted him gone, he refused to leave when ordered to do so. That's grounds enough for the police to drag him off, no belligerence needed.

That they could drag one man off is clear.

That they should not have is also clear.

The question is, what should they have done instead of assaulting somebody?

It's always easy looking back after something, but we see the changes. But it will be interesting to see what changes and will people resist if in other more clear cut situations like weight imbalances forcing a plane to IDB. Let's check back in a year and check the numbers for IDB, VDB, flight cancellations, number of fliers, and ticket prices to see if it helped or helped consumers.

 

[untermensche]

That they could drag one man off is clear.

That they should not have is also clear.

The question is, what should they have done instead of assaulting somebody?

It's always easy looking back after something, but we see the changes. But it will be interesting to see what changes and will people resist if in other more clear cut situations like weight imbalances forcing a plane to IDB. Let's check back in a year and check the numbers for IDB, VDB, flight cancellations, number of fliers, and ticket prices to see if it helped or helped consumers.

Airlines can always fuck over consumers on a whim. They do it all the time.

And then lie about this excuse or that as the reason.

This is called the profit motive.

And some praise it.

 

[coloradoatheist]

It's always easy looking back after something, but we see the changes. But it will be interesting to see what changes and will people resist if in other more clear cut situations like weight imbalances forcing a plane to IDB. Let's check back in a year and check the numbers for IDB, VDB, flight cancellations, number of fliers, and ticket prices to see if it helped or helped consumers.

Airlines can always fuck over consumers on a whim. They do it all the time.

And then lie about this excuse or that as the reason.

This is called the profit motive.

And some praise it.

You mean one person out of the billions that have flown in the last decade? Of course it's easy to see when it goes bad, but when it goes well it's very hard to see. We could go back to where only the top 10% of the population flies instead of most people.

 

[untermensche]

Airlines can always fuck over consumers on a whim. They do it all the time.

And then lie about this excuse or that as the reason.

This is called the profit motive.

And some praise it.

You mean one person out of the billions that have flown in the last decade? Of course it's easy to see when it goes bad, but when it goes well it's very hard to see. We could go back to where only the top 10% of the population flies instead of most people.

This is not the first person fucked.

It has become a daily practice.

This is that rare individual in the US that said they were not going to willfully be fucked.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Let's check back in a year and check the numbers for IDB, VDB, flight cancellations, number of fliers, and ticket prices to see if it helped or helped consumers.

What?

You can't even find numbers to support half of what you're claiming now. Where will you look for these numbers for the next year?

 

[RavenSky]

If the crew didn't fly the flights they were being sent to fly would not fly--a far greater disruption than kicking this guy off the plane.

A completely unsupported claim that you and Colorado keep making

Because we can actually reason rather than merely regurgitate cherry-picked facts.

Although I am not, in any way, "cherry-picking facts" - better facts than your cherry-picked fantasies

 

[coloradoatheist]

Let's check back in a year and check the numbers for IDB, VDB, flight cancellations, number of fliers, and ticket prices to see if it helped or helped consumers.

What?

You can't even find numbers to support half of what you're claiming now. Where will you look for these numbers for the next year?

The numbers are reported about the industry. VDBs and IDBS for example have been reported.

 

[RavenSky]

The case I'm aware of is from a gate agent who did the booting, hence not something I can prove.

The thing is booting after boarding is not a newsworthy event. A lack of news about it happening means nothing. This case only became news is the guy fought the cops.

So you are making non-factual unsupported claims. Got it.

sometimes due to weather. (Weather situations that mean the plane has to go out with less than a full load.)

No one gives a flying fuck about weather because it has absolutely nothing to do with, nor any parallel with, what happened here.

Except it does--because it sometimes causes booting after boarding.

Nope. (1) "weather events" have nothing whatsoever in similar with the issue here, and (2) you have fully failed to show that any such "booting after boarding" has happened and have already acknowledged that you cannot support your claim on this point.

If people refuse to leave the aircraft when ordered off the cops haul them off. It's usually drunks this happens to.

No one gives a flying fuck about drunks being removed from flights because it has absolutely nothing to do with, nor any parallel with, what happened here.

Except it does--the point is the airline can refuse to fly a passenger that already boarded.

Nope. Drunken disruptions have nothing whatsoever in similar with the issue here

 

[coloradoatheist]

You mean one person out of the billions that have flown in the last decade? Of course it's easy to see when it goes bad, but when it goes well it's very hard to see. We could go back to where only the top 10% of the population flies instead of most people.

This is not the first person fucked.

It has become a daily practice.

This is that rare individual in the US that said they were not going to willfully be fucked.

What are describing as being fucked?

For your anti-global warming you should actually want nobody to fly anymore.

 

[RavenSky]

When the airline asked him to leave and he refused he became a trespasser on the plane.

You keep claiming this, but you also keep ignoring the fact that he had already paid for his occupancy of that seat, and that United had already accepted said payment AND already boarded Dr. Dao.

Likewise, a hotel does not get to take your money, give you the key to the room, deliver you and your luggage into the room, and then decide to revoke the transaction because some VIP shows up without a reservation and demands that view.

No, Dr. Dao was NOT "trespassing". He had paid for that seat, and United not only accepted payment for that seat, but put him in the seat. They don't get to retroactively claim "trespass"