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

[RavenSky]

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.

Well done!!! Spoken like a good little authoritarian!!

 

[RavenSky]

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."

You two have it bass-akwards.

Dr. Dao is not the one who was being paid for a service here

 

[fast]

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.

Well done!!! Spoken like a good little authoritarian!!

Teaching white children to listen to authority is a good thing. There might be some trade offs, but the good far outweighs the bad. If the lesson to listen takes root in enough of good little authoritarians, then having some learned among us facilitates much needed compliance and reduces avoidable violence. Of course, there are rights worth thinking about and fighting for; however, not listening to our authority figures when instructed to obey should not be the first culturally instilled course of action.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Well done!!! Spoken like a good little authoritarian!!

Teaching white children to listen to authority is a good thing. There might be some trade offs, but the good far outweighs the bad. If the lesson to listen takes root in enough of good little authoritarians, then having some learned among us facilitates much needed compliance and reduces avoidable violence. Of course, there are rights worth thinking about and fighting for; however, not listening to our authority figures when instructed to obey should not be the first culturally instilled course of action.

It's very interesting that the expectation for flying is that if you are on board the plane is that that is the last step, you are going to make it to your destination with a time frame in mind. Anybody that does fly knows that's not the case, but it's funny that it's the belief here. That's the difference between this service and other services is that in the case of flying, it isn't just being in the plane that's equivalent to receiving the good you get at a restaurant or store. The equivalent for a doctor is moving from the office area to a waiting room. That doesn't mean the doctor will see you the minute that you get there or that he won't cancel while you are waiting in the waiting room.

But it's also interesting that we're discussing all the fine points of the Contract of Carriage and the finer points of whether or not 21 b c or 25 does or does not apply to the DR. Can you say that the doctor fully understood all the contract provisions to know whether or not he could be on that flight or that seat? Did he know enough about the law with regards to contracts to know whether boarding meant getting inside the door, taking a seat, or the airplane door closing? Has there been enough societal knowledge to know what are the distinctions are for that CoC? I'm sorry, I don't and I don't think any of us do. So to say hey I am absolutely right in this circumstance when it's full well knowledge that a flight may not get you to your destination on time or the right day is enough to stay calm and discuss the situation rationally with the gate agent and the security.

 

[DBT]

In any case I don't want to be treated by such doctor. I prefer more calm ones.

He may have had a genuine reason to be where he was going on time within that time frame. He had every right to refuse to give up a seat he had paid for and occupied. The fault lies entirely with airline management, not the customer who had nothing wrong.

 

[DBT]

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.

He initiated nothing. He was a customer who paid for a service, he occupied his allocated seat in the expectation that he would complete his flight in the time frame he planned, expected and paid for. It was the management who initiated the conflict by trying to force him to vacate his seat instead of making other arrangements.

 

[bilby]

Teaching white children to listen to authority is a good thing. There might be some trade offs, but the good far outweighs the bad. If the lesson to listen takes root in enough of good little authoritarians, then having some learned among us facilitates much needed compliance and reduces avoidable violence. Of course, there are rights worth thinking about and fighting for; however, not listening to our authority figures when instructed to obey should not be the first culturally instilled course of action.

It's very interesting that the expectation for flying is that if you are on board the plane is that that is the last step, you are going to make it to your destination with a time frame in mind. Anybody that does fly knows that's not the case, but it's funny that it's the belief here. That's the difference between this service and other services is that in the case of flying, it isn't just being in the plane that's equivalent to receiving the good you get at a restaurant or store. The equivalent for a doctor is moving from the office area to a waiting room. That doesn't mean the doctor will see you the minute that you get there or that he won't cancel while you are waiting in the waiting room.

But it's also interesting that we're discussing all the fine points of the Contract of Carriage and the finer points of whether or not 21 b c or 25 does or does not apply to the DR. Can you say that the doctor fully understood all the contract provisions to know whether or not he could be on that flight or that seat? Did he know enough about the law with regards to contracts to know whether boarding meant getting inside the door, taking a seat, or the airplane door closing? Has there been enough societal knowledge to know what are the distinctions are for that CoC? I'm sorry, I don't and I don't think any of us do. So to say hey I am absolutely right in this circumstance when it's full well knowledge that a flight may not get you to your destination on time or the right day is enough to stay calm and discuss the situation rationally with the gate agent and the security.

Actually, no; None of that is particularly interesting.

The only interesting question is 'was force justified against a person who had done nothing wrong?'

There are two ways to get someone to do something he doesn't want to do - pay him to do it, or use force.

United chose the latter. That's unacceptable.

Everything else is just bullshit that is being slung around in an attempt to defend this choice, and it can be safely discarded in a discussion about whether the choice was or was not acceptable.

There's obviously a limit to how much an airline could afford to pay for the seat they needed - but that limit is determined by how much they want the seat, and if it is reached, the seat should stay in the possession of the passenger who has occupied it. That's how a free market works - Person A has an item that person B wants. Person B offers payment for the item, and if person A values the payment more than he values the item, a mutually agreeable transaction takes place. If person B instead obtains the item from person A by the use of force, he has committed a crime.

To illustrate with totally made up numbers, if the cost to UA of their crew-member not being able to fly is $1,000,000, then they can maximize their return by incrementally increasing the offer of compensation until either one of the passengers decides to accept it; or the offer reaches $1,000,000, at which point it's cheaper to simply live with the fact that the crew member won't be able to fly. At no point is it necessary nor reasonable to use force.

They rented the seat to a passenger. He (and any of the other passengers) can decide to sell his tenancy (or not) at whatever price is offered. Of course it is unlikely that there won't be a passenger who is happy to relinquish his seat for far less than the amount UA stand to lose by not having access to it; But if so, then that's the way it is.

It doesn't matter why UA wanted the seat. It doesn't matter what the detailed results of them not getting that seat might be - all that does is set the upper limit of what they should be prepared to offer, before they give up and simply don't fly their crew-member on that flight.

Once a passenger is in his seat, the airline cannot remove him from that seat by force, unless he is actively endangering the aircraft, or is causing harm to other passengers, or to the crew. To do so is simply an unprovoked assault.

Being a representative of a large corporation does not grant you permission to assault people without provocation. This remains true no matter what the Conditions of Carriage might say - You cannot, lawfully nor morally, impose upon your customers a contract that waives your duty not to commit an unprovoked assault on their person. It is banal, typical, universal, and uninteresting that people do not expect to be assaulted once they have boarded an aircraft. Likewise the fine points of the Conditions of Carriage are of no interest nor worth when considering whether or not the airline had the right to assault someone without provocation.

Unless by 'interesting' you mean 'something I hope will distract people from the simple fact that a man was assaulted without provocation'.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Actually, no; None of that is particularly interesting.

The only interesting question is 'was force justified against a person who had done nothing wrong?'

No. The warning messages while they were getting on the plane were we need to get our crew to to Louisville and we are looking for volunteers, if not we will have to select people to take another flight.

So you can tell me honestly that you knew that CoC well enough at the time and that there is no doubt that the multiple provisions you agreed to under the condition of buying a ticket don't apply to that situation?

Once a passenger is in his seat, the airline cannot remove him from that seat by force, unless he is actively endangering the aircraft, or is causing harm to other passengers, or to the crew. To do so is simply an unprovoked assault.

Being a representative of a large corporation does not grant you permission to assault people without provocation. This remains true no matter what the Conditions of Carriage might say - You cannot, lawfully nor morally, impose upon your customers a contract that waives your duty not to commit an unprovoked assault on their person. It is banal, typical, universal, and uninteresting that people do not expect to be assaulted once they have boarded an aircraft. Likewise the fine points of the Conditions of Carriage are of no interest nor worth when considering whether or not the airline had the right to assault someone without provocation.

Unless by 'interesting' you mean 'something I hope will distract people from the simple fact that a man was assaulted without provocation'.

And that is the whole argument here and they are a multitude of interweaving law here to try and answer that question. He could easily be wrong about his opinion.

 

[DBT]

No doubt that there are always 'provisions' that allow people to be treated like shit by the authority in charge of a business, government, etc, but that doesn't make treating people like shit right. The law can be an Ass.

 

[Arctish]

And that is the whole argument here and they are a multitude of interweaving law here to try and answer that question. He could easily be wrong about his opinion.

Even if he was wrong, that doesn't make United/Republic's actions or the actions of the security team right.

 

[fast]

The only interesting question is 'was force justified against a person who had done nothing wrong?'

Nothing wrong? The moment it's made clear by company representatives that he is no longer welcome to remain in that seat, it is wrongful to remain seated.

Once a passenger is in his seat, the airline cannot remove him from that seat by force, unless he is actively endangering the aircraft, or is causing harm to other passengers, or to the crew. To do so is simply an unprovoked assault.

Oh my (!), you civilized types are too much. First, his remaining seated when no longer acceptable to do so is harmful in a variety of ways, but even if you were correct, it's still incorrect to characterize the removal as an assault, and to regard it as unprovoked (in case you're right about it being an assault) is laughable. What is ashamed is that we can't advocate additional violence against such anticipatory 'victims.'

A person with conservative values who is sympathetic to authoritarian ways would of (if sober) listened--obedience even in the face of a wrongful order leading to inconvenience is a virtue. See, it doesn't even matter who is in the right. The point is, listen.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

The right solution

If there's really a problem here, the solution is more competition in the airline industry:

http://money.cnn.com/infographic/news/companies/airline-merger/ -- shows the recent trend toward concentration of the U.S. airline industry.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/airline-profits-flying-high/ -- PBS newshour video on the need for more competition between airlines.

There needs to be more companies so that travelers have more choices. Then companies will have more incentive to correct whatever is going wrong. This is what should drive the decision-making, not hysteria generated by the latest TV news images. Business decisions should be made by those in the business, who are trying to outperform their competitors.

Whatever is required to force more competition.

 

[LordKiran]

If there's really a problem here, the solution is more competition in the airline industry:

http://money.cnn.com/infographic/news/companies/airline-merger/ -- shows the recent trend toward concentration of the U.S. airline industry.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/airline-profits-flying-high/ -- PBS newshour video on the need for more competition between airlines.

There needs to be more companies so that travelers have more choices. Then companies will have more incentive to correct whatever is going wrong. This is what should drive the decision-making, not hysteria generated by the latest TV news images. Business decisions should be made by those in the business, who are trying to outperform their competitors.

Whatever is required to force more competition.

Good luck fostering competition without government intervention every 30-40 years to break up the biggest companies.

 

[Juma]

Nothing wrong? The moment it's made clear by company representatives that he is no longer welcome to remain in that seat, it is wrongful to remain seated.

Once a passenger is in his seat, the airline cannot remove him from that seat by force, unless he is actively endangering the aircraft, or is causing harm to other passengers, or to the crew. To do so is simply an unprovoked assault.

Oh my (!), you civilized types are too much. First, his remaining seated when no longer acceptable to do so is harmful in a variety of ways, but even if you were correct, it's still incorrect to characterize the removal as an assault, and to regard it as unprovoked (in case you're right about it being an assault) is laughable. What is ashamed is that we can't advocate additional violence against such anticipatory 'victims.'

A person with conservative values who is sympathetic to authoritarian ways would of (if sober) listened--obedience even in the face of a wrongful order leading to inconvenience is a virtue. See, it doesn't even matter who is in the right. The point is, listen.

"his being seated when no longer acceptable to do so" is caused by the staff, not by him.

 

[laughing dog]

Well done!!! Spoken like a good little authoritarian!!

Teaching white children to listen to authority is a good thing.

You feel the need to bring up teaching white children something here because....?

There might be some trade offs, but the good far outweighs the bad. If the lesson to listen takes root in enough of good little authoritarians, then having some learned among us facilitates much needed compliance and reduces avoidable violence. Of course, there are rights worth thinking about and fighting for; however, not listening to our authority figures when instructed to obey should not be the first culturally instilled course of action.

Are you seriously arguing that some UA person was an "authority figure"?

 

[ksen]

Teaching white children to listen to authority is a good thing. There might be some trade offs, but the good far outweighs the bad. If the lesson to listen takes root in enough of good little authoritarians, then having some learned among us facilitates much needed compliance and reduces avoidable violence. Of course, there are rights worth thinking about and fighting for; however, not listening to our authority figures when instructed to obey should not be the first culturally instilled course of action.

It's very interesting that the expectation for flying is that if you are on board the plane is that that is the last step, you are going to make it to your destination with a time frame in mind. Anybody that does fly knows that's not the case, but it's funny that it's the belief here. That's the difference between this service and other services is that in the case of flying, it isn't just being in the plane that's equivalent to receiving the good you get at a restaurant or store. The equivalent for a doctor is moving from the office area to a waiting room. That doesn't mean the doctor will see you the minute that you get there or that he won't cancel while you are waiting in the waiting room.

But it's also interesting that we're discussing all the fine points of the Contract of Carriage and the finer points of whether or not 21 b c or 25 does or does not apply to the DR. Can you say that the doctor fully understood all the contract provisions to know whether or not he could be on that flight or that seat? Did he know enough about the law with regards to contracts to know whether boarding meant getting inside the door, taking a seat, or the airplane door closing? Has there been enough societal knowledge to know what are the distinctions are for that CoC? I'm sorry, I don't and I don't think any of us do. So to say hey I am absolutely right in this circumstance when it's full well knowledge that a flight may not get you to your destination on time or the right day is enough to stay calm and discuss the situation rationally with the gate agent and the security.

Man, if only he consulted with a lawyer first.

Wait, that's exactly what he was doing just before getting his nose broken and his teeth knocked out.

 

[ksen]

If there's really a problem here, the solution is more competition in the airline industry:

http://money.cnn.com/infographic/news/companies/airline-merger/ -- shows the recent trend toward concentration of the U.S. airline industry.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/airline-profits-flying-high/ -- PBS newshour video on the need for more competition between airlines.

There needs to be more companies so that travelers have more choices. Then companies will have more incentive to correct whatever is going wrong. This is what should drive the decision-making, not hysteria generated by the latest TV news images. Business decisions should be made by those in the business, who are trying to outperform their competitors.

Whatever is required to force more competition.

Oh my god, for once I agree with Lumpen.

The only problem that may arise on his part though is that to create more competition it will require more government intervention since it was the free market that allowed this much concentration to occur in the first place and the only reason we're not down to only one or two airlines is government intervention.

Lumpen, I congratulate you on the first step of your journey towards socialism. See you when you get here! :wave:

 

[coloradoatheist]

If there's really a problem here, the solution is more competition in the airline industry:

http://money.cnn.com/infographic/news/companies/airline-merger/ -- shows the recent trend toward concentration of the U.S. airline industry.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/airline-profits-flying-high/ -- PBS newshour video on the need for more competition between airlines.

There needs to be more companies so that travelers have more choices. Then companies will have more incentive to correct whatever is going wrong. This is what should drive the decision-making, not hysteria generated by the latest TV news images. Business decisions should be made by those in the business, who are trying to outperform their competitors.

Whatever is required to force more competition.

Oh my god, for once I agree with Lumpen.

The only problem that may arise on his part though is that to create more competition it will require more government intervention since it was the free market that allowed this much concentration to occur in the first place and the only reason we're not down to only one or two airlines is government intervention.

Lumpen, I congratulate you on the first step of your journey towards socialism. See you when you get here! :wave:

You mean because the government is always nice on letting competition come in?

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/the-faa-vs-uber-for-planes-121620

 

[ksen]

I give this^ post 1/2 a dismal.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

 

[coloradoatheist]

I give this^ post 1/2 a dismal.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

The biggest competition that could come to the airlines will be the services like uber for small plans. Will the government allow it?