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

[Malintent]

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.

It is enough grounds for the police to drag a person away if the person is being legally detained for suspicion of committing a crime for which the police themselves have probable cause, and the suspect refuses to cooperate. That, however, is NOT at all in any remote way, "initiating" a fight... no more than a "sit in" is a "violent protest".

I would like to remind everyone, though, that the people doing the dragging in this case were NOT POLICE!!!!
That makes it illegal for them to have taken any physical action against him, unless they are performing a citizen's arrest... for which no crime was committed, so such an "arrest" would just be "assault".
Another reminder, a 'trespass warning' has to be given by a cop. You can't call a cop and tell them someone is trespassing and expect them to drag them away, unless a cop has previously and officially issued that warning. (in writing is enforceable, and verbally is just not)

This man was never issued a legal trespass warning. "asking" them to leave can be responded with "no", legally, until an ACTUAL cop comes and issues the warning to them, in writing.

 

[J842P]

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.

See, at least this guy is honest about his abhorrent values.

 

[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.

It is enough grounds for the police to drag a person away if the person is being legally detained for suspicion of committing a crime for which the police themselves have probable cause, and the suspect refuses to cooperate. That, however, is NOT at all in any remote way, "initiating" a fight... no more than a "sit in" is a "violent protest".

I would like to remind everyone, though, that the people doing the dragging in this case were NOT POLICE!!!!
That makes it illegal for them to have taken any physical action against him, unless they are performing a citizen's arrest... for which no crime was committed, so such an "arrest" would just be "assault".
Another reminder, a 'trespass warning' has to be given by a cop. You can't call a cop and tell them someone is trespassing and expect them to drag them away, unless a cop has previously and officially issued that warning. (in writing is enforceable, and verbally is just not)

This man was never issued a legal trespass warning. "asking" them to leave can be responded with "no", legally, until an ACTUAL cop comes and issues the warning to them, in writing.

I think this is why this case should go to court so everyone knows everything. A verbal warning is enough at times. and I pointed out earlier, in Illinois you can't resist an arrest even an unlawful one unless you had a right to believe life was in danger. But it's easy for me to say United should do it, but they would gain very little from winning this.

 

[Keith&Co.]

United should do it, but they would gain very little from winning this.

But it'd be a big win for all airlines everywhere. If a court says that once they've offered $800 for voluntary bumps, even after boarding, they've discharged their obligations to any paying passengers, and can shift straight to assault.
United probably won't take it to court because they were so badly in the wrong, and they know it, not because there's little to win in a court decision.

 

[coloradoatheist]

United should do it, but they would gain very little from winning this.

But it'd be a big win for all airlines everywhere. If a court says that once they've offered $800 for voluntary bumps, even after boarding, they've discharged their obligations to any paying passengers, and can shift straight to assault.
United probably won't take it to court because they were so badly in the wrong, and they know it, not because there's little to win in a court decision.

No, they can't go to assault. All they can do is do what every other business can do, ask them to leave. If they refuse to leave then they can call in security. What does a bar do when they have a bouncer come in and escort someone out?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

By allowing him to fly the net harm to passengers goes way up--hundreds don't get their flight rather than 4. Your side continues to refuse to look at the consequences of inaction.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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...

Try again.

Refusing to leave when ordered to do so is grounds for being dragged off.

All the physical harm he suffered was due to that refusal to leave when ordered to do so--it's on his own shoulders, not the airline's.

The airline owes him IDB compensation. He owes them for cleaning the airplane.

 

[Keith&Co.]

No, they can't go to assault.

But that's what they did do.
So for them to win in this case, with your previous suggestion that Dr. Dao be forced to pay for the airline's losses, would be a vindication of siccing security on the passenger to drag him off.

All they can do is do what every other business can do, ask them to leave. If they refuse to leave then they can call in security.

Oh. Subcontract the assault. Got it. Important distinction, that it's airport security, not United, doing the removal.

What does a bar do when they have a bouncer come in and escort someone out?

Well, now you're whipping around again.
The bouncer is an employee of the bar. So that would be parallel to United assaulting Dao, not calling, say, Mall security or the police, to do the bouncing.

Make up your mind, or at least make sure your strawmen are properly aligned.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Hopefully Congress will increase the IDB compensation, thus causing a shift from IDBs to VDBs.

 

[Keith&Co.]

By allowing him to fly the net harm to passengers goes way up--hundreds don't get their flight rather than 4.

No one had yet show this to be the ONLY flight which would have satisfied United's needs.

Your side continues to refuse to look at the consequences of inaction.

1) you've yet to show that this IS the consequence.
2) Those hundreds of passengers are not Dr. Dao's responsibility.
3) HundredS? Plural? What class of plane carries 200 passengers and requires a crew of four?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

1) This wasn't a case of a VIP, they needed those seats for operational reasons.

2) In many hotels you can show up and find that an elite traveler came along and took the room you had booked. (Akin to the usual case of being denied at the gate, rather than after boarding.) You aren't going to get booted from the room itself because the law provides special protections booting people from the place they're going to sleep.

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"

If the owner of the property says "Go!" and you don't have special legal protection against that but refuse to go you are trespassing. There's no special legal protection beyond the IDB compensation, the airline was within it's rights to say "Go!"

- - - Updated - - -

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

The ass is normally behind and pointed backwards!

Dao paid for a flight. The company decided they didn't want to provide that service and told him to leave. This is a case with statutory damages, 4x his ticket price. That's what he gets.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Yup--upthread I mentioned the plane taking me to the wrong country. We had no idea there would be a problem when we boarded. I've also ended up in the wrong country because we were told the wrong flight time. The flight in question only operated once a week, as it was their mistake they put us on another airline that would get us there a day later after an overnight connection in a third country.

Anybody that does fly knows that's not the case,

A casual flyer who doesn't pay attention to the rules and has never seen it go FUBAR might think so. The level of ignorance I see on Shanghai -> US flights is considerable.

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.

My wife has been cancelled while in the exam room. (Nurse, looking at the paperwork says there's been some sort of mistake, there's no reason for you to be here today.)

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.

I can't address the general level of knowledge. As an experienced flyer things played out how I would have expected them to on any flight under US laws.

- - - Updated - - -

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

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

(Or girlfriend, I don't remember when you two were to get married.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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

Actually, I think it could be done without breaking up companies.

Don't try to limit the size of the airlines, limit the flights into any given airport.

If you operate more than 2 flights/day out of an airport you can't have more than 30% of the total flights out of that airport, other than by attrition.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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

No. The FAA is definitely in the right here. The basic issue is a private license vs a commercial license. What they were doing amounted to flying commercially on a private license. Since there are big differences in the requirements for private and commercial pilot's licenses (hint: in practice private pilots have a high accident rate) the FAA quite rightly says "NO!" to a service whose only purpose is to break the law.

 

[coloradoatheist]

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

No. The FAA is definitely in the right here. The basic issue is a private license vs a commercial license. What they were doing amounted to flying commercially on a private license. Since there are big differences in the requirements for private and commercial pilot's licenses (hint: in practice private pilots have a high accident rate) the FAA quite rightly says "NO!" to a service whose only purpose is to break the law.

But that is why it's so hard to make competing airlines, the capital and regulations to overcome them are immense.

 

[fast]

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"?

If you walk into the produce department of a grociery store and test a single grape and are asked to leave despite there being a clear policy allowing such grazing, then even though you have done nothing wrong, you should listen if the demand is within the discretion and purview of the person giving the order.

If a pilot instructs security to remove a passenger that is unwilling to leave, any fact that the passenger has done nothing wrong is wholly irrelevant. The representative of the company who is allowed to give and execute demands of this nature is an authority figure in so much as he or she has been granted authority to execute such tasks.

 

[fast]

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.

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.

Well, like she says, no means no. You're welcome to come inside, but if you're asked to leave, your welcome is vacated.

 

[laughing dog]

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"?

If you walk into the produce department of a grociery store and test a single grape and are asked to leave despite there being a clear policy allowing such grazing, then even though you have done nothing wrong, you should listen if the demand is within the discretion and purview of the person giving the order.

Because white children have been taught to listen to authority?

If a pilot instructs security to remove a passenger that is unwilling to leave, any fact that the passenger has done nothing wrong is wholly irrelevant. The representative of the company who is allowed to give and execute demands of this nature is an authority figure in so much as he or she has been granted authority to execute such tasks.

You are wrong. And UA basically agrees with me.

 

[Keith&Co.]

If you walk into the produce department of a grociery store and test a single grape and are asked to leave despite there being a clear policy allowing such grazing, then even though you have done nothing wrong, you should listen if the demand is within the discretion and purview of the person giving the order.

No.
If you know the rules better than the person trying to enforce them, you demand that the person contact his supervisor, to establish whether or not you're really violating a rule.

Our work cafeteria has a sign over the pre-made salads, saying that you can take them for a certain price, or you can add things to them and pay a 'by weight' price.
I was putting additional green pepper on a chef salad when this little shit of a fry cook started yelling at me that this wasn't allowed. The sign SAYS it's allowed.
The guy running the cash register tried to calm things down, and i was calming, until he said 'We'll let it go this one time.'
No, mutherfutzker, this is YOUR COMPANY'S STATED POLICY! I am NOT getting away with anything and i will want to be free to do this in the future, as well as anyone else who foolishly reads the posted sign and acts IAW posted policy.

The manager showed up and gave me the salad for free. I insisted on paying the 'by weight' price because that was what i wanted to do, that day and every fucking time it strikes me. THey can obey their own goddamned rules or they can take the sign down.

If a pilot instructs security to remove a passenger that is unwilling to leave, any fact that the passenger has done nothing wrong is wholly irrelevant. The representative of the company who is allowed to give and execute demands of this nature is an authority figure in so much as he or she has been granted authority to execute such tasks.

Except that the manager has not been granted this authority.


Still not seeing why you had to mention teaching white children....

 

[Juma]

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

Well, like she says, no means no. You're welcome to come inside, but if you're asked to leave, your welcome is vacated.

Youre twisted logic puts the steps in the wrong order.
There was no reason for the passanger to not be "welcome" in the first place.

the correct causality is:
Being a security risk -> not being welcome onbord -> ok to throw of the plane.