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

[Shadowy Man]

It was the airport police.

The airline told him to leave, he refused. At that point he's a trespasser

According to Rule 21 of United Airlines' Contract of Carriage, they had no right to remove him from the plane once he boarded. He wasn't a trespasser, he was a paying customer. The airline wanted to take back what he had rightfully bought.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If he was assaulted that would be a tort. If he was simply ejected, that would just be a breech of contract. Either way, seems he can sue for damages.

I don't think he had any legal right to be on that plane. I have not read the fine print on the ticket, but I'm sure the airline reserves the right to do what it did.

I would guess under the law he was a trespasser on their plane.

eta:

Here is the fine print. See section 25 for rules for involuntarily terminated reservations.

https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriage.aspx

And note that this is simply what the law says must be done--hence it's the same across all airlines in the US.

The only thing that varies is if and by how much they will go over the mandated IDB compensation in an attempt to get volunteers.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It was the airport police.

The airline told him to leave, he refused. At that point he's a trespasser

According to Rule 21 of United Airlines' Contract of Carriage, they had no right to remove him from the plane once he boarded. He wasn't a trespasser, he was a paying customer. The airline wanted to take back what he had rightfully bought.

Section 21 deals with cases where the airline can simply refuse to transport you with no compensation due. What's relevant in this case is section 25, involuntary denied boarding.

Involuntarily denied boarding is usually handled at the gate rather than on the airplane but in this case they obviously had a last-minute need to transport crew even though boarding had already commenced. Note that boarding is not deemed complete until everyone is on board and the door is closed--the fact that he was on the plane doesn't change the situation.

 

[RavenSky]

According to Rule 21 of United Airlines' Contract of Carriage, they had no right to remove him from the plane once he boarded. He wasn't a trespasser, he was a paying customer. The airline wanted to take back what he had rightfully bought.

Section 21 deals with cases where the airline can simply refuse to transport you with no compensation due. What's relevant in this case is section 25, involuntary denied boarding.

He was already ON BOARD and in his seat

 

[LordKiran]

According to Rule 21 of United Airlines' Contract of Carriage, they had no right to remove him from the plane once he boarded. He wasn't a trespasser, he was a paying customer. The airline wanted to take back what he had rightfully bought.

Section 21 deals with cases where the airline can simply refuse to transport you with no compensation due. What's relevant in this case is section 25, involuntary denied boarding.

Involuntarily denied boarding is usually handled at the gate rather than on the airplane but in this case they obviously had a last-minute need to transport crew even though boarding had already commenced. Note that boarding is not deemed complete until everyone is on board and the door is closed--the fact that he was on the plane doesn't change the situation.

I'm pretty sure "At the gate" means "At the gate" and not "Whatever LP wants it to mean so he can have a foot to stand on."

 

[Ford]

So, instead of 4 passengers left behind at least one planeload gets left behind, likely more than one?

About that...

http://www.sacbee.com/news/business/article144251244.html

...according to a McClatchy review of the airline’s service schedule, the carrier could have put that crew on as many as three other United flights to Kentucky from Chicago the same evening. Or two flights on other airlines.

Oops.

United had three additional flights from Chicago to Kentucky airports on Sunday night, including one directly to Louisville, where the crew needed to be.

The full, ultimately controversial flight was United 3411, scheduled to depart O’Hare Airport at 5:41 p.m. Sunday.

But according to United’s website, its next flight to Louisville from O’Hare, 4771, was scheduled to depart at 9 p.m.

Another two United flights to Lexington and Cincinnati depart about the same time.

In addition, American 3509 is scheduled to leave O’Hare an hour after United 3411’s scheduled departure time for Louisville. Southwest 4484 is to leave Chicago’s Midway Airport for Louisville at 9:50 p.m.

It is worth noting that because of the incident, the flight with the all important crew arrived in Louisville 2 hours late. I don't suppose anyone knows when they were scheduled to fly out of Louisville the next day?

 

[RavenSky]

Section 21 deals with cases where the airline can simply refuse to transport you with no compensation due. What's relevant in this case is section 25, involuntary denied boarding.

Involuntarily denied boarding is usually handled at the gate rather than on the airplane but in this case they obviously had a last-minute need to transport crew even though boarding had already commenced. Note that boarding is not deemed complete until everyone is on board and the door is closed--the fact that he was on the plane doesn't change the situation.

I'm pretty sure "At the gate" means "At the gate" and not "Whatever LP wants it to mean so he can have a foot to stand on."

I'm pretty sure the multiple articles quoting multiple aviation attorneys completely agree with your understanding of this point.

Too bad Loren won't read any of those sources and save the rest of us sore fingers.

 

[TSwizzle]

Section 21 deals with cases where the airline can simply refuse to transport you with no compensation due. What's relevant in this case is section 25, involuntary denied boarding.

He was already ON BOARD and in his seat

There may may some legal ambiguity regarding as to when a passenger is deemed to have "boarded". i.e. is it when the passenger is "on board" or is it when doors are locked and push back from the gate has occurred. It will be in the "fine print" no doubt.

 

[laughing dog]

I truly appreciate how most of the free-marketers/liberterians advocate gov't sanctioned violence over voluntary market solutions such as upping the compensation until someone agrees to give up a seat.

FFS, even UA knows it screwed up big time.

 

[credoconsolans]

They had no choice. Asshole wouldn't move.

It's not his plane. The airlines have the right to eject anyone they want.

They needed the seat, he was chosen at random and he refused to get off, he refused to obey the flight crew (which as a passenger he's obliged to do, otherwise they can and will evict you), then he refused to obey the security guards and then injured himself struggling like a tantrumy child.

 

[bilby]

They had no choice. Asshole wouldn't move.

It's not his plane. The airlines have the right to eject anyone they want.

They needed the seat, he was chosen at random and he refused to get off, he refused to obey the flight crew (which as a passenger he's obliged to do, otherwise they can and will evict you), then he refused to obey the security guards and then injured himself struggling like a tantrumy child.

Of course they had a choice. They could have solved the whole issue by simply offering enough compensation to get a volunteer to give up their seat.

Only a mindless authoritarian could possibly think that there was no choice other than to drag the man out of the plane by main force. You could recognize such an authoritarian easily enough - they are the people who refer to an adult who is justifiably unhappy about being treated disgracefully as 'like a tantrumy child'.

 

[credoconsolans]

They had no choice. Asshole wouldn't move.

It's not his plane. The airlines have the right to eject anyone they want.

They needed the seat, he was chosen at random and he refused to get off, he refused to obey the flight crew (which as a passenger he's obliged to do, otherwise they can and will evict you), then he refused to obey the security guards and then injured himself struggling like a tantrumy child.

Of course they had a choice. They could have solved the whole issue by simply offering enough compensation to get a volunteer to give up their seat.

Only a mindless authoritarian could possibly think that there was no choice other than to drag the man out of the plane by main force. You could recognize such an authoritarian easily enough - they are the people who refer to an adult who is justifiably unhappy about being treated disgracefully as 'like a tantrumy child'.

Only a person with no business sense thinks an airline needs to open up bidding on a seat that it owns.

Guy could sit there until they offered him millions, right?

 

[whichphilosophy]

They had no choice. Asshole wouldn't move.

It's not his plane. The airlines have the right to eject anyone they want.

They needed the seat, he was chosen at random and he refused to get off, he refused to obey the flight crew (which as a passenger he's obliged to do, otherwise they can and will evict you), then he refused to obey the security guards and then injured himself struggling like a tantrumy child.

Of course they had a choice. They could have solved the whole issue by simply offering enough compensation to get a volunteer to give up their seat.

Only a mindless authoritarian could possibly think that there was no choice other than to drag the man out of the plane by main force. You could recognize such an authoritarian easily enough - they are the people who refer to an adult who is justifiably unhappy about being treated disgracefully as 'like a tantrumy child'.

In such cases this is not uncommon. A few posts away I quoted something from Philippine Airlines when its Beijing to Manila flight was overbooked and it offered free hotels for the night and an bonus free return ticket.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Section 21 deals with cases where the airline can simply refuse to transport you with no compensation due. What's relevant in this case is section 25, involuntary denied boarding.

He was already ON BOARD and in his seat

Correct. He had his seat and the airline breached his contract from thereon to reach his destination. He had checked in indicating the flight was not overbooked for he was allocated a seat.

(I don't see any taxis throwing people off once they have gotten into the taxi because someone else arrives and wants to go somewhere else.

It is not clear whether United offered people any compensation to take the next flight. However it cannot force people to do so.

 

[Bronzeage]

Of course they had a choice. They could have solved the whole issue by simply offering enough compensation to get a volunteer to give up their seat.

Only a mindless authoritarian could possibly think that there was no choice other than to drag the man out of the plane by main force. You could recognize such an authoritarian easily enough - they are the people who refer to an adult who is justifiably unhappy about being treated disgracefully as 'like a tantrumy child'.

Only a person with no business sense thinks an airline needs to open up bidding on a seat that it owns.

Guy could sit there until they offered him millions, right?

If there was only one guy on the plane, none of this would have happened. I've been on flights which were overbooked. Before boarding, someone comes on the intercom and asks if anyone would like to trade their ticket for a later flight, some number of air miles, and a small cash gift. I have yet to see the police become involved.

 

[coloradoatheist]

They had no choice. Asshole wouldn't move.

It's not his plane. The airlines have the right to eject anyone they want.

They needed the seat, he was chosen at random and he refused to get off, he refused to obey the flight crew (which as a passenger he's obliged to do, otherwise they can and will evict you), then he refused to obey the security guards and then injured himself struggling like a tantrumy child.

Of course they had a choice. They could have solved the whole issue by simply offering enough compensation to get a volunteer to give up their seat.

Only a mindless authoritarian could possibly think that there was no choice other than to drag the man out of the plane by main force. You could recognize such an authoritarian easily enough - they are the people who refer to an adult who is justifiably unhappy about being treated disgracefully as 'like a tantrumy child'.

And a place of business doesn't have to charge a price for it's items too and just think how happy customers will be if they don't have to pay. Doctors themselves overbook all the time, are they required to pay people if somebody waits in the office more than 30 minutes?

United expected that once security shows up most people comply, but the security force that is called in doesn't work for United and they are ust trying to get away in a tight space.

 

[coloradoatheist]

I truly appreciate how most of the free-marketers/liberterians advocate gov't sanctioned violence over voluntary market solutions such as upping the compensation until someone agrees to give up a seat.

FFS, even UA knows it screwed up big time.

That's like saying that the market place will produce a variety of foods so therefore McDonalds must serve Whoopers. If a restaurant serves a bad meal that the customer complains, does the restaurant have to give enough compensation that the person is okay? If someone asks for a million dollars to recommend a restaurant, do they need to? At some point the cost that the airline gives up is greater than the profit they made on the flight, they don't have to lose money on a flight because someone says no.

 

[credoconsolans]

He was already ON BOARD and in his seat

Correct. He had his seat and the airline breached his contract from thereon to reach his destination. He had checked in indicating the flight was not overbooked for he was allocated a seat.

(I don't see any taxis throwing people off once they have gotten into the taxi because someone else arrives and wants to go somewhere else.

It is not clear whether United offered people any compensation to take the next flight. However it cannot force people to do so.

But they can and do.

A taxi takes a passenger who wants to go half a mile, then someone runs up and needs a $60 ride to the airport. They can and DO refuse fairs.

They of course would toss a drunk passenger for a sober one.

 

[RavenSky]

They had no choice.

wrong

Asshole wouldn't move.

It's not his plane. The airlines have the right to eject anyone they want.

wrong

They needed the seat, he was chosen at random and he refused to get off,

their problem, not his

he refused to obey the flight crew (which as a passenger he's obliged to do, otherwise they can and will evict you), then he refused to obey the security guards and then injured himself struggling like a tantrumy child.

wrong

 

[Artemus]

He was already ON BOARD and in his seat

There may may some legal ambiguity regarding as to when a passenger is deemed to have "boarded". i.e. is it when the passenger is "on board" or is it when doors are locked and push back from the gate has occurred. It will be in the "fine print" no doubt.

The articles I linked earlier address this. If there is ambiguity in the wording of the contract, it must legally be interpreted in the most negative light against the party who wrote the contract (something that I learned today). United wrote the contract, so boarding must be the act of boarding the aircraft, not when it pushes off from the gate.