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

[bilby]

Doesn't matter why they claimed to need them, you have FAILED to show why they needed THAT SPECIFIC SEAT

They needed 4 seats.

Normal practice is to pick the 4 passengers with the lowest fare basis that are not in the categories to bump last. Sure, they could have picked someone different when he resisted but that would be an utterly stupid move.

As opposed to having some pseudo cops violently assault a passenger in full view of a bunch of people who were recording the incident on their phones to post all over the Internet; Which was obviously a stroke of genius

They could have simply increased the compensation offer to a level where someone else volunteered to give up their seat.

That you think that it's OK to appeal to the fact that they were too piss-poor at running their airline to either: A) give that necessary level of authority to their agents on the scene; or to B) Ensure that someone with that authority is available to consult (eg one sufficiently high-level manager on-call 24x7), speaks volumes about just how little you care that this failure of management by United Airlines would result in the unprovoked assault of a member of the traveling public.

Sorry, but that is unacceptable. If there is nobody with the authority to spend a few thousand bucks of the airline's money, then how can there be anybody with the authority to initiate the use of force? Is whether or not to beat the crap out of a customer somehow a less important decision for a business to make than whether or not to spend a few thousand bucks?

That is the central question at issue here.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Corporations write the laws.

Politicians as their servants merely make what the corporations write into laws.

This is a moral issue.

Are non-human entities with human servants to have the right to assault people?

We'll have something to talk about for that. American Airlines was jealous of United so it sounds like one of the attendants hit the passenger with a stroller. Would Loren or I say it's okay for the flight attendant to hit the lady with a stroller?

The AA case is very different. While I don't have much sympathy for someone who brings on a stroller rather than gate-checking it the FA was clearly in the wrong.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Just for the fun of it:

SDF ARRIVALS
Date: Sun 23-Apr-2017
Time Period:
Departures Arrivals
Airport: (SDF) Louisville International Airport
Louisville, KY, US
Try Our New Flight Tracker

Flight Carrier Origin Arrival Status
DL 5716 Delta Air Lines (DTW) Detroit 9:28 PM Landed
AF 2296 ^ Air France (DTW) Detroit 9:28 PM Landed
KL 6652 ^ KLM (DTW) Detroit 9:28 PM Landed
VS 5661 ^ Virgin Atlantic (DTW) Detroit 9:28 PM Landed
AA 5775 American Airlines (DFW) Dallas 9:32 PM En Route
BA 6813 ^ British Airways (DFW) Dallas 9:32 PM En Route
IB 4116 ^ Iberia (DFW) Dallas 9:32 PM En Route
AA 4527 American Airlines (DCA) Washington 9:39 PM En Route
5X 2061 UPS (BDL) Hartford 9:49 PM En Route
WN 4447 Southwest Airlines (BWI) Baltimore 9:55 PM En Route
Delayed
AA 5477 American Airlines (CLT) Charlotte 9:58 PM Scheduled
Delayed
DL 2605 Delta Air Lines (ATL) Atlanta 10:15 PM En Route
VS 3075 ^ Virgin Atlantic (ATL) Atlanta 10:15 PM En Route
UA 4600 United Airlines (DEN) Denver 10:21 PM En Route
5X 9801 UPS (BDL) Hartford 10:25 PM Scheduled
UA 3515 United Airlines (IAH) Houston 10:39 PM En Route
Delayed
CM 1680 ^ Copa Airlines (IAH) Houston 10:39 PM En Route
Delayed
WN 5872 Southwest Airlines (MCO) Orlando 10:40 PM En Route
DL 5743 Delta Air Lines (MSP) Minneapolis 10:43 PM En Route
KL 7382 ^ KLM (MSP) Minneapolis 10:43 PM En Route
VS 3514 ^ Virgin Atlantic (MSP) Minneapolis 10:43 PM En Route
UA 3541 United Airlines (EWR) Newark 11:12 PM En Route
AC 2826 ^ Air Canada (EWR) Newark 11:12 PM En Route
LH 7782 ^ Lufthansa (EWR) Newark 11:12 PM En Route
DL 5718 Delta Air Lines (DTW) Detroit 11:15 PM Scheduled
VS 5667 ^ Virgin Atlantic (DTW) Detroit 11:15 PM Scheduled
WN 4466 Southwest Airlines (DEN) Denver 11:20 PM Scheduled
UA 4771 United Airlines (ORD) Chicago 11:22 PM Scheduled
Delayed
AC 2711 ^ Air Canada (ORD) Chicago 11:22 PM Scheduled
Delayed
EI 6311 ^ Aer Lingus (ORD) Chicago 11:22 PM Scheduled
Delayed
LH 9168 ^ Lufthansa (ORD) Chicago 11:22 PM Scheduled
Delayed
AA 5843 American Airlines (DFW) Dallas 11:22 PM Scheduled
DL 5909 Delta Air Lines (LGA) New York 11:35 PM En Route
WS 6794 ^ WestJet (LGA) New York 11:35 PM En Route
WN 6532 Southwest Airlines (LAS) Las Vegas 11:35 PM En Route
AA 5334 American Airlines (CLT) Charlotte 11:54 PM Scheduled
AA 4596 American Airlines (MIA) Miami 11:55 PM Scheduled
Delayed
DL 2491 Delta Air Lines (ATL) Atlanta 11:55 PM Scheduled
AF 8646 ^ Air France (ATL) Atlanta 11:55 PM Scheduled
KL 5254 ^ KLM (ATL) Atlanta 11:55 PM Scheduled
VS 5283 ^ Virgin Atlantic (ATL) Atlanta 11:55 PM Scheduled
ZQ 9006 World Atlantic Airlines (DTW) Detroit Scheduled
JUS 727 USA Jet Airlines (YIP) Detroit En Route

Clearly, hardly any airlines ever fly into Louisville... not

And what is that list supposed to prove? The vast majority of those flights are too late in the day to do United any good. Of the ones that are at the right time frame most are coming from more distant locations--they were already in the air when this incident started.

And I notice you didn't strip out all the "airplanes" with ^s. Those aren't real. You also didn't strip out the cargo planes.

 

[RavenSky]

Repeating your unsubstantiated claim and still not providing any factual support whatsoever is "not a rebuttal at all".

What are you contesting here?...

I am not "contesting" anything yet because you have repeatedly failed to provide any facts TO contest. I am simply reminding you YET AGAIN that your ill-formed opinion is not a fact.

Provide sourced facts.

 

[Artemus]

FYI: The guy writing this has won multiple cases pro se and is now in law school--while not a lawyer yet he's far more informed than the average person. He started out simply pissed at the TSA but his willingness to fight back when wronged has expanded beyond those goons by now.

Three law professors are not "average persons". A commenter to the law-student post points out that airlines are common carriers and says that the contract of carriage may not be a simple "license". The law professors agree. Far more compelling. Let's ask "Professional Troublemaker" when actually has some credentials and experience (and hopefully realizes that linking Wikipedia page doesn't mean it applies, nor does British law).

 

[RavenSky]

Just for the fun of it:

SDF ARRIVALS
Date: Sun 23-Apr-2017
Time Period:
Departures Arrivals
Airport: (SDF) Louisville International Airport
Louisville, KY, US
Try Our New Flight Tracker

Flight Carrier Origin Arrival Status
DL 5716 Delta Air Lines (DTW) Detroit 9:28 PM Landed
AF 2296 ^ Air France (DTW) Detroit 9:28 PM Landed
KL 6652 ^ KLM (DTW) Detroit 9:28 PM Landed
VS 5661 ^ Virgin Atlantic (DTW) Detroit 9:28 PM Landed
AA 5775 American Airlines (DFW) Dallas 9:32 PM En Route
BA 6813 ^ British Airways (DFW) Dallas 9:32 PM En Route
IB 4116 ^ Iberia (DFW) Dallas 9:32 PM En Route
AA 4527 American Airlines (DCA) Washington 9:39 PM En Route
5X 2061 UPS (BDL) Hartford 9:49 PM En Route
WN 4447 Southwest Airlines (BWI) Baltimore 9:55 PM En Route
Delayed
AA 5477 American Airlines (CLT) Charlotte 9:58 PM Scheduled
Delayed
DL 2605 Delta Air Lines (ATL) Atlanta 10:15 PM En Route
VS 3075 ^ Virgin Atlantic (ATL) Atlanta 10:15 PM En Route
UA 4600 United Airlines (DEN) Denver 10:21 PM En Route
5X 9801 UPS (BDL) Hartford 10:25 PM Scheduled
UA 3515 United Airlines (IAH) Houston 10:39 PM En Route
Delayed
CM 1680 ^ Copa Airlines (IAH) Houston 10:39 PM En Route
Delayed
WN 5872 Southwest Airlines (MCO) Orlando 10:40 PM En Route
DL 5743 Delta Air Lines (MSP) Minneapolis 10:43 PM En Route
KL 7382 ^ KLM (MSP) Minneapolis 10:43 PM En Route
VS 3514 ^ Virgin Atlantic (MSP) Minneapolis 10:43 PM En Route
UA 3541 United Airlines (EWR) Newark 11:12 PM En Route
AC 2826 ^ Air Canada (EWR) Newark 11:12 PM En Route
LH 7782 ^ Lufthansa (EWR) Newark 11:12 PM En Route
DL 5718 Delta Air Lines (DTW) Detroit 11:15 PM Scheduled
VS 5667 ^ Virgin Atlantic (DTW) Detroit 11:15 PM Scheduled
WN 4466 Southwest Airlines (DEN) Denver 11:20 PM Scheduled
UA 4771 United Airlines (ORD) Chicago 11:22 PM Scheduled
Delayed
AC 2711 ^ Air Canada (ORD) Chicago 11:22 PM Scheduled
Delayed
EI 6311 ^ Aer Lingus (ORD) Chicago 11:22 PM Scheduled
Delayed
LH 9168 ^ Lufthansa (ORD) Chicago 11:22 PM Scheduled
Delayed
AA 5843 American Airlines (DFW) Dallas 11:22 PM Scheduled
DL 5909 Delta Air Lines (LGA) New York 11:35 PM En Route
WS 6794 ^ WestJet (LGA) New York 11:35 PM En Route
WN 6532 Southwest Airlines (LAS) Las Vegas 11:35 PM En Route
AA 5334 American Airlines (CLT) Charlotte 11:54 PM Scheduled
AA 4596 American Airlines (MIA) Miami 11:55 PM Scheduled
Delayed
DL 2491 Delta Air Lines (ATL) Atlanta 11:55 PM Scheduled
AF 8646 ^ Air France (ATL) Atlanta 11:55 PM Scheduled
KL 5254 ^ KLM (ATL) Atlanta 11:55 PM Scheduled
VS 5283 ^ Virgin Atlantic (ATL) Atlanta 11:55 PM Scheduled
ZQ 9006 World Atlantic Airlines (DTW) Detroit Scheduled
JUS 727 USA Jet Airlines (YIP) Detroit En Route

Clearly, hardly any airlines ever fly into Louisville... not

And what is that list supposed to prove? The vast majority of those flights are too late in the day to do United any good. Of the ones that are at the right time frame most are coming from more distant locations--they were already in the air when this incident started.

And I notice you didn't strip out all the "airplanes" with ^s. Those aren't real. You also didn't strip out the cargo planes.

The list is just a random cut & paste of arriving flights to Louisville Kentucky. It is a factual list, unlike your oft-repeated but never supported opinions.

Since you have repeatedly failed and refused to provide any facts regarding what flight the 4 crew members were supposedly so urgently needed for, you have zero basis for claiming that "the vast majority of those flights are too late in the day to do United any good". You have not demonstrated that, so thpttzzzzzzzzzzzz.

As to "of the ones that are at the right time frame most are coming from more distant locations" - so what. Since you have failed and refused to provide any facts showing why it had to be THIS crew from THIS location, you have zero basis for dismissing the possibility of moving standby crews from any other locations nearer or farther away.

As to "stripping out" cargo planes - why should I? Standby crews can jump seat on cargo if necessary

The primary point is simply that - unlike your unsupported claim - there are, in fact, a lot of flights arriving at the Louisville airport at any given time of day.

 

[Ford]

What are you contesting here?...

I am not "contesting" anything yet because you have repeatedly failed to provide any facts TO contest. I am simply reminding you YET AGAIN that your ill-formed opinion is not a fact.

Provide sourced facts.

I think by now it should be clear that he's not going to provide anything other than his unsubstantiated assertion that the crew were supposed to be on an early morning flight. The maddening thing is that he knows he doesn't have the information, has admitted as much at least twice in this thread, and yet still clings to his unsupported assertion.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Actually, you found someone on the internet who gave a wrong answer on that:

An innkeeper exercising his/her right to remove a guest must remove the guest in a reasonable and prudent manner. Moreover, a guest cannot be removed for an improper ground. An innkeeper cannot use force in ejecting a guest or invitee only on guest’s refusal to depart. S/he must first request the guest to depart. An innkeeper cannot use more force than is reasonably necessary to effect the ejection[viii].

State v. Steele, 106 N.C. 766 (N.C. 1890).

[ii] State v. Ahumada, 125 Ariz. 316, 318 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1980).

[iii] State v. Gordon, 437 A.2d 855 (Me. 1981).

[iv] Raider v. Dixie Inn,198 Ky. 152, 153-154 (Ky. 1923).

[v] Bertuca v. Martinez, 2006 Tex. App. LEXIS 1386 (Tex. App. San Antonio Feb. 22, 2006).

[vi] Hackett v. Bell Operating Co., 181 A.D. 535, 536 (N.Y. App. Div. 1918).

[vii] United States v. Allen, 106 F.3d 695, 699 (6th Cir. Ky. 1997).

[viii] McBride v. Hosey, 197 S.W.2d 372 (Tex. Civ. App. 1946).

So basically the very same rules we expect the airline to follow, too.

I read those cases, and the few that relate don't say what you want them to say. A couple of them are regard to search and seizures from police at a hotel room. The 1946 one applies and that case involved the hotel saying you are evicted on this day and on that day they went to his room and removed his belongs and changed locks. The court agreed with the hotel. Also a hotel has to be very careful about making sure that they don't reach a landlord tenant situation since there are different rules for both. And actually Loren was partially correct. Some states, although Illinois does not, provides specific rules for inn keepers.

 

[coloradoatheist]

FYI: The guy writing this has won multiple cases pro se and is now in law school--while not a lawyer yet he's far more informed than the average person. He started out simply pissed at the TSA but his willingness to fight back when wronged has expanded beyond those goons by now.

Three law professors are not "average persons". A commenter to the law-student post points out that airlines are common carriers and says that the contract of carriage may not be a simple "license". The law professors agree. Far more compelling. Let's ask "Professional Troublemaker" when actually has some credentials and experience (and hopefully realizes that linking Wikipedia page doesn't mean it applies, nor does British law).

But the argument that the law professors have stated is that boarding refers to being inside the door instead of the airline definition of boarding finishes with all passengers on board and doors closed. They argue that since the contract is vague it should go in favor of the flyer. But then that means that it's a contractual belief, not a statutorial belief and one that is an opinion. So when the cops arrive and say I need to follow the law in regard to whether boarding is defined as one, can they turn to any statues in Illinois or Federal law to know which law applies? Absent an explicit law on this, then the cops would fall back on a tradional definition and then let the courts decide if there was a breach of contract. And that traditional law, the owner of a property has asked someone to leave and they can't take off without them being removed from the plane. The officers would comply with that.

 

[Artemus]

Three law professors are not "average persons". A commenter to the law-student post points out that airlines are common carriers and says that the contract of carriage may not be a simple "license". The law professors agree. Far more compelling. Let's ask "Professional Troublemaker" when actually has some credentials and experience (and hopefully realizes that linking Wikipedia page doesn't mean it applies, nor does British law).

But the argument that the law professors have stated is that boarding refers to being inside the door instead of the airline definition of boarding finishes with all passengers on board and doors closed.

And law professors know a hell of lot more about contract law than you do.

 

[coloradoatheist]

But the argument that the law professors have stated is that boarding refers to being inside the door instead of the airline definition of boarding finishes with all passengers on board and doors closed.

And law professors know a hell of lot more about contract law than you do.

and here is an opinion with professors who say no, that the decision of whether or not it was okay would have to be decided in court.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/apr/14/andrew-napolitano/united-airlines-passenger-had-every-right-stay-pla/

 

[bilby]

And law professors know a hell of lot more about contract law than you do.

and here is an opinion with professors who say no, that the decision of whether or not it was okay would have to be decided in court.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/apr/14/andrew-napolitano/united-airlines-passenger-had-every-right-stay-pla/

To be frank, if the law did say that it's OK for an airline to assault its customers without provocation, then the law would need to be changed.

Where unjust law exists, freedom demands that citizens refuse to obey.

Of course, you haven't yet shown that the law does support United Airlines in this case - but even if you could, THEY WOULD STILL BE IN THE WRONG.

Morality trumps legality. Do you want fascism? Because obedience to unjust laws is how you get fascism.

 

[whichphilosophy]

And law professors know a hell of lot more about contract law than you do.

and here is an opinion with professors who say no, that the decision of whether or not it was okay would have to be decided in court.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/apr/14/andrew-napolitano/united-airlines-passenger-had-every-right-stay-pla/

One of the issues will be regarding boarding.
The regulations refer to boarding which is defined as the act of boarding a train ship or plane.
The passenger was already boarded.
From my own experience, when a plane was overbooked, this was done prior to anyone checking in.
My interpretation is that this is when the process is carried out. When the person is boarded, the passenger is already.

Then there is the question of whether excessive force used.

There will be a lot of issues but I think a civil suit against the airline will likely yield some compensation for the following

Turfing someone off when he was already boarded (negligence and violation of its own policy)
Use of excessive force.

If the person was already boarded then the airline which was negligent in this matter should have given an offer which could not be refused. That is to say it should have offered more than its $1,350.00 ceiling.

This is just my view.

 

[Artemus]

And law professors know a hell of lot more about contract law than you do.

and here is an opinion with professors who say no, that the decision of whether or not it was okay would have to be decided in court.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/apr/14/andrew-napolitano/united-airlines-passenger-had-every-right-stay-pla/

Quoting the linked article:

Now, before you write us angry letters, let us reiterate that we’re not judging whether a policy is fair or was applied or enforced correctly. We’re merely saying that there are rules in place that allow for passengers already on a plane to be removed, and passengers are subject to them.

No one has argued that there are no rules that ever allow for passengers already on the plane to be removed. The highly qualified people who have actually analyzed the contract of carriage and quoted the relevant sections say unanimously that there were no grounds to have him removed.

 

[whichphilosophy]

and here is an opinion with professors who say no, that the decision of whether or not it was okay would have to be decided in court.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/apr/14/andrew-napolitano/united-airlines-passenger-had-every-right-stay-pla/

Quoting the linked article:

Now, before you write us angry letters, let us reiterate that we’re not judging whether a policy is fair or was applied or enforced correctly. We’re merely saying that there are rules in place that allow for passengers already on a plane to be removed, and passengers are subject to them.

No one has argued that there are no rules that ever allow for passengers already on the plane to be removed. The highly qualified people who have actually analyzed the contract of carriage and quoted the relevant sections say unanimously that there were no grounds to have him removed.

Per my earlier post the terms of Article 25 only cover allowing a person not being allowed to board; not being taken off once boarded (apart from disruptive and dangerous acts by the passenger).

 

[Artemus]

Quoting the linked article:

Now, before you write us angry letters, let us reiterate that we’re not judging whether a policy is fair or was applied or enforced correctly. We’re merely saying that there are rules in place that allow for passengers already on a plane to be removed, and passengers are subject to them.

No one has argued that there are no rules that ever allow for passengers already on the plane to be removed. The highly qualified people who have actually analyzed the contract of carriage and quoted the relevant sections say unanimously that there were no grounds to have him removed.

Per my earlier post the terms of Article 25 only cover allowing a person not being allowed to board; not being taken off once boarded (apart from disruptive and dangerous acts by the passenger).

Oops, I didn't finish my thought above. I meant to say "The highly qualified people who have actually analyzed the contract of carriage and quoted the relevant sections say unanimously that there were no grounds to have him removed under those rules."

 

[coloradoatheist]

Quoting the linked article:

Now, before you write us angry letters, let us reiterate that we’re not judging whether a policy is fair or was applied or enforced correctly. We’re merely saying that there are rules in place that allow for passengers already on a plane to be removed, and passengers are subject to them.

No one has argued that there are no rules that ever allow for passengers already on the plane to be removed. The highly qualified people who have actually analyzed the contract of carriage and quoted the relevant sections say unanimously that there were no grounds to have him removed.

Per my earlier post the terms of Article 25 only cover allowing a person not being allowed to board; not being taken off once boarded (apart from disruptive and dangerous acts by the passenger).

Oops, I didn't finish my thought above. I meant to say "The highly qualified people who have actually analyzed the contract of carriage and quoted the relevant sections say unanimously that there were no grounds to have him removed under those rules."

Except the one major problem with that, the referenced document they are referring to is not law. I think we can both agree on the following that if the CoC said, "The airlines can hit anyone over the head with a baseball bat" doesn't make that statement law. So the legal question of if they can do it goes back to what the law actually is. Is there a state or federal law that prohibit the owner from saying you need to get off my proerty and what are the rules regarding that transaction.

 

[coloradoatheist]

and here is an opinion with professors who say no, that the decision of whether or not it was okay would have to be decided in court.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/apr/14/andrew-napolitano/united-airlines-passenger-had-every-right-stay-pla/

To be frank, if the law did say that it's OK for an airline to assault its customers without provocation, then the law would need to be changed.

Where unjust law exists, freedom demands that citizens refuse to obey.

Of course, you haven't yet shown that the law does support United Airlines in this case - but even if you could, THEY WOULD STILL BE IN THE WRONG.

Morality trumps legality. Do you want fascism? Because obedience to unjust laws is how you get fascism.

Morality of something is not always the best determination of the rule, because it's usually my belief of a morality compared to the law. The problem in this case was the differences of expectations between the two parties and you can solve it several ways. Change the laws to make the law reflect the expectation. Or change the expectations.

 

[Malintent]

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?

... AND if "security" is not a police officer (which in this instance, was not), then they are just as liable for assaulting a person as any other regular civilian. If a crime was not committed (and this is not trespassing either, due to the technicalities around how that is administered - so no crime was committed), then the "bouncer" or "security guard" is guilty of assault.

Bars are no different than retail shops (where I have a good deal of experience as a private detective), in that those "private security professional's" are performing "citizen arrests". If the person detained (or dragged off, or publically humiliated in any way) is not proven to have committed a crime, then the crime was wrongful imprisonment and assault against that person by the security professional.

 

[Malintent]

Quoting the linked article:

Now, before you write us angry letters, let us reiterate that we’re not judging whether a policy is fair or was applied or enforced correctly. We’re merely saying that there are rules in place that allow for passengers already on a plane to be removed, and passengers are subject to them.

No one has argued that there are no rules that ever allow for passengers already on the plane to be removed. The highly qualified people who have actually analyzed the contract of carriage and quoted the relevant sections say unanimously that there were no grounds to have him removed.

Per my earlier post the terms of Article 25 only cover allowing a person not being allowed to board; not being taken off once boarded (apart from disruptive and dangerous acts by the passenger).

furthermore, no term of any contract provides the right to assault a person. It is not illegal to violate the terms of a contract, so this passenger did not commit a crime and could not be so much as touched by anyone, not even police unless they issued a written trespass notice to him (which they couldn't because they weren't cops.)

The men that dragged him off the plane should be arrested for assault and for impersonating a police officer. They were wearing "police" jackets after being told it was illegal for them to do so in the past. They knowingly impersonated police, knowing it was illegal, and then illegally assaulted a person. All United did was call security. Secuirty should have called the cops to issue a trespass warning. THEN the rent-a-cops could have legally dragged him off the plane... but still be liable for the unnecessary use of force.