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

[coloradoatheist]

Here is the link the Illinois Statues about property. For real property there are a couple of sections.

21-3 a (3)
It says that a person is trespassing after they have received notice from the owner or occupant that they are to depart
21-3 a Says it can be given orally in in writing.

 

[zorq]

I don't understand this. Can you rephrase? As I see it my reversed analogy is much more appropriate than your analogy.

The issue isn't that there isn't many times that someone pays for your house for you to do something that has the same laws. Usually when someone is paying you it's for a service. The only thing I can think of is someone paying to have a party at your house and that doesn't happen often. Landlord/tenant laws are different.

But there are many services where you do occupy their property for the service. You wouldn't make the case that you own the barbershop seat while getting a haircut.

You are conflating owning the barber chair with owning use of the barber chair for a set period of time.

Maybe the analogy you are looking for is renting your house out for a wedding venue or a time share or air b&b, But it still doesn't help you. The terms of the contract for each give use of someone else's property for you to use for a set period of time. Once you pay the person for that service, the place and time belongs to you as long as you fulfill all the stipulations in the contract.

Why do you think it is a good idea for powerful corporations to leverage their strength to discard contracts and trample on people who enter into these contracts in good faith? Corporations aren't people. Why do you worship power and scorn humanity?

 

[RavenSky]

Here is the link the Illinois Statues about property. For real property there are a couple of sections.

21-3 a (3)
It says that a person is trespassing after they have received notice from the owner or occupant that they are to depart
21-3 a Says it can be given orally in in writing.

Sec. 21-3. Criminal trespass to real property.
(a) A person commits criminal trespass to real property when he or she:
(1) knowingly and without lawful authority enters or

remains within or on a building;
(2) enters upon the land of another, after receiving,

prior to the entry, notice from the owner or occupant that the entry is forbidden;
(3) remains upon the land of another, after receiving

notice from the owner or occupant to depart;
(3.5) presents false documents or falsely represents

his or her identity orally to the owner or occupant of a building or land in order to obtain permission from the owner or occupant to enter or remain in the building or on the land;
(3.7) intentionally removes a notice posted on

residential real estate as required by subsection (l) of Section 15-1505.8 of Article XV of the Code of Civil Procedure before the date and time set forth in the notice; or
(4) enters a field used or capable of being used for

growing crops, an enclosed area containing livestock, an agricultural building containing livestock, or an orchard in or on a motor vehicle (including an off-road vehicle, motorcycle, moped, or any other powered two-wheel vehicle) after receiving, prior to the entry, notice from the owner or occupant that the entry is forbidden or remains upon or in the area after receiving notice from the owner or occupant to depart.
For purposes of item (1) of this subsection, this Section shall not apply to being in a building which is open to the public while the building is open to the public during its normal hours of operation; nor shall this Section apply to a person who enters a public building under the reasonable belief that the building is still open to the public.

"real property" is not an airplane. An airplane would be "personal property" or a "vehicle"

(720 ILCS 5/21-2) (from Ch. 38, par. 21-2)
Sec. 21-2. Criminal trespass to vehicles.
(a) A person commits criminal trespass to vehicles when he or she knowingly and without authority enters any part of or operates any vehicle, aircraft, watercraft or snowmobile.
(b) Sentence. Criminal trespass to vehicles is a Class A misdemeanor.
(Source: P.A. 97-1108, eff. 1-1-13.)

Nothing about the owner of the airplane being able to retroactively and/or verbally claim "trespass" against a person who paid for passage in the vehicle, and boarded the vehicle with full authority and agreement from the airplane owner.

 

[coloradoatheist]

The issue isn't that there isn't many times that someone pays for your house for you to do something that has the same laws. Usually when someone is paying you it's for a service. The only thing I can think of is someone paying to have a party at your house and that doesn't happen often. Landlord/tenant laws are different.

But there are many services where you do occupy their property for the service. You wouldn't make the case that you own the barbershop seat while getting a haircut.

You are conflating owning the barber chair with owning use of the barber chair for a set period of time.

Maybe the analogy you are looking for is renting your house out for a wedding venue or a time share or air b&b, But it still doesn't help you. The terms of the contract for each give use of someone else's property for you to use for a set period of time. Once you pay the person for that service, the place and time belongs to you as long as you fulfill all the stipulations in the contract.

Why do you think it is a good idea for powerful corporations to leverage their strength to discard contracts and trample on people who enter into these contracts in good faith? Corporations aren't people. Why do you worship power and scorn humanity?

The overall reason is that I find it amazing that just a difference where you sit waiting for something is that emotional. It's like sitting in the doctors office compared to sitting in the office in the back waiting for the doctor, but one holding more emotional attachment. The model for buying a plane ticket is not the same as buying anything else because you prepay but you have a very reasonable expectation that they time you leave and get there that's not a guaranteed issue. Doctors overbook all the time so there are times where I get into the office and go right in, sometimes its waiting 30 minutes and very infrequently sometimes waiting 2 hours or more. So if doctors could never overbook they could only book one person a day. Would we be better off in that model? i am better off knowing I will get into the office in time, but not overall.

Airlines have some of the most complex logistical issues compared to any other business because of how spread it is, and the regulations involved in the operations. So to get everybody to where they need time sometimes requires upsetting some for others and whether I wait in the terminal lobby or a seat in the plane makes absolutely no difference to me.

 

[zorq]

You are conflating owning the barber chair with owning use of the barber chair for a set period of time.

Maybe the analogy you are looking for is renting your house out for a wedding venue or a time share or air b&b, But it still doesn't help you. The terms of the contract for each give use of someone else's property for you to use for a set period of time. Once you pay the person for that service, the place and time belongs to you as long as you fulfill all the stipulations in the contract.

Why do you think it is a good idea for powerful corporations to leverage their strength to discard contracts and trample on people who enter into these contracts in good faith? Corporations aren't people. Why do you worship power and scorn humanity?

The overall reason is that I find it amazing that just a difference where you sit waiting for something is that emotional. It's like sitting in the doctors office compared to sitting in the office in the back waiting for the doctor, but one holding more emotional attachment. The model for buying a plane ticket is not the same as buying anything else because you prepay but you have a very reasonable expectation that they time you leave and get there that's not a guaranteed issue. Doctors overbook all the time so there are times where I get into the office and go right in, sometimes its waiting 30 minutes and very infrequently sometimes waiting 2 hours or more. So if doctors could never overbook they could only book one person a day. Would we be better off in that model? i am better off knowing I will get into the office in time, but not overall.

Airlines have some of the most complex logistical issues compared to any other business because of how spread it is, and the regulations involved in the operations. So to get everybody to where they need time sometimes requires upsetting some for others and whether I wait in the terminal lobby or a seat in the plane makes absolutely no difference to me.

First of all this is not a case of overbooking! How many times do people need to tell you that? The airline sold seats and then decided to steal some of them back for their own purposes without the consent of their owners. They didn't sell conditional seats to stand-by passengers who knew they might not make it on the plane. They sold actual tickets to everyone on the plane and agreed to transport all of them, safety permitting.

It's not about sitting on a plane seat vs sitting in the terminal that makes a difference, but that happens to be the legal difference in this case which gives United no chance of winning. The difference is that United stole back with violent force access to a service they had been paid for in good faith. Personally, I agree with you. I think the in the plane-off the plane difference should be inconsequential. But we disagree on whether a powerful corporation should be able to steal back from people that which they have agreed to provide.

 

[atrib]

Except for the detail that when you invite someone to your home, you do not make them pay in advance for a ticket to reserve a seat on your couch. And you certainly do not get to assault them after they have paid for said ticket, have been welcomed into your home and seated on your couch.

Except it's not quite and there are circumstances where yes it does apply. If I say I will give you $300 to paint my inside walls but then when you are inside I say I want you out of the house, then yes I can ask them to leave and if they acknowledge that I asked them to leave they would have to leave. They can come back and say I still owe them the $300 which is a contract dispute. About the assault. You can't just assault them, but the variance for what you can do about getting them to leave varies around the country.

Your analogy is fucked up. Dr Dao was NOT being paid to perform a service for UA. UA was providing a service to Dr Dao in exchange for the price of the ticket. Dr Dao had paid for his ticket, and had been boarded and seated on the plane by UA personnel. When UA asked him to depart, he challenged UA's claim that they could involuntarily remove him from the aircraft, after he had been boarded and seated. He apparently also contacted his lawyer to ascertain if UA could do this. UA reacted by calling in the airport's hired rent-a-cops to remove him by force, which they did. During which Dr Dao sustained a broken nose, broken teeth, and apparently a concussion. You tell me, who was in the wrong here?

 

[Shadowy Man]

Except it's not quite and there are circumstances where yes it does apply. If I say I will give you $300 to paint my inside walls but then when you are inside I say I want you out of the house, then yes I can ask them to leave and if they acknowledge that I asked them to leave they would have to leave. They can come back and say I still owe them the $300 which is a contract dispute. About the assault. You can't just assault them, but the variance for what you can do about getting them to leave varies around the country.

Your analogy is fucked up. Dr Dao was NOT being paid to perform a service for UA. UA was providing a service to Dr Dao in exchange for the price of the ticket. Dr Dao had paid for his ticket, and had been boarded and seated on the plane by UA personnel. When UA asked him to depart, he challenged UA's claim that they could involuntarily remove him from the aircraft, after he had been boarded and seated. He apparently also contacted his lawyer to ascertain if UA could do this. UA reacted by calling in the airport's hired rent-a-cops to remove him by force, which they did. During which Dr Dao sustained a broken nose, broken teeth, and apparently a concussion. You tell me, who was in the wrong here?

I think they're response is that when confronted by the "police" and told to leave, he should have left regardless of whether it was an illegal order or UA was in the wrong and he could simply sue for breach of contract later. By not immediately complying with the authorities, he relinquished his right to not be beaten up and forcefully thrown off the plane.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Except it's not quite and there are circumstances where yes it does apply. If I say I will give you $300 to paint my inside walls but then when you are inside I say I want you out of the house, then yes I can ask them to leave and if they acknowledge that I asked them to leave they would have to leave. They can come back and say I still owe them the $300 which is a contract dispute. About the assault. You can't just assault them, but the variance for what you can do about getting them to leave varies around the country.

Your analogy is fucked up. Dr Dao was NOT being paid to perform a service for UA. UA was providing a service to Dr Dao in exchange for the price of the ticket. Dr Dao had paid for his ticket, and had been boarded and seated on the plane by UA personnel. When UA asked him to depart, he challenged UA's claim that they could involuntarily remove him from the aircraft, after he had been boarded and seated. He apparently also contacted his lawyer to ascertain if UA could do this. UA reacted by calling in the airport's hired rent-a-cops to remove him by force, which they did. During which Dr Dao sustained a broken nose, broken teeth, and apparently a concussion. You tell me, who was in the wrong here?

He made a gamble that he shouldn't have made and it luck or bad luck he did. He has recourse for involuntarily giving up his seat and his lawyer would have advised that. The DOT also has a process for handling these requests. So he had the airlines he could deal with, his lawyer, and the DOT. He gets off the plane and it sucks. But for 40,000 other plus people last year, traveling sucked too.

 

[coloradoatheist]

The overall reason is that I find it amazing that just a difference where you sit waiting for something is that emotional. It's like sitting in the doctors office compared to sitting in the office in the back waiting for the doctor, but one holding more emotional attachment. The model for buying a plane ticket is not the same as buying anything else because you prepay but you have a very reasonable expectation that they time you leave and get there that's not a guaranteed issue. Doctors overbook all the time so there are times where I get into the office and go right in, sometimes its waiting 30 minutes and very infrequently sometimes waiting 2 hours or more. So if doctors could never overbook they could only book one person a day. Would we be better off in that model? i am better off knowing I will get into the office in time, but not overall.

Airlines have some of the most complex logistical issues compared to any other business because of how spread it is, and the regulations involved in the operations. So to get everybody to where they need time sometimes requires upsetting some for others and whether I wait in the terminal lobby or a seat in the plane makes absolutely no difference to me.

First of all this is not a case of overbooking! How many times do people need to tell you that? The airline sold seats and then decided to steal some of them back for their own purposes without the consent of their owners. They didn't sell conditional seats to stand-by passengers who knew they might not make it on the plane. They sold actual tickets to everyone on the plane and agreed to transport all of them, safety permitting.

It's not about sitting on a plane seat vs sitting in the terminal that makes a difference, but that happens to be the legal difference in this case which gives United no chance of winning. The difference is that United stole back with violent force access to a service they had been paid for in good faith. Personally, I agree with you. I think the in the plane-off the plane difference should be inconsequential. But we disagree on whether a powerful corporation should be able to steal back from people that which they have agreed to provide.

But even then it can be. That flight was not supposed to be the one that gets a crew to Louisville, it was another plane but because they overworked their hours Republic had to get a crew to Louisville to work the flight sometime the next day. Let's take the example of the doctor....what happens if his PA calls in sick on a day? If he could do 4 patients an hour with the PA to only 2 patients without one, he becomes overbooked that day too. So he has to make decisions. Does he call his patients and reschedule...does he shorten each visit...does he make people wait twice as long or more to see him. I think the lack of empathy people have for customer service is really bad.

and for this example. Let's say he gets to the counter and they say, "I'm sorry, we can't put you on this flight, let's work on alternate arrangements" How would he have known if it was oversold?

 

[Juma]

First of all this is not a case of overbooking! How many times do people need to tell you that? The airline sold seats and then decided to steal some of them back for their own purposes without the consent of their owners. They didn't sell conditional seats to stand-by passengers who knew they might not make it on the plane. They sold actual tickets to everyone on the plane and agreed to transport all of them, safety permitting.

It's not about sitting on a plane seat vs sitting in the terminal that makes a difference, but that happens to be the legal difference in this case which gives United no chance of winning. The difference is that United stole back with violent force access to a service they had been paid for in good faith. Personally, I agree with you. I think the in the plane-off the plane difference should be inconsequential. But we disagree on whether a powerful corporation should be able to steal back from people that which they have agreed to provide.

But even then it can be. That flight was not supposed to be the one that gets a crew to Louisville, it was another plane but because they overworked their hours Republic had to get a crew to Louisville to work the flight sometime the next day. Let's take the example of the doctor....what happens if his PA calls in sick on a day? If he could do 4 patients an hour with the PA to only 2 patients without one, he becomes overbooked that day too. So he has to make decisions. Does he call his patients and reschedule...does he shorten each visit...does he make people wait twice as long or more to see him. I think the lack of empathy people have for customer service is really bad.

and for this example. Let's say he gets to the counter and they say, "I'm sorry, we can't put you on this flight, let's work on alternate arrangements" How would he have known if it was oversold?

Wether i go to my doctor today or in two weeks is not important. On the other hand if I need to be somewhere tomorrow then another flight tomorrow is completely useless.

 

[coloradoatheist]

But even then it can be. That flight was not supposed to be the one that gets a crew to Louisville, it was another plane but because they overworked their hours Republic had to get a crew to Louisville to work the flight sometime the next day. Let's take the example of the doctor....what happens if his PA calls in sick on a day? If he could do 4 patients an hour with the PA to only 2 patients without one, he becomes overbooked that day too. So he has to make decisions. Does he call his patients and reschedule...does he shorten each visit...does he make people wait twice as long or more to see him. I think the lack of empathy people have for customer service is really bad.

and for this example. Let's say he gets to the counter and they say, "I'm sorry, we can't put you on this flight, let's work on alternate arrangements" How would he have known if it was oversold?

Wether i go to my doctor today or in two weeks is not important. On the other hand if I need to be somewhere tomorrow then another flight tomorrow is completely useless.

For a lot of people it is though. I have to take off work, sometimes arrange babysitting. It's not that easy. However with airline travel there is no expectation that you will get there within your time frame. and if you absolutely need to be somewhere at a certain time, you drive.

 

[zorq]

First of all this is not a case of overbooking! How many times do people need to tell you that? The airline sold seats and then decided to steal some of them back for their own purposes without the consent of their owners. They didn't sell conditional seats to stand-by passengers who knew they might not make it on the plane. They sold actual tickets to everyone on the plane and agreed to transport all of them, safety permitting.

It's not about sitting on a plane seat vs sitting in the terminal that makes a difference, but that happens to be the legal difference in this case which gives United no chance of winning. The difference is that United stole back with violent force access to a service they had been paid for in good faith. Personally, I agree with you. I think the in the plane-off the plane difference should be inconsequential. But we disagree on whether a powerful corporation should be able to steal back from people that which they have agreed to provide.

But even then it can be. That flight was not supposed to be the one that gets a crew to Louisville, it was another plane but because they overworked their hours Republic had to get a crew to Louisville to work the flight sometime the next day. Let's take the example of the doctor....what happens if his PA calls in sick on a day? If he could do 4 patients an hour with the PA to only 2 patients without one, he becomes overbooked that day too. So he has to make decisions. Does he call his patients and reschedule...does he shorten each visit...does he make people wait twice as long or more to see him.

It's true that sometimes nothing can be done. Of course, it hasn't been verified that United had no other choice than to put the crew on this plane to satisfy the later flight but that's beside the point. I'll tell you what the doctor DOESN'T do to ameliorate the situation. He doesn't kidnap another PA to fill the place of his missing assistant, and he also doesn't smash in the faces of the people in his waiting room until an appropriate number of patients leave his office. Ideally in this situation the doctor negotiates with the patients until an agreement is reached that meets their needs, acknowledging that the patients did nothing wrong and the failure to provide service lies entirely on the doctor's side.

United had the power to steal the seats back, but it didn't have the right.

I think the lack of empathy people have for customer service is really bad.

Yeah, because apparently sometimes your version of customer service involves smashing people's faces in.

and for this example. Let's say he gets to the counter and they say, "I'm sorry, we can't put you on this flight, let's work on alternate arrangements" How would he have known if it was oversold?

Yes, powerful organizations and figures can't be trusted to tell the truth any more than anyone else. If they had tricked the doctor, he might not have ever known what a shitbag move they were pulling, but in this case their shit was on full display. The fact that they might get away with underhanded tactics in some cases doesn't legitimize their underhanded shit.

 

[Shadowy Man]

...and if you absolutely need to be somewhere at a certain time, you drive.

Yeah, because driving across multiple states is guaranteed to be able to done in a fixed time period, no delays. What could go wrong??

 

[bilby]

Your analogy is fucked up. Dr Dao was NOT being paid to perform a service for UA. UA was providing a service to Dr Dao in exchange for the price of the ticket. Dr Dao had paid for his ticket, and had been boarded and seated on the plane by UA personnel. When UA asked him to depart, he challenged UA's claim that they could involuntarily remove him from the aircraft, after he had been boarded and seated. He apparently also contacted his lawyer to ascertain if UA could do this. UA reacted by calling in the airport's hired rent-a-cops to remove him by force, which they did. During which Dr Dao sustained a broken nose, broken teeth, and apparently a concussion. You tell me, who was in the wrong here?

I think they're response is that when confronted by the "police" and told to leave, he should have left regardless of whether it was an illegal order or UA was in the wrong and he could simply sue for breach of contract later. By not immediately complying with the authorities, he relinquished his right to not be beaten up and forcefully thrown off the plane.

What else should one expect, in the land of the free?

 

[Juma]

Wether i go to my doctor today or in two weeks is not important. On the other hand if I need to be somewhere tomorrow then another flight tomorrow is completely useless.

For a lot of people it is though. I have to take off work, sometimes arrange babysitting. It's not that easy. However with airline travel there is no expectation that you will get there within your time frame. and if you absolutely need to be somewhere at a certain time, you drive.

Let me explain this so even you understand: a non emergencency visit to the doctor is not time critical. The exact timing of the service is not an essential part of the service. Did you underdtand that?
Can you also understand that this is in totally contrast to travel where the exact timing to the nearest several minutes often are of outmost importance?




I didnt know US was such a third world country so you cant trust the communications...

- - - Updated - - -

I think they're response is that when confronted by the "police" and told to leave, he should have left regardless of whether it was an illegal order or UA was in the wrong and he could simply sue for breach of contract later. By not immediately complying with the authorities, he relinquished his right to not be beaten up and forcefully thrown off the plane.

What else should one expect, in the land of the free?

That to fly you have to be very brave...

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

If you're not contesting anything you are in effect conceding.

- - - Updated - - -

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).

The media wants controversy. Of course their talking heads will say United was wrong.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

I recognize the list for what it is (other than the fact that half of those planes don't actually exist.) The point is that it does nothing to support your position.

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.

So you want criminal-level proof of necessity before considering who is right or wrong here? This is a civil matter, preponderance of the evidence should apply.

Note that most of your list arrives close to midnight. Add crew rest and they're not flying out before about 11am at best, probably even later than that. Few planes start that late in the day!

As to "of the ones that are at the right time frame most are coming from more distant locations" - so what.

So what is called flight time! If they're coming from more distant locations they left earlier--before the need was known.

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.

Chicago is the closest place.

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

Once again you show you don't know the applicable laws. The FAA would not approve!

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.

Earlier I went through the whole list (not merely the arrivals board like you have). The only two United flights not already in the air were the two from Chicago.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

This assumes there is nothing else that defines "boarding". However, in common use they refer to "the boarding process", every airline I've flown treats it about the same. That seems to me to be the relevant definition--and by that definition one can be denied boarding even after one is on board.

Furthermore, that's how it has worked in the past--when something comes up they can kick you off even after boarding.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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/

And, unlike the talking heads, these guys aren't in the business of stirring up controversy. Thus I would put far more weight on their opinion.

 

[LordKiran]

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.

If you're not contesting anything you are in effect conceding.

- - - Updated - - -

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).

The media wants controversy. Of course their talking heads will say United was wrong.

Nobody is conceding. You're just plugging up your ears and going "LALALALALALA I DIDN'T HEAR THAT! I DIDN'T HEAR YOU DEMAND EVIDENCE THAT PROVES WHAT I SAID WAS CORRECT."