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

[RavenSky]

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?

HE already paid his rent and taken occupancy of it.

So yes, he could have sat there until they offered him millions... though I am quite sure they would have gotten someone else to very happily and very peacefully VOLUNTARILY give up their seat long before the offer went into the millions.

right back atcha

 

[RavenSky]

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.

^^^ that

It would be so nice if people would read the articles and citations that other people so kindly provide.

 

[bilby]

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?

No, he couldn't - because they don't need him to give up his seat; They need ANY one of the passengers to do so. The compensation will go to the lowest bidder, and UA had already compensated three other passengers in exactly that way, so clearly they understand and accept the concept.

Their mistake was in setting an arbitrary (and in this case clearly too low) ceiling for this compensation.

Only a person with no business sense (and a mindlessly authoritarian attitude that treats adults with a genuine grievance as though they were stubborn children) thinks that the bad press from having a passenger forcibly removed from the aircraft will cost less than the lowest bid for compensation that is acceptable to at least one passenger.

 

[Artemus]

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

They most certainly do not. They have agreed to a contract with the paying customer and they only have the rights outlined within the contract and within US law. Again, read the linked articles.

Did the bus company/city have the right to eject Rosa Parks from her seat? They owned the bus, after all.

 

[whichphilosophy]

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.

Once hailed a driver cannot refuse a journey that is too short or inconvenient even if some may do so at times.
He can refuse drunks or people who have not got the ability to pay.

 

[untermensche]

A case of corporate vs individual rights.

Large corporations have means individuals do not. They have ways to move individuals around. If they choose to use them.

The authoritarians will side with the corporation.

And claim they care about individual rights.

 

[dismal]

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.

There is no ambiguity in the clause I linked earlier which says a seat is not guaranteed and the airline reserves the right to revoke it at any time.

The section that deals with involuntary boarding merely spells out the compensation those denied boarding are entitled to. If your argument is he was not denied boarding you would be arguing he is not entitled to the compensation for having been denied boarding. That seems a harsh interpretation to make.

 

[beero1000]

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.

There is no ambiguity in the clause I linked earlier which says a seat is not guaranteed and the airline reserves the right to revoke it at any time.

The section that deals with involuntary boarding merely spells out the compensation those denied boarding are entitled to. If your argument is he was not denied boarding you would be arguing he is not entitled to the compensation for having been denied boarding. That seems a harsh interpretation to make.

Of course there's plenty of ambiguity, and it's really disingenuous that you're pretending that there isn't. 4D is clearly talking about seat assignments, but leaves out any mention of if the seat reassignment is on the same plane or a different flight. If the interpretation is in favor of the passenger, that means that the airline has the right to move his seat on that plane, and not kick him off the flight altogether.

Seat assignments, regardless of class of service, are not guaranteed and are subject to change without notice. UA reserves the right to reseat a Passenger for any reason, including from an Economy Plus seat for which the applicable fee has been paid (fees range from 9 USD/CAD to 299 USD/CAD per flight segment per person), and if a Passenger is improperly or erroneously upgraded to a different class of service. If a Passenger is removed from an Economy Plus seat for which a fee has been paid, and the Passenger is not re-accommodated in an Economy Plus seat or a seat of equal or greater value, or if a Passenger is downgraded from a class of service and is not re-accommodated in a seat in an equal or greater class of service for which a fee has been paid, the Passenger will be eligible for a refund in accordance with Rule 27. UA also prohibits Passengers from selling their seat assignments at any time and/or exchanging them at the time of boarding without first advising a member of the crew.

 

[bilby]

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.

There is no ambiguity in the clause I linked earlier which says a seat is not guaranteed and the airline reserves the right to revoke it at any time.

The section that deals with involuntary boarding merely spells out the compensation those denied boarding are entitled to. If your argument is he was not denied boarding you would be arguing he is not entitled to the compensation for having been denied boarding. That seems a harsh interpretation to make.

It would be. But it is based on a false inference that exists only in your head, so nobody cares.

 

[Artemus]

There is no ambiguity in the clause I linked earlier which says a seat is not guaranteed and the airline reserves the right to revoke it at any time.

The section that deals with involuntary boarding merely spells out the compensation those denied boarding are entitled to. If your argument is he was not denied boarding you would be arguing he is not entitled to the compensation for having been denied boarding. That seems a harsh interpretation to make.

First, it is not my argument. It is the argument of both a professor of law on personal rights and an attorney who specializes in aviation law. Second, the section dealing with denied boarding is entirely irrelevant because he was not denied boarding. So... Third, as you say, he is not entitled to denied-boarding compensation. But....Fourth, he is entitled to far, far more compensation than that due to the violation of his civil rights. And look for him to collect that compensation, probably in an out-of-court settlement.

 

[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.

That's like saying that the market place will produce a variety of foods so therefore McDonalds must serve Whoopers. ..

No, it is nothing like that at all. Once this man boarded the plane, the seat was his - something that has been made clear in this thread. It is more like saying that once a customer at McDonald's paid for his meal and it was given to him, he is entitled to eat it, and not have it taken from him and then get assaulted because he complained.

You do realize that there were more people on the plane than just this man. Upping the compensation eventually would have induced someone to give up their seat. And the notion that the compensation would have been millions or even 10s of thousands of dollars is ridiculous.
As a result of this fiasco, United Airlines may lose business, let alone any possible settlement from a lawsuit.

 

[TSwizzle]

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.

I read a discussion elsewhere that the definition of "boarding" was maybe not quite as clear as what is commonly thought. I doubt United will force the issue, they've done enough damage.

 

[Artemus]

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.

I read a discussion elsewhere that the definition of "boarding" was maybe not quite as clear as what is commonly thought. I doubt United will force the issue, they've done enough damage.

And as the articles say, if the definition of "boarding" is not entirely clear, it must be interpreted in the way that is least beneficial to the person who wrote the contract. An airline cannot say things like "Please go directly to your assigned seat after you have boarded the aircraft" and then say "Psyche! We don't consider you as boarded until we leave the gate so get off the fucking airplane." It's a ludicrous claim, no different than if a customer tried to redefine having left the aircraft as not until the airline has closed the door for the next scheduled flight to depart.

 

[untermensche]

Much easier to prevent somebody from entering a plane than dragging them off.

A problem of communication.

Really the fault of the people who allowed the customer to get on the plane.

The question is, when the airline is at fault how much force is allowed to be perpetrated on others to rectify it?

 

[barbos]

A couple thoughts. Apparently the airliner is very well allowed by law to do what they did. Secondly, I think airport staff removed the passenger, not the airline.

They did so at the behest of the airline, and we have no idea if airport security knew why the passenger was being removed from the flight.

Well, he was being removed because he refused to follow captain's order ...... to leave the plane.

 

[coloradoatheist]

That's like saying that the market place will produce a variety of foods so therefore McDonalds must serve Whoopers. ..

No, it is nothing like that at all. Once this man boarded the plane, the seat was his - something that has been made clear in this thread. It is more like saying that once a customer at McDonald's paid for his meal and it was given to him, he is entitled to eat it, and not have it taken from him and then get assaulted because he complained.

You do realize that there were more people on the plane than just this man. Upping the compensation eventually would have induced someone to give up their seat. And the notion that the compensation would have been millions or even 10s of thousands of dollars is ridiculous.
As a result of this fiasco, United Airlines may lose business, let alone any possible settlement from a lawsuit.

Since we are now going to inconvenience the passengers, they could have asked all the passengers to get off the plane and ask them to board. I guess that's what they should have done instead.

 

[barbos]

A couple thoughts. Apparently the airliner is very well allowed by law to do what they did. Secondly, I think airport staff removed the passenger, not the airline.

United goofed in not being able to figure out how better to get their staff to Louisville, but the passenger goofed in not knowing that he doesn't actually have a right to be on the plane if the airline says he has to get off (I would have too, who the heck knew this was legal?!).

This falls down to standing up for rights you don't actually have. It sucks, but you know... capitalism.

Apparently some people plan their trips so they can make a buck by "dragging" themselves out of the plane and flying next flight.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Much easier to prevent somebody from entering a plane than dragging them off.

A problem of communication.

Really the fault of the people who allowed the customer to get on the plane.

The question is, when the airline is at fault how much force is allowed to be perpetrated on others to rectify it?

They could have asked everyone to get off the plane and then when everyone was reboarding they could have asked him not to get on. Would passengers have been better off in that situation?

 

[Ford]

No, it is nothing like that at all. Once this man boarded the plane, the seat was his - something that has been made clear in this thread. It is more like saying that once a customer at McDonald's paid for his meal and it was given to him, he is entitled to eat it, and not have it taken from him and then get assaulted because he complained.

You do realize that there were more people on the plane than just this man. Upping the compensation eventually would have induced someone to give up their seat. And the notion that the compensation would have been millions or even 10s of thousands of dollars is ridiculous.
As a result of this fiasco, United Airlines may lose business, let alone any possible settlement from a lawsuit.

Since we are now going to inconvenience the passengers, they could have asked all the passengers to get off the plane and ask them to board. I guess that's what they should have done instead.

Well according to the defenders of this action on the thread, United could have legally kicked every single passenger off the plane every bit as violently as they did the doctor, flown to Louisville with their replacement crew alone on board, and they would have not just been right to do so, but such action would be unimpeachable. They own the plane, after all, and can throw a tantrum over who gets to be on board at any time. Or they could let all the passengers (doctor excepted) stay on board, fly to Cleveland instead, forcibly debark the non-employees at gunpoint, and be on their way back to Kentucky.

After all, the passengers have no rights whatsoever, and at any moment the airline could declare them to be trespassers and treat them with impunity.

This doctor fellow got off light.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Since we are now going to inconvenience the passengers, they could have asked all the passengers to get off the plane and ask them to board. I guess that's what they should have done instead.

Well according to the defenders of this action on the thread, United could have legally kicked every single passenger off the plane every bit as violently as they did the doctor, flown to Louisville with their replacement crew alone on board, and they would have not just been right to do so, but such action would be unimpeachable. They own the plane, after all, and can throw a tantrum over who gets to be on board at any time. Or they could let all the passengers (doctor excepted) stay on board, fly to Cleveland instead, forcibly debark the non-employees at gunpoint, and be on their way back to Kentucky.

After all, the passengers have no rights whatsoever, and at any moment the airline could declare them to be trespassers and treat them with impunity.

This doctor fellow got off light.

Seeing what it may cost them it would have been cheaper to just cancel the flight.