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

[bilby]

I will agree with the first part. I've been saying for years that the airlines are too quick to IDB and the only fix is to raise the IDB compensation.

So far nobody has found any likely other alternative, nor would it have been practical for the airline to look for an alternative--that would take too long.

There have been a large number of people on here who are infected with liberalitis. This was a situation lacking a good solution.

You mean other than the often repeated alternative of simply offering more compensation until a volunteer was found?

Because that is an EXCELLENT solution - and that's unusual for solutions born of pure libertarianism. In this case, the libertarians are 100% right. And you, as a 'moderate libertarian', continue to completely fail to address this option.

It's almost as if you can't read it - every time someone writes it, you ignore it completely, or simply handwave it away as 'impossible' for undefined or irrelevant reasons.

IF the staff on the spot had the authority to invoke the use of force on behalf of the corporation, then they should also have had the authority to spend a few thousand bucks on behalf of the corporation - because spending a bit of money was a less important decision for the business than the decision to invoke the use of force.

This is NOT a situation lacking a good solution. It's a situation where a VERY VERY BAD solution was chosen. And the fault for that bad decision lies firmly and unavoidably with United Airlines, whose agents on the spot decided that using force was less likely to get them in to trouble than spending a little money. That decision was about the worst decision since someone said ‘yeah let’s take this suspiciously large wooden horse into Troy, statues are all the rage this season’.

 

[fast]

Actually, I was just being reasonable. An argument could be made that trespassing is independent of our reasonableness. Suppose unwelcomly someone sneaks into the backseat of the car--unbeknownst to the taxi driver. He's trespassing both before and after I pass a cop, whether or not I become aware that he's trespassing before passing the cop. It wouldn't be unlike a stowaway on a ship or a person hiding in the wheel well of a jet.

What's unreasonable is to tell the stowaway to jump off the moving ship, or to tell the guy to jump out the plane, or to tell the guy to jump out the moving taxi. Not giving someone a safe means to no longer be in a position of being a trespasser doesn't mean they aren't trespassing.

If the passenger of the taxi in the original example lights up, he becomes a trespasser the moment the driver says get the f out and doesn't. If the passenger doesn't exit the moving vehicle, then he's as much as a trespasser as the ship stowaway who refuses to jump in the ocean.

Yes they can't throw the person out of a car or ship or plane. They would have to stop where convenient and then either decide if they just want the person out of the vehicle or if they want o press charges.

They can, in both senses. As to ability (can versus cannot), open up the door and shove the trespasser out onto the pavement--even if it makes Christian viewers cry. As to choice (can versus can not), he can do it or he can not do it, it's a choice with some rather nasty legal consequences.

If the momentary issue is whether the unwelcome passenger (the one that lit up and summarily told to get out) is still nevertheless trespassing when passing a cop (even when no option has been so nicely and neatly (and safely and securely and humanely)) offered or made available, then when I look at him and let him know that he's unwelcome and to vacate my taxi cab, then no amount of whining about he would if I stopped so he can safely exit alters the unalterable truth that he is trespassing as I continue to zoom along awaiting harm to befall him on his exit from my vehicle. To see this more vividly, turn to the ship stow away example. He is clearly trespassing, and that is so whether my men obey my commands or not to throw him overboard, arrrgh

 

[Artemus]

The United CEO said that they will increase the limit for voluntary bumping to $10,000.

So, United has answered the question in the subject of this thread by admitting that they had another choice. There is nothing left to discuss so the the thread can die. Please.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You are restating a statute that I already demonstrated is NOT applicable. That is for real property - i.e. land and buildings built on that land. It does NOT apply to vehicles (cars, airplanes, and the like). I provided the correct statute and quoted it in full, which clearly showed that Dr. Dao was not, and could not be, charged with trespass in a vehicle.

I find it amusing that you are ignoring those facts as if I never posted them.

- - - Updated - - -

Why do you keep bringing up trespassing? Nobody was trespassing on the plane.

You should really take the time to explain that to him in five or six different ways so that he'll have more examples to ignore.

Seriously

- - - Updated - - -

Except that isn't the case. United asked him to leave their premises. It's only trespassing once he refuses to leave. If he had walked out he wouldn't have been trespassing. Once he refused yes he was.

wrong

And if you continue down to section 21-7 it deals with both the restricted areas at an airport and the restricted landing area there. It defines criminal trespass as either entering or staying in an area of the airport that is restricted and airport authorities have told you that it's restricted. It says that warning can be either verbal or written, so that written part doesn't apply here. Once Dr. Dao had his ticket revoked he was no longer a ticketed customer and he was in the restricted area of the airport, past security without a ticket. The penalty for this trespass is a felony 4.

Huh? He wasn't kicked out of an airport for being in a restricted area. He followed every protocol at the airport, didn't wander into areas he didn't belong. Boarded the airplane when instructed and was arbitrarily selected to get off the plane, despite having already boarded.

- - - Updated - - -

The United CEO said that they will increase the limit for voluntary bumping to $10,000.

So, United has answered the question in the subject of this thread by admitting that they had another choice. There is nothing left to discuss so the the thread can die. Please.

Jebus! If I was United, I probably would have kept that value down a bit more. People will be driving in large packs to airports to overfill planes so they can be bumped.

*buys tickets for next 20 flights*

 

[ZiprHead]

United CEO Oscar Munoz Blames David Dao Incident on ‘System Failure’

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Here is an Illinois Supreme Court decision that explicitly says that a Company can use reasonable force to remove a trespasser from it's property. It doesn't have to wait for the police to show up. And the statue as I pointed out earlier, says trespassing can be given orally or written.

http://law.justia.com/cases/illinois/supreme-court/1961/35745-6-5.html

Why do you keep bringing up trespassing? Nobody was trespassing on the plane.

Keeping saying that nobody was trespassing doesn't make it so. He just showed a court case in the right place that shows that the requirements for trespassing were met.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Why do you keep bringing up trespassing? Nobody was trespassing on the plane.

Keeping saying that nobody was trespassing doesn't make it so. He just showed a court case in the right place that shows that the requirements for trespassing were met.

No he didn't. Oi!

He was on a private plane located on Port property. This situation is complicated.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

With big investigations by this a company wants to make sure all the details are together and that they don't release wrong information.

Um...the flight schedules are public information. That's half. And unless their crew assignments are written in pencil and subsequently erased, they have the other half.

What's more, the crew in question - unless someone can point to a cancelled flight out of Louisville the next day - made their connection and were able to staff that aircraft.

Flight records would show who was on that aircraft. Not just the passengers, but the crew. And where they came from. There's not a lot to investigate here.

The Louisville flight might simply have been delayed.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I will agree with the first part. I've been saying for years that the airlines are too quick to IDB and the only fix is to raise the IDB compensation.

So far nobody has found any likely other alternative, nor would it have been practical for the airline to look for an alternative--that would take too long.

There have been a large number of people on here who are infected with liberalitis. This was a situation lacking a good solution.

You mean other than the often repeated alternative of simply offering more compensation until a volunteer was found?

Because that is an EXCELLENT solution - and that's unusual for solutions born of pure libertarianism. In this case, the libertarians are 100% right. And you, as a 'moderate libertarian', continue to completely fail to address this option.

I continue to not consider it a viable option because it was not a decision that the people in the field were empowered to make. The people that could make it were no doubt not at their desks anymore.

IF the staff on the spot had the authority to invoke the use of force on behalf of the corporation, then they should also have had the authority to spend a few thousand bucks on behalf of the corporation - because spending a bit of money was a less important decision for the business than the decision to invoke the use of force.

The use of force to remove a passenger is routine.

This is NOT a situation lacking a good solution. It's a situation where a VERY VERY BAD solution was chosen. And the fault for that bad decision lies firmly and unavoidably with United Airlines, whose agents on the spot decided that using force was less likely to get them in to trouble than spending a little money. That decision was about the worst decision since someone said ‘yeah let’s take this suspiciously large wooden horse into Troy, statues are all the rage this season’.

First, you are saying it lacks a good solution but you don't understand why the "good" solution doesn't work in this case.

Second, the fault lies with Dao.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The use of force to remove a passenger is routine.

What in the heck airline are you flying, STFU Airways. I admit, I don't fly often, but I've never seen a person booted after boarding, forget though the use of force.

This is NOT a situation lacking a good solution. It's a situation where a VERY VERY BAD solution was chosen. And the fault for that bad decision lies firmly and unavoidably with United Airlines, whose agents on the spot decided that using force was less likely to get them in to trouble than spending a little money. That decision was about the worst decision since someone said ‘yeah let’s take this suspiciously large wooden horse into Troy, statues are all the rage this season’.

First, you are saying it lacks a good solution but you don't understand why the "good" solution doesn't work in this case.

Second, the fault lies with Dao.

Yeah, he should have flown Delta. The fucker!

 

[zorq]

Everything was going great until United decided to steal back the product they had sold and been paid for in good faith.

United broke the contract. That is what started this mess.

United is clearly at fault.

 

[laughing dog]

Everything was going great until United decided to steal back the product they had sold and been paid for in good faith.

United broke the contract. That is what started this mess.

United is clearly at fault.

Something that United repeatedly and publicly recognizes. Yet the very same posters who maintain the company knows best how to run its business do not agree with the company.

 

[fast]

Everything was going great until United decided to steal back the product they had sold and been paid for in good faith.

United broke the contract. That is what started this mess.

United is clearly at fault.

If you rear end me and I get out and punch you, you're responsible for what you did, and I'm responsible for what I did. That you started it, as in, if you wouldn't have rear ended me, I wouldn't have punched you doesn't change my responsibility for what I did.

Let's say the airline was in the wrong and should never have rescinded his usage of the seat. Okay, great, BUT THEY DID! He was in violation of remaining in a restricted area. Yes, he was not in the wrong when entering, but he later became in the wrong when refusing to leave as instructed after his seat was unassigned and no longer available for him to legitamately use.

So, that the airline is at fault for what the airline did has no bearing on his responsibility to obey official commands as the situation unfolded.

 

[zorq]

Everything was going great until United decided to steal back the product they had sold and been paid for in good faith.

United broke the contract. That is what started this mess.

United is clearly at fault.

If you rear end me and I get out and punch you, you're responsible for what you did, and I'm responsible for what I did. That you started it, as in, if you wouldn't have rear ended me, I wouldn't have punched you doesn't change my responsibility for what I did.

Let's say the airline was in the wrong and should never have rescinded his usage of the seat. Okay, great, BUT THEY DID! He was in violation of remaining in a restricted area. Yes, he was not in the wrong when entering, but he later became in the wrong when refusing to leave as instructed after his seat was unassigned and no longer available for him to legitamately use.

So, that the airline is at fault for what the airline did has no bearing on his responsibility to obey official commands as the situation unfolded.

You want to make an equivalancy between sitting in a seat you purchased and punching someone in the face. You are ridiculous. A better analogy is that United rear-ended DAO and then Smashed Dao's face in when he refused to apologize. Just because someone tells you to do something that doesn't mean you are obliged to do it! Punching someone in the face is always wrong. Sitting in a seat you purchased fulfilling every portion of the contract you signed is right. Ordering someone out of the seat they are contractually entitled to is wrong.


Maybe if I start swinging my arms like windmills and walking toward you with my eyes closed it's your fault if you get hit in the face because you should have gotten out of the way of my fists. United was swinging its fists and Dao refused to get out of the way. United started this mess and Dao literally did NOTHING wrong. He was in the right to sit in his seat as per his contract. Any force exherted to remove him from his seat was wrong. Either way, LP insists the fault lies with Dao, when everything was instigated by United.

 

[fast]

He was in the right up until the point the airline made it clear they weren't going to live up to their end of the bargain. They chose to boot him. For all intents and purposes, the seat to which he was assigned was unassigned. The priveledge to be on the airplane was taken away. That doesn't mean he breached the contract. A case can be made the airline did that. He has rights, and can sue for tort, but he doesn't get to just sit there when told to go. There is no right to remain. He was in the wrong for staying. The point I was making earlier is that we're responsible for our own wrong doing and that it doesn't matter who started it.

 

[Ford]

Um...the flight schedules are public information. That's half. And unless their crew assignments are written in pencil and subsequently erased, they have the other half.

What's more, the crew in question - unless someone can point to a cancelled flight out of Louisville the next day - made their connection and were able to staff that aircraft.

Flight records would show who was on that aircraft. Not just the passengers, but the crew. And where they came from. There's not a lot to investigate here.

The Louisville flight might simply have been delayed.

And United would have that information as well. In fact that would help their case. "Look, the incident in Chicago caused their flight to be delayed, which caused a subsequent delay on flight (fill in the blank) in Louisville, and that inconvenienced (number of) passengers."

Again, if the crew absolutely needed to be in Louisville at a certain time, United should make that information public to help their case. The fact that they haven't gives me reason to believe that time wasn't as critical as you'd like to believe.

 

[zorq]

but he doesn't get to just sit there when told to go.

Why not?

If I sell you a comic book for $5 then I realize later that I need that comic book to complete a set that I can sell for $5,000, does that mean that it's okay for me to try to yank the comicbook out of your hand insisting that I need it back and that it's still my property even though the transaction is complete? Do you then hand over the comic book because I am a comicbook authority and I ordered you to? Or do you realize that you have a right to your comic book and say screw off?

What the heck is a contract for if the more powerful party in the contract always gets to screw over the lesser party at their whim?

 

[fast]

but he doesn't get to just sit there when told to go.

Why not?

If I sell you a comic book for $5 then I realize later that I need that comic book to complete a set that I can sell for $5,000, does that mean that it's okay for me to try to yank the comicbook out of your hand insisting that I need it back and that it's still my property even though the transaction is complete? Do you then hand over the comic book because I am a comicbook authority and I ordered you to? Or do you realize that you have a right to your comic book and say screw off?

What the heck is a contract for if the more powerful party in the contract always gets to screw over the lesser party at their whim?

That's different. I have an actual right to the book. It became my property, and I have property rights. If I own a house, it's my property, so the previous owner can't legally violate my property rights and make me leave. If I rent a dwelling to reside in, it's not my property, but property rights extend out to such situations and protects me. If I rent a room for the night at a hotel, things start to get messy and it's not so clear what actual granted rights I have. Contractual agreements are not the basis for determining rights in the same sense as actual legal rights granted by government, so while a bus driver may be in concractual violation to refuse the continuation of a ride, it's not so clear what real rights are in the mix while elements of a contract is discussed.

 

[Shadowy Man]

but he doesn't get to just sit there when told to go.

Why not?

If I sell you a comic book for $5 then I realize later that I need that comic book to complete a set that I can sell for $5,000, does that mean that it's okay for me to try to yank the comicbook out of your hand insisting that I need it back and that it's still my property even though the transaction is complete? Do you then hand over the comic book because I am a comicbook authority and I ordered you to? Or do you realize that you have a right to your comic book and say screw off?

What the heck is a contract for if the more powerful party in the contract always gets to screw over the lesser party at their whim?

He's saying that if you call the cops and convince them you are entitled to get your comic book back, the guy you sold it to is in the wrong if he refuses to give the comic book to the police and deserves whatever beat down he gets. He should have given the comic back to the authorities and then sued you in civil court.

 

[RavenSky]

And if you continue down to section 21-7 it deals with both the restricted areas at an airport and the restricted landing area there. It defines criminal trespass as either entering or staying in an area of the airport that is restricted and airport authorities have told you that it's restricted. It says that warning can be either verbal or written, so that written part doesn't apply here. Once Dr. Dao had his ticket revoked he was no longer a ticketed customer and he was in the restricted area of the airport, past security without a ticket. The penalty for this trespass is a felony 4.

The bolded is completely false, which makes your entire claim false.