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

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Just wondering...is there anyone else who is reminded of capitalism vs socialism by this case?

 

[RavenSky]

He didn't attack a cop

Yes, he did--you don't break free from people holding you without attacking in some fashion.

Oh bullshit He was fucking unconscious being dragged down the aisle of the airplane by security... no cop was present. It is on video.

 

[LordKiran]

Just wondering...is there anyone else who is reminded of capitalism vs socialism by this case?

I like how the late George Carlin describes the eternal struggle in his autobiography:

Property rights versus human rights. Although in this case, it's hard to argue that Dr. Dao's property rights were not infringed upon.

 

[fast]

... gross misconduct of the passenger who refused to obey the instructions of airline officials.

Why does a purchaser of goods or services need to obey instructions of a seller of goods or services? There was no contract between the purchaser of goods or services and the seller of goods or services that stated in all instances the purchaser would obey the seller. In the absence of such stipulation within the rules of said contract, one would expect all things to be fair and in addition there to be no pulling of said purchase by the seller for no good reason or post-sale dictates.

It's not about whether one is the buyer or seller. That needs to be compartmentalized and set aside. The issues are being commingled. If you come into my house, the transaction becomes irrelevant when a new issue props up and it doesn't matter that you're in my house as a buyer or seller. If I walk into your domain and you tell me to leave, that's an issue unto itself. That there was a reason for originally being there becomes inconsequential and a matter to be dealt with independently.

If you are at odds with another, I may be inclined to listen to both sides, but if you become belligerent or obstinant or in some way cause an escalation, the details of the issue take a backseat to the new issue. That's why I keep saying who was at fault doesn't matter. The new issue is an issue unto itself. He didn't leave to go to a room seeking resolution. He remained where he was no more welcome.

If I go into a restaurant, pay and sit down to eat, there might be a miscommunication or misunderstanding causing management to come out and demand my departure. Even if I'm completely innocent in the matter, the issue of remaining where I'm no longer welcome is an issue separate and distinct from whether I'm getting screwed by having paid and not getting my meal.

 

[zorq]

Why does a purchaser of goods or services need to obey instructions of a seller of goods or services? There was no contract between the purchaser of goods or services and the seller of goods or services that stated in all instances the purchaser would obey the seller. In the absence of such stipulation within the rules of said contract, one would expect all things to be fair and in addition there to be no pulling of said purchase by the seller for no good reason or post-sale dictates.

It's not about whether one is the buyer or seller. That needs to be compartmentalized and set aside. The issues are being commingled. If you come into my house, the transaction becomes irrelevant when a new issue props up and it doesn't matter that you're in my house as a buyer or seller. If I walk into your domain and you tell me to leave, that's an issue unto itself. That there was a reason for originally being there becomes inconsequential and a matter to be dealt with independently.

If you are at odds with another, I may be inclined to listen to both sides, but if you become belligerent or obstinant or in some way cause an escalation, the details of the issue take a backseat to the new issue. That's why I keep saying who was at fault doesn't matter. The new issue is an issue unto itself. He didn't leave to go to a room seeking resolution. He remained where he was no more welcome.

If I go into a restaurant, pay and sit down to eat, there might be a miscommunication or misunderstanding causing management to come out and demand my departure. Even if I'm completely innocent in the matter, the issue of remaining where I'm no longer welcome is an issue separate and distinct from whether I'm getting screwed by having paid and not getting my meal.

Why should one complaint be resolved before the other. It seems to me that both are intricately intertwined and the resolution to one is already the resolution to the other. So in that case why not deal with the actual point of contention right exactly where both parties ALREADY happen to be? Your decision to satisfy ALL of the demands of one party over the other before the other party can even state their case seems arbitrary and unfair.

 

[laughing dog]

Yes, he did--you don't break free from people holding you without attacking in some fashion.

Nonsense. Maybe they did not have a good hold on him and/or let go when he hit his head. You are literally assuming your conclusion.

 

[Juma]

Why does a purchaser of goods or services need to obey instructions of a seller of goods or services? There was no contract between the purchaser of goods or services and the seller of goods or services that stated in all instances the purchaser would obey the seller. In the absence of such stipulation within the rules of said contract, one would expect all things to be fair and in addition there to be no pulling of said purchase by the seller for no good reason or post-sale dictates.

It's not about whether one is the buyer or seller. That needs to be compartmentalized and set aside. The issues are being commingled. If you come into my house, the transaction becomes irrelevant when a new issue props up and it doesn't matter that you're in my house as a buyer or seller. If I walk into your domain and you tell me to leave, that's an issue unto itself. That there was a reason for originally being there becomes inconsequential and a matter to be dealt with independently.

If you are at odds with another, I may be inclined to listen to both sides, but if you become belligerent or obstinant or in some way cause an escalation, the details of the issue take a backseat to the new issue. That's why I keep saying who was at fault doesn't matter. The new issue is an issue unto itself. He didn't leave to go to a room seeking resolution. He remained where he was no more welcome.

If I go into a restaurant, pay and sit down to eat, there might be a miscommunication or misunderstanding causing management to come out and demand my departure. Even if I'm completely innocent in the matter, the issue of remaining where I'm no longer welcome is an issue separate and distinct from whether I'm getting screwed by having paid and not getting my meal.

But in this case he was not trespassing. In this case he did nothing that ensbled the crew to throwing him off. They cannot jjst do that because they want to. They must have a real reason and they did not.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

BTW, I found a report that the crew was destined for a early morning flight to Newark.

The flight I find that matches this is UA3658/YX3658, scheduled to depart at 6:55am.

If this is correct then any of the other options suggested by people on here would delay that flight.

 

[coloradoatheist]

It's not about whether one is the buyer or seller. That needs to be compartmentalized and set aside. The issues are being commingled. If you come into my house, the transaction becomes irrelevant when a new issue props up and it doesn't matter that you're in my house as a buyer or seller. If I walk into your domain and you tell me to leave, that's an issue unto itself. That there was a reason for originally being there becomes inconsequential and a matter to be dealt with independently.

If you are at odds with another, I may be inclined to listen to both sides, but if you become belligerent or obstinant or in some way cause an escalation, the details of the issue take a backseat to the new issue. That's why I keep saying who was at fault doesn't matter. The new issue is an issue unto itself. He didn't leave to go to a room seeking resolution. He remained where he was no more welcome.

If I go into a restaurant, pay and sit down to eat, there might be a miscommunication or misunderstanding causing management to come out and demand my departure. Even if I'm completely innocent in the matter, the issue of remaining where I'm no longer welcome is an issue separate and distinct from whether I'm getting screwed by having paid and not getting my meal.

But in this case he was not trespassing. In this case he did nothing that ensbled the crew to throwing him off. They cannot jjst do that because they want to. They must have a real reason and they did not.

Let's take another example

Everybody is loaded on the plane and the pilots check the weight and things are over FAA weight limits so the airlines says 4 people need to leave the plane. Can the airlines ask four to involuntarily depart? Can one of the 4 say he is not leaving? If he doesn't leave can the airlines call the cops to have him removed? And if the cops arrive can they pull him off? and what law would the cops use to pull him off?

 

[Arctish]

BTW, I found a report that the crew was destined for a early morning flight to Newark.

The flight I find that matches this is UA3658/YX3658, scheduled to depart at 6:55am.

If this is correct then any of the other options suggested by people on here would delay that flight.

Link?

 

[Arctish]

But in this case he was not trespassing. In this case he did nothing that ensbled the crew to throwing him off. They cannot jjst do that because they want to. They must have a real reason and they did not.

Let's take another example

Everybody is loaded on the plane and the pilots check the weight and things are over FAA weight limits so the airlines says 4 people need to leave the plane. Can the airlines ask four to involuntarily depart? Can one of the 4 say he is not leaving? If he doesn't leave can the airlines call the cops to have him removed? And if the cops arrive can they pull him off? and what law would the cops use to pull him off?

That would be a safety issue, so it's covered by the contract.

But the best policy would still be to seek volunteers by offering adequate compensation. And if UA has to resort to choosing a passenger at random they should make sure everyone knows they could be selected, even the folks in First Class, so taking the deal would be a better bet if you don't need to arrive at your destination at a certain time.

 

[coloradoatheist]

BTW, I found a report that the crew was destined for a early morning flight to Newark.

The flight I find that matches this is UA3658/YX3658, scheduled to depart at 6:55am.

If this is correct then any of the other options suggested by people on here would delay that flight.

Link?

here is a link. The original flight to get the crew out was at 2;55 pm but because of mechanical issues couldn't get out until after 3411. It was for Newark flight the next morning.

https://thepointsguy.com/2017/04/united-policy-changes/

 

[coloradoatheist]

Let's take another example

Everybody is loaded on the plane and the pilots check the weight and things are over FAA weight limits so the airlines says 4 people need to leave the plane. Can the airlines ask four to involuntarily depart? Can one of the 4 say he is not leaving? If he doesn't leave can the airlines call the cops to have him removed? And if the cops arrive can they pull him off? and what law would the cops use to pull him off?

That would be a safety issue, so it's covered by the contract.

But the best policy would still be to seek volunteers by offering adequate compensation. And if UA has to resort to choosing a passenger at random they should make sure everyone knows they could be selected, even the folks in First Class, so taking the deal would be a better bet if you don't need to arrive at your destination at a certain time.

the contract does specificy the order pasengers will be chosen to be denied, so it's know. But the contract isn't law, so there would be no way legally for cops to remove the passenger.

 

[Arctish]

the contract does specificy the order pasengers will be chosen to be denied, so it's know. But the contract isn't law, so there would be no way legally for cops to remove the passenger.

Which is fine.

The aircraft isn't going anywhere while its overloaded. Sooner or later someone will conclude that sitting there is pointless and take the deal to be reimbursed and rescheduled, especially if the compensation is generous and the apologies sincere. It's a self solving problem.

Next time the operators will know better than to book that many people with that much luggage and cargo on a single flight.

 

[coloradoatheist]

the contract does specificy the order pasengers will be chosen to be denied, so it's know. But the contract isn't law, so there would be no way legally for cops to remove the passenger.

Which is fine.

The aircraft isn't going anywhere while its overloaded. Sooner or later someone will conclude that sitting there is pointless and take the deal to be reimbursed and rescheduled, especially if the compensation is generous and the apologies sincere. It's a self solving problem.

Next time the operators will know better than to book that many people with that much luggage and cargo on a single flight.

Weight restrictions are dependant on what is checked in but more importantly weather conditions in parts, taking off, landing, and flying. So the airlines can determine the weather at an airport a month ahead?

- - - Updated - - -

the contract does specificy the order pasengers will be chosen to be denied, so it's know. But the contract isn't law, so there would be no way legally for cops to remove the passenger.

Which is fine.

The aircraft isn't going anywhere while its overloaded. Sooner or later someone will conclude that sitting there is pointless and take the deal to be reimbursed and rescheduled, especially if the compensation is generous and the apologies sincere. It's a self solving problem.

Next time the operators will know better than to book that many people with that much luggage and cargo on a single flight.

As I said one of the options was for them to cancel the flight and bus everyone to Louisville.

 

[laughing dog]

But in this case he was not trespassing. In this case he did nothing that ensbled the crew to throwing him off. They cannot jjst do that because they want to. They must have a real reason and they did not.

Let's take another example

Everybody is loaded on the plane and the pilots check the weight and things are over FAA weight limits so the airlines says 4 people need to leave the plane.

Instead of dumping some luggage?

 

[coloradoatheist]

Let's take another example

Everybody is loaded on the plane and the pilots check the weight and things are over FAA weight limits so the airlines says 4 people need to leave the plane.

Instead of dumping some luggage?

As noted in the report, it usually requires more than 4 passengers, sometimes a significant portion of the craft. So is it better to get some of the flight there or cancel completely?

 

[Arctish]

Which is fine.

The aircraft isn't going anywhere while its overloaded. Sooner or later someone will conclude that sitting there is pointless and take the deal to be reimbursed and rescheduled, especially if the compensation is generous and the apologies sincere. It's a self solving problem.

Next time the operators will know better than to book that many people with that much luggage and cargo on a single flight.

Weight restrictions are dependant on what is checked in but more importantly weather conditions in parts, taking off, landing, and flying. So the airlines can determine the weather at an airport a month ahead?

Unusual and rare events like tornadoes can't be predicted. But the ones that affect daily flights at each airport are familiar and generally predictable, at least with enough accuracy that airlines know what to expect. Airlines operating out of New Orleans know to expect afternoon thunderstorms in summer. Airlines operating out of JFK know to expect turtles on the runways during the mating season. Airlines in Chicago know to expect the worst weather on average than any other airport in the US. They don't flirt with disaster by booking cargo and passengers anywhere near their limits, especially when weather events that would affect their flights are most likely to occur.

the contract does specificy the order pasengers will be chosen to be denied, so it's know. But the contract isn't law, so there would be no way legally for cops to remove the passenger.

Which is fine.

The aircraft isn't going anywhere while its overloaded. Sooner or later someone will conclude that sitting there is pointless and take the deal to be reimbursed and rescheduled, especially if the compensation is generous and the apologies sincere. It's a self solving problem.

Next time the operators will know better than to book that many people with that much luggage and cargo on a single flight.

As I said one of the options was for them to cancel the flight and bus everyone to Louisville.

Sure. They could've done that. It would have been stupid, but it's not like airline employees never make stupid decisions.

My sister was scheduled to fly out of Seattle-Tacoma one Christmas but the airport was jammed up so badly due to weather and equipment failure that everyone on her flight was bussed nearly 300 miles to Spokane. Of course, if she'd been offered $800 + hotel stay + 1500 frequent flier miles and a flight out the next day she'd have taken the deal rather than ride a bus for hours and not get to her destination any faster. Unfortunately it wasn't an option. But if it had been, someone would have taken it.

 

[zorq]

Instead of dumping some luggage?

As noted in the report, it usually requires more than 4 passengers, sometimes a significant portion of the craft. So is it better to get some of the flight there or cancel completely?

It's probably better to figure this kind of thing out before you have sold your tickets and baggage allowance. Of course I suppose we should be grateful that incompetent business management like this is often driven out of business by more responsible and efficient competition.

 

[coloradoatheist]

As noted in the report, it usually requires more than 4 passengers, sometimes a significant portion of the craft. So is it better to get some of the flight there or cancel completely?

It's probably better to figure this kind of thing out before you have sold your tickets and baggage allowance. Of course I suppose we should be grateful that incompetent business management like this is often driven out of business by more responsible and efficient competition.

They only find out after everything is on board and weather is checked. I'm curious how people would like it if to prevent that problem they never allowed carry ons so it could be known. Would people like being weighed prior to checking in?