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

[RavenSky]

What time did the crew need to be in place at the other location?

Don't guess. Don't pull a bullshit answer out of your ass. Provide factual evidence to answer my question.

The flight the crew was supposed to be on was the 6:08 am flight out of Louisville. For a 9 hour rest time for non flying members that's 9:08 pm that they had to arrive in Louisville. Flight 3341 was supposed to arrive at 8:02 pm. That was only an hour spare time. So are you saying they in that hour that they had extra they could find an alternate transport within an hour that would get there in the same time that flight 3341 would take?

Provide factual evidence

not your say-so

- - - Updated - - -

He was not "trespassing"

If an entity or a person owns a property and the remove the permission to be on the property and that person is informed they need to leave the property and they don't, that's trespassing.

The "property" was paid for and possession taken. No "trespassing" is legally possible

 

[coloradoatheist]

The flight the crew was supposed to be on was the 6:08 am flight out of Louisville. For a 9 hour rest time for non flying members that's 9:08 pm that they had to arrive in Louisville. Flight 3341 was supposed to arrive at 8:02 pm. That was only an hour spare time. So are you saying they in that hour that they had extra they could find an alternate transport within an hour that would get there in the same time that flight 3341 would take?

Provide factual evidence

not your say-so

- - - Updated - - -

He was not "trespassing"

If an entity or a person owns a property and the remove the permission to be on the property and that person is informed they need to leave the property and they don't, that's trespassing.

The "property" was paid for and possession taken. No "trespassing" is legally possible

You can find most of the information here. https://hub.united.com/united-review-action-report-2380196105.html You can look up the flight time from Louisville to Newark, it's 6:08am. And I'll try and find the link to amount of rest time needed for FAA rules for flight crew.

You are confusing property terms. there is a distinction in the law. You have three cases. Transfer of property from one person to another. That is what happens with most purchases and the original entity has no rights to the property. But that is not the case with tickets to use the facility, only goods sold. You have a lease, which is what we think of leasing an apartment. But it has rules on what is a lease and that doesn't apply here. And you have licenses to use a property. When you buy an airline ticket you buy a license to be on the flight. But with a license it can be revoked at any time. Though with the license it spells out who has to pay for certain conditions in that license. If one side breaks the license, then they have to pay and vice versa. So United would have to compensate him for the ticket if they break the license. But it doesn't remove the underlying property issue of trespassing once a license is removed.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Well first it still would be unfair and abuse, but the legal issue is already settled and the airline proved wrong. So there was immorality, illegality, and unfairness here. For a moment let's consider the wrong legal decision was made and that this alleged license gave the airline authority to kick the poor guy from the plane whenever, then that would mean they could kick him off "their property" over the ocean. Reductio ad absurdum! Now besides all this support to powerful structures the right-wing has to maintain, even if unfair, immoral, illegal, and in this ludicrous case taking a natural right to life away upon which they claim their political theories are founded, a review of contracts was performed and it was found there is no renegotiation once a passenger is seated. That no longer falls within scope of so-called bumping, but instead "refusal of transport" for which there are no stipulations for such renegotiation.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Well first it still would be unfair and abuse, but the legal issue is already settled and the airline proved wrong. So there was immorality, illegality, and unfairness here. For a moment let's consider the wrong legal decision was made and that this alleged license gave the airline authority to kick the poor guy from the plane whenever, then that would mean they could kick him off "their property" over the ocean. Reductio ad absurdum! Now besides all this support to powerful structures the right-wing has to maintain, even if unfair, immoral, illegal, and in this ludicrous case taking a natural right to life away upon which they claim their political theories are founded, a review of contracts was performed and it was found there is no renegotiation once a passenger is seated. That no longer falls within scope of so-called bumping, but instead "refusal of transport" for which there are no stipulations for such renegotiation.

The legal issue was never settled. United settled before finding out. They wouldn't have won much if anything by fighting it legally so they chose the best option and it's easy for me to say provide a legal point.

They can't throw someone off the plane while it's moving to get someone to leave your property.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What's the flight speed of a helicopter?

What's the flight speed of a passenger jet?

How many hours late would they be? There was little margin, the later flight would get them in too late.

The FAA rules are strict on crew rest.

What time did the crew need to be in place at the other location?

Don't guess. Don't pull a bullshit answer out of your ass. Provide factual evidence to answer my question.

We don't know--what flight they were to operate was never disclosed. We can see that the later flight didn't get them in in time for a typical start of the day for a plane, though.

- - - Updated - - -

He was not "trespassing"

When a business tells you to leave their property and you don't, you're trespassing.

- - - Updated - - -

You are making an assumption. Given their stupidity and entitlement as shown in the case in general they could easily have known way sooner.

You're assuming that someone like Trump is calling the shots.

What you fail to understand is that this was a reasonably routine situation that blew up horribly because a doctor threw a temper tantrum.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I made no assumptions about the helicopter, I simply looked at what helicopters in general can do. Helicopters are limited to 250 mph (on Earth--the limit is based on the speed of sound and thus could be different in a different atmosphere) by the very nature of their rotors. Also, most helicopters are limited to 250 mph by the FAA because they're below 18,000'.

You made an assumption about the destination of the helocopter - you assumed it would take them to their ultimate destination instead of any alternative airport for a flight.

Ok, what flight could they have gotten to?? You're saying it's a solution, find the solution.

And you assumed that another crew could not be flown in from a closer location. As usual, you simply pulled another set of assumptions right out of your ass that best fits your position and ignored any other possibility in order to defend the unnecessary use of violence.

If there was a closer crew they would have used them. The reality is that spare crew are kept in only a few hub cities.

The reality is that UA screwed up. They could have made an offer that someone would have taken to leave the plane, but they did not. It really is that simple. It was UA's duty to have the right people around to make those decisions.

This avoidable situation arose because UA screwed up, and they resorted to the unnecessary use of violence.

It arose because they didn't think an adult was going to throw a temper tantrum when legally ordered off the plane.

 

[laughing dog]

Ok, what flight could they have gotten to?? You're saying it's a solution, find the solution.

Reading comprehension failure. I said you are assuming there is only one solution.

If there was a closer crew they would have used them.

Another assumption you have pulled right out of your ass.

It arose because they didn't think an adult was going to throw a temper tantrum when legally ordered off the plane.

If he had not been on the plane, we don't know what would have happened. So, unless you have evidence he boarded against UA's will, UA screwed up.

Once again, you are pulling an assumption out of your ass to justify your conclusion.

 

[Arctish]

This is the third time this link to the Law Newz article, United Airlines Cites Wrong Rule For Illegally De-Boarding Passenger, is being posted in this thread. Perhaps people interested in discussing the pertinent federal rule (14 CFR 253) and United's Contract of Carriage would like to read it again:

United’s Rule 25, as its title clearly implies, applies only to denied boarding. Thus, it uses the word “denied boarding,” and variants such as “deny boarding,” but says nothing about requiring passengers who have already boarded to give up their seats.

Indeed, it states in part, using the word “boarding” twice, that: “other passengers may be denied boarding involuntarily in accordance with UA’s boarding priority.

Clearly, a “boarding priority” does not include or imply an involuntary removal or refusal of transport. Moreover, under well accepted contract law, any ambiguous term in a contract must be construed against – and in the way least favorable to – the party which drafted it.

So, even if United argued that there was some ambiguity in “denied boarding” based upon “boarding priority” – and that it could possibly mean removal based upon a removal priority – a court would be forced to rule against this interpretation because United drafted the contract.

This denied boarding rule, and similar rules applying to Great Britain and the European Union, only permit denying boarding, not removing a passenger who has already boarded. The situations under which airlines are permitted to have a passenger who has already been boarded disembark are contained in a completely separate section the United’s COC entitled “Refusal of Transport.”

Rule 21, entitled “Refusal of Transport,” is very different because it clearly and expressly covers situations in which a passenger who has already boarded the plane can be removed. It states clearly: “Rule 21, Refusal of Transport, UA shall have the right to refuse to transport or shall have the RIGHT TO REMOVE FROM THE AIRCRAFT AT ANY POINT, any passenger for the following reasons.” [emphasis added]

The rule, which unlike the denied boarding rule does provide for removal “from the aircraft at any point,” lists some two dozen justifications including: unruly behavior, intoxication, inability to fit into one seat, medical problems or concerns, etc. But nowhere in the list of some two dozen reasons is there anything about over booking, the need to free up seats, the need for seats to accommodate crew members to be used on a different flight etc.

This is very important because, under accepted legal principles, a law or rule which lists in detail several different factors must be read not to include other factors which were deliberately not included or listed. So, for example, if a rule provides that a license to drive a car may be forfeited by violations of laws governing speeding, intoxication, reckless driving, or driving without a license, it cannot be read to also permit license revocation for parking violations, or for having a burned out license plate illumination light.

In this case, the failure to include over booking, or the need for additional seats, in a long list of justifications for removing a passenger “from the aircraft at any point” means that passengers may not be removed for these non-listed reasons.

Loren, I'm quoting this part just for you:

Finally, it appears that United is seeking to blame the passenger, claiming that when asked to give up his seat, he acted belligerently – and citing a rule which requires that passengers obey the orders of the flight crew. But, such a requirement applies only to orders which are lawful.

If, for example, the flight crew had ordered two passengers to fight each other for the amusement of the other passengers, or to take off all their clothing, the passengers would not be required to comply, and their forceful removal could not be based upon refusing to follow unlawful orders.

Also, an eyewitness seated a few rows behind Dr. Dao gave this description of the incident:

Once seated, passengers were then offered up to $800 to give up their spot on the plane to make room for the four United crew members who needed to catch a flight in Louisville on Monday, said Powell and Bridges.

However, no one volunteered, they said, and an airline supervisor told passengers that four people would be selected to leave. United Airlines confirmed no passengers volunteered to leave the plane.

One couple was selected and then left the plane, Bridges said. Dao was then selected and became "very upset," Bridges said, adding that the man told airline staff that he was a doctor and needed to see patients on Monday.

Bridges said a manager told Dao that security would be called if he didn't willingly leave, and the man said he was calling his lawyer.

United CEO Oscar Munoz said in his letter to employees that Dao raised his voice and grew "more and more disruptive and belligerent" and airline staff "were left with no choice" to call security officers.

Powell described Dao as "polite," "matter-of-fact" and "appropriately annoyed" as he refused to leave his seat.

Two security officers from the Chicago Department of Aviation were then called, and according to Powell weren't physical with Dao but spoke on their walkie-talkies like they were encountering a dangerous situation.

Then a third officer arrived.

Bridges, who was seated rows ahead of Dao, shared a 31-second video on Facebook that shows Dao screaming as a security officer attempted to yank him out of his seat multiple times before he was pulled into the aisle where his head appears to strike an armrest.

The officer is then seen dragging a limp Dao on his back by his hands down the aisle.

Dr. Dao was not acting belligerent or throwing a temper tantrum. He was within his rights as a consumer of airline services to remain in his seat following boarding, and was calmly talking to his lawyer when the security guard got violent.

 

[RavenSky]

Provide factual evidence

not your say-so

You can find most of the information here. https://hub.united.com/united-review-action-report-2380196105.html You can look up the flight time from Louisville to Newark, it's 6:08am. And I'll try and find the link to amount of rest time needed for FAA rules for flight crew.

This is not the factual evidence I requested. This is your suppositions about what flight you *think* the replacement crew needed to be on... not the same thing.

Provide factual evidence - such as a press release from United Airlines - as to what specific flight this specific crew absolutely positively HAD to be in place for.

Even if you could (which you can't), it won't excuse the violence against a paid passenger.

But since you won't ever be able to provide any factual evidence (because the airline never released this information), everyone can also drop this line of reasoning as an excuse, too.

 

[RavenSky]

Provide factual evidence

not your say-so

- - - Updated - - -

He was not "trespassing"

If an entity or a person owns a property and the remove the permission to be on the property and that person is informed they need to leave the property and they don't, that's trespassing.

The "property" was paid for and possession taken. No "trespassing" is legally possible

You can find most of the information here. https://hub.united.com/united-review-action-report-2380196105.html You can look up the flight time from Louisville to Newark, it's 6:08am. And I'll try and find the link to amount of rest time needed for FAA rules for flight crew.

You are confusing property terms. there is a distinction in the law. You have three cases. Transfer of property from one person to another. That is what happens with most purchases and the original entity has no rights to the property. But that is not the case with tickets to use the facility, only goods sold. You have a lease, which is what we think of leasing an apartment. But it has rules on what is a lease and that doesn't apply here. And you have licenses to use a property. When you buy an airline ticket you buy a license to be on the flight. But with a license it can be revoked at any time. Though with the license it spells out who has to pay for certain conditions in that license. If one side breaks the license, then they have to pay and vice versa. So United would have to compensate him for the ticket if they break the license. But it doesn't remove the underlying property issue of trespassing once a license is removed.

I was not "confusing terms". I was making an analogy. You, however, are factually wrong (and this discussion was had during the original thread(s). It is not a "property license" nor anything like a "license". It is called a "Contract of Carriage".

And while United's Contract of Carriage was revised in September 2017 - after Dr. Dao was violently removed from the seat he paid for - from previous discussions before the recent revision, the terms were substantially the same. United Airlines had ZERO authority or legal right to forcibly remove Dr. Dao from the airplane, or to claim they revoked his "license" to the seat after he has already taken possession of it:

RULE 21 REFUSAL OF TRANSPORT
UA shall have the right to refuse to transport or shall have the right to remove from the aircraft at any point, any Passenger for the following reasons:

Breach of Contract of Carriage – Failure by Passenger to comply with the Rules of the Contract of Carriage.
Government Request, Regulations or Security Directives – Whenever such action is necessary to comply with any government regulation, Customs and Border Protection, government or airport security directive of any sort, or any governmental request for emergency transportation in connection with the national defense.
Force Majeure and Other Unforeseeable Conditions – Whenever such action is necessary or advisable by reason of weather or other conditions beyond UA’s control including, but not limited to, acts of God, force majeure, strikes, civil commotions, embargoes, wars, hostilities, terrorist activities, or disturbances, whether actual, threatened, or reported.
Search of Passenger or Property – Whenever a Passenger refuses to submit to electronic surveillance or to permit search of his/her person or property.
Proof of Identity – Whenever a Passenger refuses on request to produce identification satisfactory to UA or who presents a Ticket to board and whose identification does not match the name on the Ticket. UA shall have the right, but shall not be obligated, to require identification of persons purchasing tickets and/or presenting a ticket(s) for the purpose of boarding the aircraft.
Failure to Pay – Whenever a Passenger has not paid the appropriate fare for a Ticket, Baggage, or applicable service charges for services required for travel, has not paid an outstanding debt or Court judgment, or has not produced satisfactory proof to UA that the Passenger is an authorized non-revenue Passenger or has engaged in a prohibited practice as specified in Rule 6.
Across International Boundaries – Whenever a Passenger is traveling across any international boundary if:
The government required travel documents of such Passenger appear not to be in order according to UA's reasonable belief; or
Such Passenger’s embarkation from, transit through, or entry into any country from, through, or to which such Passenger desires transportation would be unlawful or denied for any reason.
Safety – Whenever refusal or removal of a Passenger may be necessary for the safety of such Passenger or other Passengers or members of the crew including, but not limited to:
Passengers whose conduct is disorderly, offensive, abusive, or violent;
Passengers who fail to comply with or interfere with the duties of the members of the flight crew, federal regulations, or security directives;
Passengers who assault any employee of UA, including the gate agents and flight crew, or any UA Passenger;
Passengers who, through and as a result of their conduct, cause a disturbance such that the captain or member of the cockpit crew must leave the cockpit in order to attend to the disturbance;
Passengers who are barefoot or not properly clothed;
Passengers who appear to be intoxicated or under the influence of drugs to a degree that the Passenger may endanger the Passenger or another Passenger or members of the crew (other than a qualified individual whose appearance or involuntary behavior may make them appear to be intoxicated or under the influence of drugs);
Passengers wearing or possessing on or about their person concealed or unconcealed deadly or dangerous weapons; provided, however, that UA will carry law enforcement personnel who meet the qualifications and conditions established in 49 C.F.R. §1544.219;
Passengers who are unwilling or unable to follow UA’s policy on smoking or use of other smokeless materials;
Unless they comply with Rule 6 I), Passengers who are unable to sit in a single seat with the seat belt properly secured, and/or are unable to put the seat’s armrests down when seated and remain seated with the armrest down for the entirety of the flight, and/or passengers who significantly encroach upon the adjoining passenger’s seat;
Passengers who are manacled or in the custody of law enforcement personnel;
Passengers who have resisted or may reasonably be believed to be capable of resisting custodial supervision;
Pregnant Passengers in their ninth month, unless such Passenger provides a doctor’s certificate dated no more than 72 hours prior to departure stating that the doctor has examined and found the Passenger to be physically fit for air travel to and from the destination requested on the date of the flight, and that the estimated date of delivery is after the date of the last flight;
Passengers who are incapable of completing a flight safely, without requiring extraordinary medical assistance during the flight, as well as Passengers who appear to have symptoms of or have a communicable disease or condition that could pose a direct threat to the health or safety of others on the flight, or who refuse a screening for such disease or condition. (NOTE: UA requires a medical certificate for Passengers who wish to travel under such circumstances. Visit UA’s website, united.com, for more information regarding UA’s requirements for medical certificates);
Passengers who fail to travel with the required safety assistant(s), advance notice and/or other safety requirements pursuant to Rules 14 and 15;
Passengers who do not qualify as acceptable Non-Ambulatory Passengers (see Rule 14);
Passengers who have or cause a malodorous condition (other than individuals qualifying as disabled);
Passengers whose physical or mental condition is such that, in United’s sole opinion, they are rendered or likely to be rendered incapable of comprehending or complying with safety instructions without the assistance of an escort. The escort must accompany the escorted passenger at all times; and
Unaccompanied passengers who are both blind and deaf, unless such passenger is able to communicate with representatives of UA by either physical, mechanical, electronic, or other means. Such passenger must inform UA of the method of communication to be used; and
Passengers who are unwilling to follow UA’s policy that prohibits voice calls after the aircraft doors have closed, while taxiing in preparation for takeoff, or while airborne.
Any Passenger who, by reason of engaging in the above activities in this Rule 21, causes UA any loss, damage or expense of any kind, consents and acknowledges that he or she shall reimburse UA for any such loss, damage or expense. UA has the right to refuse transport, on a permanent basis, to any passenger who, by reason of engaging in the above activities in this Rule 21, causes UA any loss, damage or expense of any kind, or who has been disorderly, offensive, abusive, or violent. In addition, the activities enumerated in H) 1) through 8) shall constitute a material breach of contract, for which UA shall be excused from performing its obligations under this contract.
UA is not liable for its refusal to transport any passenger or for its removal of any passenger in accordance with this Rule. A Passenger who is removed or refused transportation in accordance with this Rule may be eligible for a refund upon request. See Rule 27 A). As an express precondition to issuance of any refund, UA shall not be responsible for damages of any kind whatsoever. The passenger’s sole and exclusive remedy shall be Rule 27 A).

The Contract of Carriage is almost literally a contract to rent a seat to get from point A to point B. It is a very one-sided contract - absurdly in favor of the airline - but the one thing they do NOT have the right to do is to violently remove someone from the airplane unless the passenger has violated anything in Rule 21... which Dr. Dao did not.

 

[RavenSky]

What time did the crew need to be in place at the other location?

Don't guess. Don't pull a bullshit answer out of your ass. Provide factual evidence to answer my question.

We don't know--what flight they were to operate was never disclosed.

exactly. end of that excuse.

He was not "trespassing"

When a business tells you to leave their property and you don't, you're trespassing.

When he has taken possession of the space he has rented, the business can NOT just tell him to leave. Their contract allows for "refusal of service" for very specific reasons, none of which Dr. Dao violated.

 

[RavenSky]

This is the third time this link to the Law Newz article, United Airlines Cites Wrong Rule For Illegally De-Boarding Passenger, is being posted in this thread. Perhaps people interested in discussing the pertinent federal rule (14 CFR 253) and United's Contract of Carriage would like to read it again:



Loren, I'm quoting this part just for you:

Finally, it appears that United is seeking to blame the passenger, claiming that when asked to give up his seat, he acted belligerently – and citing a rule which requires that passengers obey the orders of the flight crew. But, such a requirement applies only to orders which are lawful.

If, for example, the flight crew had ordered two passengers to fight each other for the amusement of the other passengers, or to take off all their clothing, the passengers would not be required to comply, and their forceful removal could not be based upon refusing to follow unlawful orders.

Also, an eyewitness seated a few rows behind Dr. Dao gave this description of the incident:

Once seated, passengers were then offered up to $800 to give up their spot on the plane to make room for the four United crew members who needed to catch a flight in Louisville on Monday, said Powell and Bridges.

However, no one volunteered, they said, and an airline supervisor told passengers that four people would be selected to leave. United Airlines confirmed no passengers volunteered to leave the plane.

One couple was selected and then left the plane, Bridges said. Dao was then selected and became "very upset," Bridges said, adding that the man told airline staff that he was a doctor and needed to see patients on Monday.

Bridges said a manager told Dao that security would be called if he didn't willingly leave, and the man said he was calling his lawyer.

United CEO Oscar Munoz said in his letter to employees that Dao raised his voice and grew "more and more disruptive and belligerent" and airline staff "were left with no choice" to call security officers.

Powell described Dao as "polite," "matter-of-fact" and "appropriately annoyed" as he refused to leave his seat.

Two security officers from the Chicago Department of Aviation were then called, and according to Powell weren't physical with Dao but spoke on their walkie-talkies like they were encountering a dangerous situation.

Then a third officer arrived.

Bridges, who was seated rows ahead of Dao, shared a 31-second video on Facebook that shows Dao screaming as a security officer attempted to yank him out of his seat multiple times before he was pulled into the aisle where his head appears to strike an armrest.

The officer is then seen dragging a limp Dao on his back by his hands down the aisle.

Dr. Dao was not acting belligerent or throwing a temper tantrum. He was within his rights as a consumer of airline services to remain in his seat following boarding, and was calmly talking to his lawyer when the security guard got violent.

or... what Actish already said...

 

[coloradoatheist]

We don't know--what flight they were to operate was never disclosed.

exactly. end of that excuse.

He was not "trespassing"

When a business tells you to leave their property and you don't, you're trespassing.

When he has taken possession of the space he has rented, the business can NOT just tell him to leave. Their contract allows for "refusal of service" for very specific reasons, none of which Dr. Dao violated.

Except United tells us the destination and the time frame for when the flight was supposed to leave in the morning. United has two daily flights from Louisville to Newark, one at 6:08 am and one at 12:18 pm. Only one of those is early morning and only the 6:08 flight is operated by Republic.


There is is still confusion about the differences between contracts and other laws. The refusal of service contract part deals with cases where United doesn't have to compensate the person for taking them off the flight. If they take them off the flight for other reasons they would need to compensate them for doing that. But they still can and once their permission is removed and the person leaves it becomes trespassing. The CoC isn't the law of the land. Police officers don't read them to understand the laws and it wouldn't be the police officer that gets involved in who owes money to whom in the case of a breach of contract.

 

[RavenSky]

exactly. end of that excuse.

He was not "trespassing"

When a business tells you to leave their property and you don't, you're trespassing.

When he has taken possession of the space he has rented, the business can NOT just tell him to leave. Their contract allows for "refusal of service" for very specific reasons, none of which Dr. Dao violated.

Except United tells us the destination and the time frame for when the flight was supposed to leave in the morning. United has two daily flights from Louisville to Newark, one at 6:08 am and one at 12:18 pm. Only one of those is early morning and only the 6:08 flight is operated by Republic.

You still have not provided an iota of evidence that United had to have this particular crew in that particular place at that particular time - only your assumptions

There is is still confusion about the differences between contracts and other laws. The refusal of service contract part deals with cases where United doesn't have to compensate the person for taking them off the flight.

No confusion on my part. I'm sorry if you are still confused.

If they take them off the flight for other reasons they would need to compensate them for doing that.

They can't "take them off the flight for other reasons".

But they still can and once their permission is removed and the person leaves it becomes trespassing.

wrong

The CoC isn't the law of the land. Police officers don't read them to understand the laws and it wouldn't be the police officer that gets involved in who owes money to whom in the case of a breach of contract.

Which is exactly what the faux-police should have told the United representatives instead of violently assaulting an innocent passenger on an employee's say-so

 

[coloradoatheist]

You still have not provided an iota of evidence that United had to have this particular crew in that particular place at that particular time - only your assumptions

At most the airline had 6 hours to find a crew on standby get them on a plane to Louisville and get them in by 9pm that night. That's not a lot of options. And it looks like it wasn't even decided until around 5pm that another crew had to be found because they were still hoping the original crew could make it.

No confusion on my part. I'm sorry if you are still confused.

Your confusion ends when you say that United could legally remove them from the flight. Legality doesn't mean they won't have to pay for breaching a contract. But there was no evidence that United wasn't going to compensate him for the missed flight.

They can't "take them off the flight for other reasons".

Yes they can. He didn't have property rights on that flight to not be removed by the property owner.

Which is exactly what the faux-police should have told the United representatives instead of violently assaulting an innocent passenger on an employee's say-so

They were a law enforcement agency and they are given qualified immunity if they have reasonable cause for their action. They did. So the argument against them would only be did they use unreasonable force to remove someone from the plane they did. So what are the options for a law enforcement agency to remove someone from a confined space?

 

[RavenSky]

At most the airline had 6 hours to find a crew on standby get them on a plane to Louisville and get them in by 9pm that night. That's not a lot of options. And it looks like it wasn't even decided until around 5pm that another crew had to be found because they were still hoping the original crew could make it.

STILL no factual evidence. Do you understand the difference between FACTUAL EVIDENCE and your opinion?

No confusion on my part. I'm sorry if you are still confused.

Your confusion ends when you say that United could legally remove them from the flight.

As I said, I'm not the one who is confused. I am crystal clear that you are wrong.

They can't "take them off the flight for other reasons".

Yes they can. He didn't have property rights on that flight to not be removed by the property owner.Yes they can. He didn't have property rights on that flight to not be removed by the property owner.

You are wrong; and I am done

 

[coloradoatheist]

STILL no factual evidence. Do you understand the difference between FACTUAL EVIDENCE and your opinion?

Yes, but you are the one saying that based on a one a billion chance of something going wrong that United needed to make a non corporate policy based decision when they had a normal policy to handle this situation. At most United had 5 hours to find a flight crew and get them on a plane and get them to Louisville starting with using a United flight and then a competitor flight. And that 5 hours doesn't include the hour that a crew has to report for duty at the airport.

You are wrong; and I am done

No. I had wished United taken this to court to prove one of right and the other wrong, but they wouldn't do that just to prove a point an a small bulletin board. And I believe you have confused two different types of law.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Reading comprehension failure. I said you are assuming there is only one solution.

And you're making the assumption that there is another. Liberal fallacy 101: There's always a good answer if you look hard enough, and thus the side in power is always at fault for a bad outcome because they didn't look hard enough.

Everything your side has suggested has varied from not working to hopelessly ignorant of the situation.

If there was a closer crew they would have used them.

Another assumption you have pulled right out of your ass.

No. I know they have computers programmed to do things like find crew when it's needed. They'll look at who is available and can get there in time.

It arose because they didn't think an adult was going to throw a temper tantrum when legally ordered off the plane.

If he had not been on the plane, we don't know what would have happened. So, unless you have evidence he boarded against UA's will, UA screwed up.

Once again, you are pulling an assumption out of your ass to justify your conclusion.

You don't see it was a temper tantrum? What he did is an awful lot like the toddler laying flailing his arms about because he didn't get what he wanted.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This is the third time this link to the Law Newz article, United Airlines Cites Wrong Rule For Illegally De-Boarding Passenger, is being posted in this thread. Perhaps people interested in discussing the pertinent federal rule (14 CFR 253) and United's Contract of Carriage would like to read it again:

And note that it's called the "boarding process". The airline sees it as the whole thing--boarding starts when the first passengers comes on board, it finishes when they close the doors. Your source is based upon assuming that it applies separately to each passenger.

And what is the airline supposed to do when there's a IT snafu and two people are issued boarding passes for the same seat?

Dr. Dao was not acting belligerent or throwing a temper tantrum. He was within his rights as a consumer of airline services to remain in his seat following boarding, and was calmly talking to his lawyer when the security guard got violent.

What I'm talking about is his behavior when they attempted to remove him, not his behavior while sitting.

 

[laughing dog]

And you're making the assumption that there is another. Liberal fallacy 101: There's always a good answer if you look hard enough, and thus the side in power is always at fault for a bad outcome because they didn't look hard enough.

Please try to read the actual content before you respond with a one of your dumb memes. Unlike you, I am not assuming anything. I am challenging you to justify the assumption you pulled out of your ass.

Everything your side has suggested has varied from not working to hopelessly ignorant of the situation.

Only in your world where up is down.

No. I know they have computers programmed to do things like find crew when it's needed. They'll look at who is available and can get there in time.

And you are assuming that there were no mistakes or errors and that the program is infallibe - more assumptions you pulled out of your ass.

You don't see it was a temper tantrum? What he did is an awful lot like the toddler laying flailing his arms about because he didn't get what he wanted.

If he had not been on the plane, we don't know what would have happened. He was allowed on the plane by UA - they caused the situation, not him.