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

[bilby]

It's not more complex than that. The additional complexities of aviation over the restaurant business are all of no relevance to this case.

UA would like us to think that they are; but they are not. They all boil down to 'if we are not allowed to be immoral, it might cost us more money, and that would mean more expensive tickets'.

To which my response is 'so fucking what?'

If UA cannot work out that selling more tickets than they have seats is stupid; and that 'fixing' that stupidity by making their passengers suffer is morally wrong, then I am not surprised that they also can't work out that they don't own something once they have sold it.

But it really isn't that complicated.

But then, you appear to think that one plus one is three; perhaps to you this really is impenetrably complicated and impossible to resolve.

Except is more complex because of having to move both people and things (both of which can break down). United didn't want their previous flight to have mechanical issues. Other businesses can queue where airlines queue by bumping people.

And the thing you are forgetting, is that if he had showed up at the gate and they said, "Flight is full, here is your refund plus 3 times for that inconvenience" there is no issue, but that artificial 25 feet is the issue when it shouldn't be.

I am not forgetting anything.

If the waiter comes back after taking your order and says 'sorry sir, but the chef tells me we are out of fillet steak', then hard luck, you have to order something else.

If they already put the steak in front of you, then they can't take it away again to give to another customer who they prefer to serve; nor to feed to the kitchen-hand who is so hungry that he might not be able to work his shift, potentially inconveniencing dozens of other diners.

If the fridge breaks down, and there are no steaks, you miss out. But that's NOT the same as the restaurant taking your food away to give to someone else, and using force to take it.

If scheduling the moving of things as well as people is too hard for UA to manage without beating up passengers and stealing their seats, then they are in the wrong business.

Schedules must contain sufficient tolerance for unexpected problems, and if they don't, that's only the fault of the people who set the schedules. It is not morally acceptable to pass responsibility for fixing such failings on to anyone else.

 

[Elixir]

A person's body is far more than just their property. Refusing to leave an airplane where you paid for a seat is not rape. Ultimately this is why you are a propertarian--you think of property as extension of people and those with extra property like aristocrats.

I do believe in property rights. You can dictate things on your own property.

Why tell those annoying kids to get off your lawn, when you can kidnap and torture them in your very own dungeon property?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I do believe in property rights. You can dictate things on your own property.

Why tell those annoying kids to get off your lawn, when you can kidnap and torture them in your very own dungeon property?

or shoot them in the back as they're running away...

 

[bilby]

It's also interesting that you said the cost, who cares. But if you wanted to fly and make sure you weren't bumped on a seat you could buy your own jet and then you would have the luxury. Why not tell the doctor he should charter his own private flight?

He can.

What makes you think he couldn't?

But he chose a less expensive option. If the cost of a UA ticket was driven so high by the requirement that they act in a moral and non-violent way that a private charter would be cheaper, who are you to say that Dr Dao may not choose the charter jet option?

Of course, we both know that the reality is that UA tickets would increase only a few percent in cost, so a private charter would still be far more expensive. But even your attempt to be ridiculous has failed.

No matter how cheap a ticket you buy, it doesn't come with the assumption that violent assault is included.

 

[Elixir]

Why tell those annoying kids to get off your lawn, when you can kidnap and torture them in your very own dungeon property?

or shoot them in the back as they're running away...

Yah, just make sure they haven't strayed over the property line when you squeeze the trigger...

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

A person's body is far more than just their property. Refusing to leave an airplane where you paid for a seat is not rape. Ultimately this is why you are a propertarian--you think of property as extension of people and those with extra property like aristocrats.

I do believe in property rights. You can dictate things on your own property. The doctor could buy a plane and not have to worry about sharing one.

Oh for fuck sakes... I thought we were done with that stupid fucking retort.

He paid for a seat on that private property. And the owners of the private property informed him to get on board.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

To review the fuck ups:

United Airlines: Staffing fuck up, checking in and boarding too many people
Republic Airlines: Also not able to count
Local Security: Committed assault
Passenger: Thinking buying a ticket and being told to board a plane meant he could stay on that plane until it arrived at the destination


And the right-wingers are still whining about the passenger!

 

[coloradoatheist]

It's also interesting that you said the cost, who cares. But if you wanted to fly and make sure you weren't bumped on a seat you could buy your own jet and then you would have the luxury. Why not tell the doctor he should charter his own private flight?

He can.

What makes you think he couldn't?

But he chose a less expensive option. If the cost of a UA ticket was driven so high by the requirement that they act in a moral and non-violent way that a private charter would be cheaper, who are you to say that Dr Dao may not choose the charter jet option?

Of course, we both know that the reality is that UA tickets would increase only a few percent in cost, so a private charter would still be far more expensive. But even your attempt to be ridiculous has failed.

No matter how cheap a ticket you buy, it doesn't come with the assumption that violent assault is included.

Except load capacity is what has driven ticket prices so low. Inflation adjusted tickets are much lower than they used to be and the reason why air travel is affordable to the common people were before air travel was only for the rich and business. It also means that when you miss your flight they can get you on other flights. Maybe you like to risk a vacation where if you miss a connecting flight you would rather vacation in a city in the middle.

But the removal from the plane occurred after law enforcement got there and he would not leave the plane.

 

[coloradoatheist]

To review the fuck ups:

United Airlines: Staffing fuck up, checking in and boarding too many people
Republic Airlines: Also not able to count
Local Security: Committed assault
Passenger: Thinking buying a ticket and being told to board a plane meant he could stay on that plane until it arrived at the destination


And the right-wingers are still whining about the passenger!

United's fuck up was trying to be nice and get people onto the plane so the could board and be off on time
Republic Airlines: The pilot needed to come out and take control of the situation too
Law Enforcement: Having the armrest down on the other side and not deboarding the plane
Passenger: Not leaving

 

[bilby]

To review the fuck ups:

United Airlines: Staffing fuck up, checking in and boarding too many people
Republic Airlines: Also not able to count
Local Security: Committed assault
Passenger: Thinking buying a ticket and being told to board a plane meant he could stay on that plane until it arrived at the destination


And the right-wingers are still whining about the passenger!

United's fuck up was trying to be nice and have someone beaten up so as not to inconvenience other passengers.

FTFY

Just don't be nice to me, I bruise easily.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

To review the fuck ups:

United Airlines: Staffing fuck up, checking in and boarding too many people
Republic Airlines: Also not able to count
Local Security: Committed assault
Passenger: Thinking buying a ticket and being told to board a plane meant he could stay on that plane until it arrived at the destination


And the right-wingers are still whining about the passenger!

United's fuck up was trying to be nice and get people onto the plane so the could board and be off on time
Republic Airlines: The pilot needed to come out and take control of the situation too
Law Enforcement: Having the armrest down on the other side and not deboarding the plane
Passenger: Not leaving

How was not leaving the passenger's fuck up? He was on the phone with his lawyer checking to see if he was being given a legal order before deciding whether or not to comply with it. Since it turns out that he was not being given a legal order, he was right to double check.

 

[coloradoatheist]

United's fuck up was trying to be nice and have someone beaten up so as not to inconvenience other passengers.

FTFY

Just don't be nice to me, I bruise easily.

Except it was law enforcement who did it. Same way if I called the cops for someone on my property I told to leave and didn't. They are the ones who have to decide how to remove someone.

 

[coloradoatheist]

United's fuck up was trying to be nice and get people onto the plane so the could board and be off on time
Republic Airlines: The pilot needed to come out and take control of the situation too
Law Enforcement: Having the armrest down on the other side and not deboarding the plane
Passenger: Not leaving

How was not leaving the passenger's fuck up? He was on the phone with his lawyer checking to see if he was being given a legal order before deciding whether or not to comply with it. Since it turns out that he was not being given a legal order, he was right to double check.

The cops aren't going to sit and wait for a person to call their lawyer on a Sunday evening. They are use to people stalling. And we still haven't proved that it was a legal or not legal order.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

How was not leaving the passenger's fuck up? He was on the phone with his lawyer checking to see if he was being given a legal order before deciding whether or not to comply with it. Since it turns out that he was not being given a legal order, he was right to double check.

The cops aren't going to sit and wait for a person to call their lawyer on a Sunday evening. They are use to people stalling.

Are they? They work at the fucking airport.

And we still haven't proved that it was a legal or not legal order.

That isn't as big a point in your favor as you think it apparently is.

 

[coloradoatheist]

The cops aren't going to sit and wait for a person to call their lawyer on a Sunday evening. They are use to people stalling.

Are they? They work at the fucking airport.

And we still haven't proved that it was a legal or not legal order.

That isn't as big a point in your favor as you think it apparently is.

Yes, police officers in general get the idle threat of calling their lawyer , etc. They are going to let you stall. How long can call he stall? Until Monday morning and normal lawyer hours?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

The length of a phone call? Less time than it would take them to drag him off the plane?

If they're not going to bother to learn their own jobs, they had no right to complain when someone was trying to learn it for them.

 

[coloradoatheist]

The length of a phone call? Less time than it would take them to drag him off the plane?

If they're not going to bother to learn their own jobs, they had no right to complain when someone was trying to learn it for them.

It would take a while for the lawyer to fully research all the pertinent laws, licenses, leases to figure out and answer and still have just an opinion. It was 5pm on a Sunday night and I would laugh to at a person calling a lawyer at the time. He can make that call from the Jetway.

 

[bilby]

FTFY

Just don't be nice to me, I bruise easily.

Except it was law enforcement who did it. Same way if I called the cops for someone on my property I told to leave and didn't. They are the ones who have to decide how to remove someone.

Except it wasn't 'law enforcement' at all; It was pretend cops who had already been in trouble for pretending to be cops.

Calling security on someone who isn't doing anything wrong, because you know that they will take your side in the dispute, leaving you with the ability to pretend that any unpleasant results are all down to someone else's poor judgement, is the epitome of corruption, and probably the most heinous act UA committed in this entire sordid affair.

The pseudo-cops did exactly what you would expect them to do; so the customer being assaulted was a foregone conclusion once they were called. That makes UA blameless in EXACTLY the same way that I would be blameless if I shot you, and said 'I didn't touch him - it's the bullet that caused the injuries, so you should be arresting the bullet'.

Assault by proxy remains assault. It is for UA and the security guards to argue between themselves who was to blame - but either the security guards knowingly did the wrong thing, and are at fault; Or UA misled them into doing the wrong thing, and UA is at fault.

In 20-20 hindsight, the security staff should have determined who was in the right before acting - perhaps they could have spoken to Dr Dao's lawyer, who was on the phone at the time, and taken ten seconds to obtain an educated assessment of the situation; or perhaps they could have used their own channels and initiative to find out what was happening. But of course, they didn't (and would not be expected to); They were asked by an airline to remove a passenger, and made no attempt to determine whether that request was lawful - as anyone would have expected. So that means the onus is on UA to be sure that it IS a lawful request before making it.

There is no evidence that they did anything of the sort.

 

[RavenSky]

I'm confused what you are arguing. Do you seriously deny that it's a fact that United owns the airplane and the seat?

Are you denying that there's a contract with passengers that has terms?

Since I am one of the several people who keeps pointing that out to Loren and CA, obviously I do

Here's one of the contract terms in a United Airlines contract of carriage:

Schedules are Subject To Change Without Notice - Times shown on tickets, timetables, published schedules or elsewhere, and aircraft type and similar details reflected on tickets or UA’s schedule are not guaranteed and form no part of this contract. UA may substitute alternate carriers or aircraft, delay or cancel flights, and alter or omit stopping places or connections shown on the ticket at any time. UA will promptly provide Passengers the best available information regarding known delays, cancellations, misconnections and diversions, but UA is not liable for any misstatements or other errors or omissions in connection with providing such information. No employee, agent or representative of UA can bind UA legally by reason of any statements relating to flight status or other information. Except to the extent provided in this Rule, UA shall not be liable for failing to operate any flight according to schedule, or for any change in flight schedule, with or without notice to the passenger.

Since I am one of several people who have repeatedly linked to United's Contract of Carriage, no duh... but it is not that applicable section. The applicable section has already been linked in this thread and previous threads multiple times by multiple people, including me.

If you are saying there's some legal rights that passengers have you are right. But they are limited by law and contract. Here is the DOT website on your rights:

Contrary to popular belief, for domestic itineraries airlines are not required to compensate passengers whose flights are delayed or canceled. As discussed in the chapter on overbooking, compensation is required by law on domestic trips only when you are "bumped" from a flight that is oversold. On international itineraries, passengers may be able to recover reimbursement under Article 19 of the Montreal Convention for expenses resulting from a delayed or canceled flight by filing a claim with the airline. If the claim is denied, you may pursue the matter in small claims court if you believe that the carrier did not take all measures that could reasonably be required to avoid the damages caused by the delay.

. . .

Overbooking is not illegal, and most airlines overbook their scheduled flights to a certain extent in order to compensate for "no-shows." Passengers are sometimes left behind or "bumped" as a result. When an oversale occurs, the Department of Transportation (DOT) requires airlines to ask people who aren't in a hurry to give up their seats voluntarily, in exchange for compensation. Those passengers bumped against their will are, with a few exceptions, entitled to compensation.

Again, so what? You are not presenting anything new. It is simply not applicable to the specific situation with Dr. Dao. He was already boarded and seated; and had not violated anything in Rule 21 which covers removing someone who has already been boarded and seated.

Bottom line. If they say get out. You gotta get out. That's a fact. Not an opinion.

SLD

WRONG!

 

[laughing dog]

Your koans are not working.

You haven't answered my question.

Because it is irrelevant to the discussion.

Why don't airlines get volunteers every single time they have to bump someone?

Probably because they can get away with it. But that does not address the situation where they cannot. Duh.