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

[RavenSky]

Wrong in that ColoradoAtheist doesn't know what he is talking about, and I am tired of him repeating the same nonsense over and over and over. A plane ticket is NOT a "license"

I am not the one who tried to use the term Lease wrongly. You actually want to make an attempt at a legal argument on why it's not a license?

YOU are the one who keeps comparing an airline seat to property. Using YOUR comparison, it is more like a lease than a license.

I, on the other hand, accurately and with factual citations, showed you that it is a Contract of Carriage.

I am not going to continue debating this with you.

It is NOT a "license" and every time you say it is (without any sort of factual citation or even a rational argument) I will simply note that you are wrong.

 

[coloradoatheist]

I am not the one who tried to use the term Lease wrongly. You actually want to make an attempt at a legal argument on why it's not a license?

YOU are the one who keeps comparing an airline seat to property. Using YOUR comparison, it is more like a lease than a license.

I, on the other hand, accurately and with factual citations, showed you that it is a Contract of Carriage.

I am not going to continue debating this with you.

It is NOT a "license" and every time you say it is (without any sort of factual citation or even a rational argument) I will simply note that you are wrong.

Again, no legal argument by you. The Contract of Carriage is the license agreement between the airline and the person who has the ticket. And yes we are about done since you refuse to learn the differences between legal terms.

 

[RavenSky]

Again, no legal argument by you.

You made the claim. YOU need to provide the "legal argument" with factual citation

The Contract of Carriage is the license agreement between the airline and the person who has the ticket. .

wrong

 

[Arctish]

Contract of Carriage

 

[Juma]

”Obvious”? Do you really want to join club untermensche? How about provide some actual arguments based on the actual text as a decent person would do?
I have already shown that this document does not cover the act of actual forcing out of the passengers.
And that it explicitly states that united did not do what they should to let these people stay on the plane.

Yeah, the document doesn't address it--which is the whole point. The document simply considers it an involuntarily denied boarding. If the DoT had any question about whether it was actually an IDB the document would have discussed it. (Note that it specifically mentioned the issues it didn't address as being outside the scope of the issue.)

Wtf! They DID! The matter has two parts: 1) was Dao given enough chance to stay on the plane. 2) was the eviction correctly executed .
On 1) there paper clearly states NO. Snd on 2) it cannot answer since that is beyond DOT jurisdiction.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The DOT has no reason to lie here. There's no issue of integrity as he gets no benefit from going against the facts.

The problem is he went against your faith. You're reacting about how a creationist does to evidence of evolution.

*self-moderated response*

Isn't overbooking when an airline intentionally oversells a flight ie more tickets than seats? This is done because... they can.

Experience says there will be passengers who don't show. They're actually quite good at deciding how many extra seats to sell. Note, however, that overbooking isn't the only way you have a denied boarding. Sometimes the plane breaks down and they have to use another--and if it's a bit smaller... (Which is why the airline that doesn't overbook at all has the highest rate of involuntary denied boarding!) There are the air marshals that sometimes take seats. There are crew that have to get somewhere to fly a plane.

I believe it was demonstrated through the code that this doesn't count as overbooking. And of course the DOT has skin in the game to modify how they approach this.

You're still giving no reason for the DOT to call it an IDB if it wasn't.

... you Nazi.

I'm simply someone that recognizes that shit sometimes happens. I'm more interested in dealing with the problem than hunting for someone to punish.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Well, if it's not lying or a lack of integrity, it must be stupidity and/or ignorance.

You sound like a creationist. You're determined you're right and anything that says otherwise must be wrong.

They say they didn't review the actions of the security team because they don't review police action. The security team members aren't police officers. That fact was thoroughly established within 24 hours of the incident.

They were called police at the time in question. It doesn't even matter--they regulate the airlines, not the security people. Whether Dao's removal was proper is in their realm. The behavior of the security people carrying that out is not. It doesn't matter what label they wear.

They say United should have given Dao a written copy of the federal rules regarding how airlines may proceed when flights are overbooked even though the flight was not overbooked.

IDB doesn't care if the problem arose from overbooking or something else. You get the same thing if they have to use a smaller plane, you get the same thing if they can't use a seat for some reason. (And any safety-related issue takes a seat out. For example, the seat I had that decided it wasn't going to lock in the upright position.)

They say they 'generally' pursue enforcement action when there's a pattern or policy of non-compliance. That might be true but it sounds like they're saying they don't do shit when the non-compliance is occasional. They didn't find evidence of racial discrimination which could mean somebody actually investigated the matter, or they didn't find anything because they didn't bother looking.

The only wrongdoing they found was a failure to give him the information--something that would be hard to do as he left. Of course they aren't going to take any action about that, while technically wrong there's a substantial extenuating circumstance. (The purpose of the law is to ensure passengers are informed of their rights and aren't mislead into accepting less than the mandated compensation.)

The airlines have established rules for how IDBs are selected, it would not be hard for the DOT to check the rules vs what happened. (In all probability it's simply a matter of asking the computer for a ranked list of those who get picked, combined with a bit of human judgment as the computer doesn't know all the facts and it may select someone that can't be IDBed.) If that list matches what happened, end of discrimination investigation.

I wouldn't say they're going against the facts so much as simply ignoring them.

You're the one ignoring the facts.

The problem is he went against your faith. You're reacting about how a creationist does to evidence of evolution.

Hint: people posting faith based dogma are the ones who couldn't find a fact if you led them right to it.

And you've been lead to the DOT report.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yeah, the document doesn't address it--which is the whole point. The document simply considers it an involuntarily denied boarding. If the DoT had any question about whether it was actually an IDB the document would have discussed it. (Note that it specifically mentioned the issues it didn't address as being outside the scope of the issue.)

Wtf! They DID! The matter has two parts: 1) was Dao given enough chance to stay on the plane. 2) was the eviction correctly executed .
On 1) there paper clearly states NO. Snd on 2) it cannot answer since that is beyond DOT jurisdiction.

There is no issue of being allowed to stay on the plane.

The DOT said that United behaved correctly other than not providing a required disclosure.

 

[Arctish]

You sound like a creationist. You're determined you're right and anything that says otherwise must be wrong.

I don't know about you, but if I thought I was wrong about something I'd change my mind about it.

Anyway, this^ is an Ad Hominem.

They say they didn't review the actions of the security team because they don't review police action. The security team members aren't police officers. That fact was thoroughly established within 24 hours of the incident.

They were called police at the time in question.

They called themselves police and had been told not to do it. The department had been ordered in January to remove the word 'Police' from their vehicles and uniforms.

A Police Officer's Perspective:

O’Hare Airport came under the jurisdiction of the Chicago Police Department. Had it been Chicago Police that responded, this situation may have had an entirely different outcome.

However, there is also a Chicago Department of Aviation Security Department. Its officers went through police academy and have arrest powers, but are not armed — and in the event of a life-threatening issue are told to in effect “run and hide.”

In fact, it came to light that the law enforcement officials were not even authorized to have the word "police" on their jackets.

It was this second group of officers who responded to the United Airlines call to remove Dao.

You should read the entire article. It's short and quite good.

It doesn't even matter--they regulate the airlines, not the security people. Whether Dao's removal was proper is in their realm. The behavior of the security people carrying that out is not. It doesn't matter what label they wear.

As one police sergeant quoted in the article I just linked put it:

“I don't know the policy of Chicago PD or the State of Illinois, but it was a business dispute. Our procedure seeks to keep the peace, and that’s pretty much it," the officer said. "The only time I would allow officers to remove someone from an aircraft forcefully is if a crime has been committed. Other than that they paid for the seat and it’s a civil matter."

"Airlines have been trying to get us to remove passengers all the time for different reasons, and I have to explain to them we are not their bouncers. Our job is to keep the peace. I have been beefed (complained about) by airlines for not removing passengers, but luckily my management has backed me. The question then arises that the airline can claim that the person is trespassing, but that doesn't hold water because the airline was paid for the seat which still makes it a civil matter.”

They say United should have given Dao a written copy of the federal rules regarding how airlines may proceed when flights are overbooked even though the flight was not overbooked.

IDB doesn't care if the problem arose from overbooking or something else. You get the same thing if they have to use a smaller plane, you get the same thing if they can't use a seat for some reason. (And any safety-related issue takes a seat out. For example, the seat I had that decided it wasn't going to lock in the upright position.)

They say they 'generally' pursue enforcement action when there's a pattern or policy of non-compliance. That might be true but it sounds like they're saying they don't do shit when the non-compliance is occasional. They didn't find evidence of racial discrimination which could mean somebody actually investigated the matter, or they didn't find anything because they didn't bother looking.

The only wrongdoing they found was a failure to give him the information--something that would be hard to do as he left. Of course they aren't going to take any action about that, while technically wrong there's a substantial extenuating circumstance. (The purpose of the law is to ensure passengers are informed of their rights and aren't mislead into accepting less than the mandated compensation.)

The airlines have established rules for how IDBs are selected, it would not be hard for the DOT to check the rules vs what happened. (In all probability it's simply a matter of asking the computer for a ranked list of those who get picked, combined with a bit of human judgment as the computer doesn't know all the facts and it may select someone that can't be IDBed.) If that list matches what happened, end of discrimination investigation.

I wouldn't say they're going against the facts so much as simply ignoring them.

You're the one ignoring the facts.

The problem is he went against your faith. You're reacting about how a creationist does to evidence of evolution.

Hint: people posting faith based dogma are the ones who couldn't find a fact if you led them right to it.

And you've been lead to the DOT report.

And I've read it. It starts with this paragraph:

We have concluded our investigation of the involuntary denied boarding of passengers on United Express Flight 3411 on April 9, .2017. Our investigation of the April 9th incident focused on
whether United Airlines (United) complied with the U.S. Department of Transportation's (Department or DOT) oversales rule and Federal anti-discrimination statutes enforced by the Department. We did not review the actions of the security officers of the Chicago Department of Aviation because it is not DOT's role to investigate police conduct. At this time, I want to infonn you of the outcome of our
investigation.

They looked at federal rules and statutes. That means they looked at whether United's actions complied with 14 CFR Part 250. One of the points of contention is the lack of an explicit definition of the term 'boarded". However, 14 CFR Part 830 implies that passengers are considered boarded when they have stepped onto the aircraft "with the intention of flight" and until "all such persons having disembarked".

The incident with Dao didn't match what 14 CFR Part 250 calls Denial of Boarding. It was an attempt by the airline to rescind boarding and remove a passenger from his seat which, as that police sergeant said, is a civil matter.

 

[DBT]

Accepting payment for a seat on a flight gives a passenger the right to occupy that seat for the duration of a flight, especially when already occupied. There are good reasons why a passenger may be required to vacate their seat and/or disembark - being drunk, disorderly, an emergency, etc, but simply because the airline wants the seat back does not fall into that category. Forcedly removing a passenger because the airlines decides they want to use the seat, which is paid for by the passenger for the duration of the flight, is a clear case of physical assault.

 

[Shadowy Man]

They looked at federal rules and statutes. That means they looked at whether United's actions complied with 14 CFR Part 250. One of the points of contention is the lack of an explicit definition of the term 'boarded".

Typically in law when there is no explicit definition made the plain language meaning of the word is assumed. Most people will think that once they got on the plane and sat down they are "boarded". There is no reason to believe that the word means anything other than that. If they wanted it to mean something different then they needed to define it in their contract.

 

[RavenSky]

A Police Officer's Perspective:

As one police sergeant quoted in the article I just linked put it:

“I don't know the policy of Chicago PD or the State of Illinois, but it was a business dispute. Our procedure seeks to keep the peace, and that’s pretty much it," the officer said. "The only time I would allow officers to remove someone from an aircraft forcefully is if a crime has been committed. Other than that they paid for the seat and it’s a civil matter."

"Airlines have been trying to get us to remove passengers all the time for different reasons, and I have to explain to them we are not their bouncers. Our job is to keep the peace. I have been beefed (complained about) by airlines for not removing passengers, but luckily my management has backed me. The question then arises that the airline can claim that the person is trespassing, but that doesn't hold water because the airline was paid for the seat which still makes it a civil matter.”

EXACTLY what I told ColoradoAtheist a real police officer would say

 

[RavenSky]

They looked at federal rules and statutes. That means they looked at whether United's actions complied with 14 CFR Part 250. One of the points of contention is the lack of an explicit definition of the term 'boarded".

Typically in law when there is no explicit definition made the plain language meaning of the word is assumed. Most people will think that once they got on the plane and sat down they are "boarded". There is no reason to believe that the word means anything other than that. If they wanted it to mean something different then they needed to define it in their contract.

Moreover, typically under contract law if there is any vagueness to a clause (as seems to be the possible case being argued here) then benefit of the doubt is given to the interpretation of the side that did NOT write the contract - in this case, Dr. Dao will receive benefit of the common sense interpretation; not United.

There is a general rule that a court will construe ambiguous contract terms against the drafter of the agreement. But this rule only applies where one contracting party is in a superior bargaining position, usually either as a result of greater experience or the assistance of counsel.

http://www.metrocorpcounsel.com/articles/4020/how-courts-interpret-ambiguous-contracts

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I don't know about you, but if I thought I was wrong about something I'd change my mind about it.

But you're being utterly closed-minded about facts contrary to your position. You have the DOT report and are playing contortionist trying to make it say something other than what it says.

Anyway, this^ is an Ad Hominem.

I'm saying you're using a faith-based approach to this. Your bible says United must be wrong, that's it.

They called themselves police and had been told not to do it. The department had been ordered in January to remove the word 'Police' from their vehicles and uniforms.

It doesn't even matter--the point is they weren't under the jurisdiction of the DOT.

A Police Officer's Perspective:

Plenty of opinion pieces here--which mean nothing in comparison to the guys who actually make the rules. We have a very clear primary source here, use it!

As one police sergeant quoted in the article I just linked put it:

“I don't know the policy of Chicago PD or the State of Illinois, but it was a business dispute. Our procedure seeks to keep the peace, and that’s pretty much it," the officer said. "The only time I would allow officers to remove someone from an aircraft forcefully is if a crime has been committed. Other than that they paid for the seat and it’s a civil matter."

"Airlines have been trying to get us to remove passengers all the time for different reasons, and I have to explain to them we are not their bouncers. Our job is to keep the peace. I have been beefed (complained about) by airlines for not removing passengers, but luckily my management has backed me. The question then arises that the airline can claim that the person is trespassing, but that doesn't hold water because the airline was paid for the seat which still makes it a civil matter.”

The police love to dismiss disputes as civil matters even when they aren't.

Hint: people posting faith based dogma are the ones who couldn't find a fact if you led them right to it.

And you've been lead to the DOT report.

And I've read it. It starts with this paragraph:

We have concluded our investigation of the involuntary denied boarding of passengers on United Express Flight 3411 on April 9, .2017. Our investigation of the April 9th incident focused on
whether United Airlines (United) complied with the U.S. Department of Transportation's (Department or DOT) oversales rule and Federal anti-discrimination statutes enforced by the Department. We did not review the actions of the security officers of the Chicago Department of Aviation because it is not DOT's role to investigate police conduct. At this time, I want to infonn you of the outcome of our
investigation.

They looked at federal rules and statutes. That means they looked at whether United's actions complied with 14 CFR Part 250. One of the points of contention is the lack of an explicit definition of the term 'boarded". However, 14 CFR Part 830 implies that passengers are considered boarded when they have stepped onto the aircraft "with the intention of flight" and until "all such persons having disembarked".

Once again, you're taking opinion pieces as superior to the DOT's own ruling on the matter.

I do agree that "boarded" lacks a defined meaning. In that case the common usage in the domain prevails--and that refers to the whole thing as a single process.

The incident with Dao didn't match what 14 CFR Part 250 calls Denial of Boarding. It was an attempt by the airline to rescind boarding and remove a passenger from his seat which, as that police sergeant said, is a civil matter.

If it wasn't an IDB why did the DOT's evaluation treat it as one? You've never addressed this inconvenient fact.

- - - Updated - - -

They looked at federal rules and statutes. That means they looked at whether United's actions complied with 14 CFR Part 250. One of the points of contention is the lack of an explicit definition of the term 'boarded".

Typically in law when there is no explicit definition made the plain language meaning of the word is assumed. Most people will think that once they got on the plane and sat down they are "boarded". There is no reason to believe that the word means anything other than that. If they wanted it to mean something different then they needed to define it in their contract.

The common meaning in the domain in question. Thus, as the airlines use it because it's a rule that's applied to them.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Moreover, typically under contract law if there is any vagueness to a clause (as seems to be the possible case being argued here) then benefit of the doubt is given to the interpretation of the side that did NOT write the contract - in this case, Dr. Dao will receive benefit of the common sense interpretation; not United.

Even more so as this is in effect a contract of adhesion.

What you are missing, though, is that it's between the DOT and United, Dao isn't a party to it. United gets the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Moreover, typically under contract law if there is any vagueness to a clause (as seems to be the possible case being argued here) then benefit of the doubt is given to the interpretation of the side that did NOT write the contract - in this case, Dr. Dao will receive benefit of the common sense interpretation; not United.

Even more so as this is in effect a contract of adhesion.

What you are missing, though, is that it's between the DOT and United, Dao isn't a party to it. United gets the benefit of the doubt.

No, the contract in question is the one that United entered into with Dao when he gave them money in exchange for a service. The contract between United and the DOT doesn't enter into the equation.

 

[Arctish]

They called themselves police and had been told not to do it. The department had been ordered in January to remove the word 'Police' from their vehicles and uniforms.

It doesn't even matter--the point is they weren't under the jurisdiction of the DOT.

It matters if the DOT says the reason it's not under their jurisdiction because they don't investigate police actions. That would be like the DOT saying they aren't going to review the actions of the security team because they don't review services available at airport bars.

If the DOT meant to say it doesn't evaluate airport security operations (which I doubt) it should have said so. It should not have conflated the security team with the police, especially since the Aviation department had been actively working to make the distinction clear.

Frankly, it looks like a dodge. I think the DOT didn't want to touch that tar baby so it claimed it had no authority.

A Police Officer's Perspective:

Plenty of opinion pieces here--which mean nothing in comparison to the guys who actually make the rules. We have a very clear primary source here, use it!

As one police sergeant quoted in the article I just linked put it:

“I don't know the policy of Chicago PD or the State of Illinois, but it was a business dispute. Our procedure seeks to keep the peace, and that’s pretty much it," the officer said. "The only time I would allow officers to remove someone from an aircraft forcefully is if a crime has been committed. Other than that they paid for the seat and it’s a civil matter."

"Airlines have been trying to get us to remove passengers all the time for different reasons, and I have to explain to them we are not their bouncers. Our job is to keep the peace. I have been beefed (complained about) by airlines for not removing passengers, but luckily my management has backed me. The question then arises that the airline can claim that the person is trespassing, but that doesn't hold water because the airline was paid for the seat which still makes it a civil matter.”

The police love to dismiss disputes as civil matters even when they aren't.

Evidence?

Hint: people posting faith based dogma are the ones who couldn't find a fact if you led them right to it.

And you've been lead to the DOT report.

And I've read it. It starts with this paragraph:

We have concluded our investigation of the involuntary denied boarding of passengers on United Express Flight 3411 on April 9, .2017. Our investigation of the April 9th incident focused on
whether United Airlines (United) complied with the U.S. Department of Transportation's (Department or DOT) oversales rule and Federal anti-discrimination statutes enforced by the Department. We did not review the actions of the security officers of the Chicago Department of Aviation because it is not DOT's role to investigate police conduct. At this time, I want to infonn you of the outcome of our
investigation.

They looked at federal rules and statutes. That means they looked at whether United's actions complied with 14 CFR Part 250. One of the points of contention is the lack of an explicit definition of the term 'boarded". However, 14 CFR Part 830 implies that passengers are considered boarded when they have stepped onto the aircraft "with the intention of flight" and until "all such persons having disembarked".

Once again, you're taking opinion pieces as superior to the DOT's own ruling on the matter.

Once again, you're missing the point.

The letter says what they investigated:

"Our investigation of the April 9th incident focused on whether United Airlines (United) complied with the U.S. Department of Transportation's (Department or DOT) oversales rule and Federal anti-discrimination statutes enforced by the Department"

That's it. That's what they looked at.

Investigating whether United complied with the DOT oversales rule means comparing United's actions with what it was required to do under 14 CFR Part 250. That Part of the code talks about what should happen when a ticketed passenger is not allowed to board because an airline sold more tickets to passengers than they could accommodate. It doesn't say anything about forcing someone out of a seat after they have presented their boarding pass and been allowed to enter the aircraft because of staffing needs elsewhere.

Investigating whether United violated Federal anti-discrimination statutes enforced by the Department means seeing if United was in compliance with 14 CFR 372. The DOT investigation found no evidence of non-compliance.

I do agree that "boarded" lacks a defined meaning. In that case the common usage in the domain prevails--and that refers to the whole thing as a single process.

No, it doesn't. That's the way you want to define it. But that's not how it actually works in the real world.

The moment you step on to the airplane you have boarded it. The boarding process is the process whereby each individual passenger comes on board. So while the process doesn't conclude until everyone is on board, that doesn't affect the 'boarded' status of people who entered the aircraft and took their seats.

All of the passengers had boarded the aircraft and taken their seats by the time United decided it wanted some of those seats back. It wasn't a Denial of Boarding, it was an attempt to reverse a boarding.

The incident with Dao didn't match what 14 CFR Part 250 calls Denial of Boarding. It was an attempt by the airline to rescind boarding and remove a passenger from his seat which, as that police sergeant said, is a civil matter.

If it wasn't an IDB why did the DOT's evaluation treat it as one? You've never addressed this inconvenient fact.

What do you think we're discussing here?

 

[RavenSky]

Moreover, typically under contract law if there is any vagueness to a clause (as seems to be the possible case being argued here) then benefit of the doubt is given to the interpretation of the side that did NOT write the contract - in this case, Dr. Dao will receive benefit of the common sense interpretation; not United.

Even more so as this is in effect a contract of adhesion.

What you are missing, though, is that it's between the DOT and United, Dao isn't a party to it. United gets the benefit of the doubt.

Wrong.

Contract of Carriage is between United and the passenger, even if the passenger isn't even aware of it. That, in fact, was one of the issues addressed in the DOT report.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Even more so as this is in effect a contract of adhesion.

What you are missing, though, is that it's between the DOT and United, Dao isn't a party to it. United gets the benefit of the doubt.

Wrong.

Contract of Carriage is between United and the passenger, even if the passenger isn't even aware of it. That, in fact, was one of the issues addressed in the DOT report.

The IDB rules are between the DOT and the airlines.

 

[bilby]

Wrong.

Contract of Carriage is between United and the passenger, even if the passenger isn't even aware of it. That, in fact, was one of the issues addressed in the DOT report.

The IDB rules are between the DOT and the airlines.

Nobody cares - nobody was denied boarding in this case, voluntarily or otherwise.

Your red herring isn't getting better with age.