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

[Loren Pechtel]

The following is from the article written by a Associate Dean and Professor of Law at Cornell Law School that I posted less than a week ago:

In some situations, a contractual dispute and a trespassing dispute should be kept separate. Say you hire a painter to paint the inside of your house. You refuse to pay, and so the painter says, “I’m not leaving until you pay me.” When the painter refuses to leave, you call the police and ask them to remove him because he is trespassing. The proper resolution is that the painter must leave but can sue you for breach of contract.

That may be so, but in that case, the painter’s refusal to leave is incidental to the object and purpose of the contract, which is to paint the house, not stay in your house.

In contrast, the object and purpose of the contract of carriage is, among other things, to require the airline to transport the passenger from location A to location B aboard aircraft C. Being on the aircraft is the whole point of the contract, and it specifically lists the situations when the airline may deny transport to a ticketed customer.

The article was first published 5 days after the incident and addresses nearly all of the points that have been raised in this thread.

And you're still obsessed with picking sources that agree with you rather than the source that actually has the truth.

 

[bilby]

The following is from the article written by a Associate Dean and Professor of Law at Cornell Law School that I posted less than a week ago:



The article was first published 5 days after the incident and addresses nearly all of the points that have been raised in this thread.

And you're still obsessed with picking sources that agree with you rather than the source that actually has the truth.

Oh crap. That was a brand new irony meter too.

 

[Arctish]

The following is from the article written by a Associate Dean and Professor of Law at Cornell Law School that I posted less than a week ago:



The article was first published 5 days after the incident and addresses nearly all of the points that have been raised in this thread.

And you're still obsessed with picking sources that agree with you rather than the source that actually has the truth.

If you have a source that "actually has the truth" then post a link, unless the source is your butt in which case do us all a favor and keep it to yourself.

 

[DBT]

If the latter is the case, customers can be treated with contempt. Removed from a seat they have paid for and occupy at the whim of the owner. Which, if put into practice would result in a very disgruntled customer base. If that is the law of license, the law is an Ass.

Why? It's the way it has been and it's just not very important 99.999999999999% of the time because businesses don't want to piss customers off, they solve the airlines problems by using queuing instead where the airline can't, and most business models aren't as complex as the airline industry.

Why? Because customers should have security in law so that the transaction, the payment and its related service, cannot be abused by the service provider, giving the customer (or vice versa) the means to be compensated for mistreatment and deter service providers from treating customers badly. A clear set of rights and obligations for both sides.

 

[RavenSky]

The following is from the article written by a Associate Dean and Professor of Law at Cornell Law School that I posted less than a week ago:



The article was first published 5 days after the incident and addresses nearly all of the points that have been raised in this thread.

And you're still obsessed with picking sources that agree with you rather than the source that actually has the truth.

IF this were true, it could be worse... Arctish could steadfastly refuse to ever provide any sources whatsoever like you do.

 

[coloradoatheist]

And you're still obsessed with picking sources that agree with you rather than the source that actually has the truth.

If you have a source that "actually has the truth" then post a link, unless the source is your butt in which case do us all a favor and keep it to yourself.

I did, from the group who wrote the rules, investigates the airlines for violations and fines airlines for violations. Their only problem they saw of United was not giving him the payment schedule for an IDB that day.

- - - Updated - - -

Why? It's the way it has been and it's just not very important 99.999999999999% of the time because businesses don't want to piss customers off, they solve the airlines problems by using queuing instead where the airline can't, and most business models aren't as complex as the airline industry.

Why? Because customers should have security in law so that the transaction, the payment and its related service, cannot be abused by the service provider, giving the customer (or vice versa) the means to be compensated for mistreatment and deter service providers from treating customers badly. A clear set of rights and obligations for both sides.

Except the law already says that an airline can un-assign you from a seat and pay you four times the fare for the inconvenience of un-assigning you from the seat.

 

[RavenSky]

Except the law already says that an airline can un-assign you from a seat and pay you four times the fare for the inconvenience of un-assigning you from the seat.

No law states that an airline can forcibly remove a passenger from their seat after representatives of said airlines has seated him there.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Except the law already says that an airline can un-assign you from a seat and pay you four times the fare for the inconvenience of un-assigning you from the seat.

No law states that an airline can forcibly remove a passenger from their seat after representatives of said airlines has seated him there.

And the law allows law enforcement to remove someone from a property after the owners have said they are no longer welcome on the property. That is the difference whether it's seen as a license, a lease, or a strict transfer of property.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

If the latter is the case, customers can be treated with contempt. Removed from a seat they have paid for and occupy at the whim of the owner. Which, if put into practice would result in a very disgruntled customer base. If that is the law of license, the law is an Ass.

Why? It's the way it has been and it's just not very important 99.999999999999% of the time because businesses don't want to piss customers off, they solve the airlines problems by using queuing instead where the airline can't, and most business models aren't as complex as the airline industry.

Why do you keep mentioning queues? He wasn't taken off the plane because another queued passenger needed it... the airline itself needed it.

 

[RavenSky]

No law states that an airline can forcibly remove a passenger from their seat after representatives of said airlines has seated him there.

And the law allows law enforcement to remove someone from a property after the owners have said they are no longer welcome on the property. That is the difference whether it's seen as a license, a lease, or a strict transfer of property.

False. As actual police officers have been quoted in this thread have said - it would be a civil matter and they would NOT forcibly remove a passenger in this situation.

I am quite shocked that you would side with faux-police over genuine police.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And the law allows law enforcement to remove someone from a property after the owners have said they are no longer welcome on the property. That is the difference whether it's seen as a license, a lease, or a strict transfer of property.

False. As actual police officers have been quoted in this thread have said - it would be a civil matter and they would NOT forcibly remove a passenger in this situation.

I am quite shocked that you would side with faux-police over genuine police.

...but they were certified.

I'd love to see CA have this same sort of attitude, while being dragged off a plane.

 

[coloradoatheist]

And the law allows law enforcement to remove someone from a property after the owners have said they are no longer welcome on the property. That is the difference whether it's seen as a license, a lease, or a strict transfer of property.

False. As actual police officers have been quoted in this thread have said - it would be a civil matter and they would NOT forcibly remove a passenger in this situation.

I am quite shocked that you would side with faux-police over genuine police.

They found one who agreed, doesn't mean all police officers agreed and it doesn't mean anything for law. Law officers are given immunity if they had probably cause which they do and that it wasn't a well established law, which we can see here is not well established.

- - - Updated - - -

Why? It's the way it has been and it's just not very important 99.999999999999% of the time because businesses don't want to piss customers off, they solve the airlines problems by using queuing instead where the airline can't, and most business models aren't as complex as the airline industry.

Why do you keep mentioning queues? He wasn't taken off the plane because another queued passenger needed it... the airline itself needed it.

If there aren't enough employees to handle something at a business, a queue gets created to handle that situation. People wait in line until tables, waiters, cooks are available to make a meal for someone.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

False. As actual police officers have been quoted in this thread have said - it would be a civil matter and they would NOT forcibly remove a passenger in this situation.

I am quite shocked that you would side with faux-police over genuine police.

They found one who agreed, doesn't mean all police officers agreed and it doesn't mean anything for law. Law officers are given immunity if they had probably cause which they do and that it wasn't a well established law, which we can see here is not well established.

- - - Updated - - -

Why? It's the way it has been and it's just not very important 99.999999999999% of the time because businesses don't want to piss customers off, they solve the airlines problems by using queuing instead where the airline can't, and most business models aren't as complex as the airline industry.

Why do you keep mentioning queues? He wasn't taken off the plane because another queued passenger needed it... the airline itself needed it.

If there aren't enough employees to handle something at a business, a queue gets created to handle that situation. People wait in line until tables, waiters, cooks are available to make a meal for someone.

When you heat a gas in a container, the volume is fixed, but due to the temperature increase, the pressure of the gas must go up.

 

[coloradoatheist]

They found one who agreed, doesn't mean all police officers agreed and it doesn't mean anything for law. Law officers are given immunity if they had probably cause which they do and that it wasn't a well established law, which we can see here is not well established.

- - - Updated - - -

Why? It's the way it has been and it's just not very important 99.999999999999% of the time because businesses don't want to piss customers off, they solve the airlines problems by using queuing instead where the airline can't, and most business models aren't as complex as the airline industry.

Why do you keep mentioning queues? He wasn't taken off the plane because another queued passenger needed it... the airline itself needed it.

If there aren't enough employees to handle something at a business, a queue gets created to handle that situation. People wait in line until tables, waiters, cooks are available to make a meal for someone.

When you heat a gas in a container, the volume is fixed, but due to the temperature increase, the pressure of the gas must go up.

I know you are being snarky here. But the issue was that United was 4 workers short in Louisville the next day. So they only had a few options. And one of the options was just to let the next day flight be cancelled, but then they had to find ways to get all those people over to Newark later. Most businesses if they are workers short, just allow queue lines to get longer.

 

[RavenSky]

False. As actual police officers have been quoted in this thread have said - it would be a civil matter and they would NOT forcibly remove a passenger in this situation.

I am quite shocked that you would side with faux-police over genuine police.

They found one who agreed, doesn't mean all police officers agreed and it doesn't mean anything for law. Law officers are given immunity if they had probably cause which they do and that it wasn't a well established law, which we can see here is not well established.

It is well-established that a real police officer will NOT remove someone in a situation like this. Their position is that is is a contract dispute - a civil matter.

Why do you think police should be able to take violent action in a contract dispute?

 

[coloradoatheist]

They found one who agreed, doesn't mean all police officers agreed and it doesn't mean anything for law. Law officers are given immunity if they had probably cause which they do and that it wasn't a well established law, which we can see here is not well established.

It is well-established that a real police officer will NOT remove someone in a situation like this. Their position is that is is a contract dispute - a civil matter.

Why do you think police should be able to take violent action in a contract dispute?

Because there aren't many cases where this applies because it relies on a property owner asking someone on their property to leave after they have asked them to leave. In almost every other case people will leave the property peacefully. And most people on the airline itself will leave the plane and go work with an agent on alternative plans.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I know you are being snarky here. But the issue was that United was 4 workers short in Louisville the next day. So they only had a few options. And one of the options was just to let the next day flight be cancelled, but then they had to find ways to get all those people over to Newark later. Most businesses if they are workers short, just allow queue lines to get longer.

They'd also not load passengers if they needed them to wait in a queue line.

 

[coloradoatheist]

I know you are being snarky here. But the issue was that United was 4 workers short in Louisville the next day. So they only had a few options. And one of the options was just to let the next day flight be cancelled, but then they had to find ways to get all those people over to Newark later. Most businesses if they are workers short, just allow queue lines to get longer.

They'd also not load passengers if they needed them to wait in a queue line.

There have been times at doctors and dentist appointments where they either ask you to wait in the lobby or they ask you to wait after you got in the doctor's room or the dentist chair. They expected to be done earlier in those cases and then found out they were wrong.

 

[RavenSky]

It is well-established that a real police officer will NOT remove someone in a situation like this. Their position is that is is a contract dispute - a civil matter.

Why do you think police should be able to take violent action in a contract dispute?

Because there aren't many cases where this applies because it relies on a property owner asking someone on their property to leave after they have asked them to leave. In almost every other case people will leave the property peacefully. And most people on the airline itself will leave the plane and go work with an agent on alternative plans.

You are leaving out a HUGELY important fact... "someone" has a contract signed by the property owner, and has PAID the property owner to be there, AND the property owner facilitated access to the property before changing their mind and calling the police.

There is no legitimate police office that will violently remove "someone" with those facts. The police officer will tell the property owner that it is a civil matter.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

They'd also not load passengers if they needed them to wait in a queue line.

There have been times at doctors and dentist appointments where they either ask you to wait in the lobby or they ask you to wait after you got in the doctor's room or the dentist chair. They expected to be done earlier in those cases and then found out they were wrong.

I understand math is hard for you to understand. Let me simplify for you.

Number of seats <= (Total number of passenger asscheeks) / 2 + employees that must ride the plane

This wasn't a case of an appointment taking longer than expected because it took longer to get the right-wing authoritarian's head out of their ass. This was a simple math failure and despite your attempts to continually abuse analogies and language, the airline had to bump passengers they already told to get on the plane because they fucked up. This attempt to try and gloss over that to blame the passenger is just stupid.