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

[coloradoatheist]

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.

Yes and no. A police officer does have to establish who owns a property to make their decision. And if the property owner has asked the person on their property leave they are going to remove the person from the property and say settle the dispute in court. There were several laws that the doctor could have been breaking and they had reasonable cause to remove him and they chose that route. Most people when getting to that point would just rightfully say okay I will leave and hence why it doesn't happen often.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

The purpose of the boarding process is to get the people out on time. They were trying to be nice and allow for two things. Allow someone a chance to volunteer and to get the plane out on time. At some point they have to make the decision on when to bump, but now they just do it earlier instead of trying to be nice.

 

[Arctish]

The purpose of the boarding process is to get the people out on time. They were trying to be nice and allow for two things. Allow someone a chance to volunteer and to get the plane out on time. At some point they have to make the decision on when to bump, but now they just do it earlier instead of trying to be nice.

The purpose of the boarding process is to board passengers in an orderly fashion. If airlines had open seating and TSA wasn't so obsessed with tracking every person at the gate they could just leave the doors open and let people seat themselves like they do at movie theaters.

I think you have fundamentally misunderstood what was happening on that flight. The airline wasn't trying to be nice. It was trying to get out of providing a service it was contractually obligated to provide, and it was trying to do it on the cheap. So it offered a fairly paltry inducement - a few hundred in cash and free air miles. Instead of upping the offer when it didn't get enough takers, it decided to violate the terms of its Contract of Carriage with passengers and force some of them out.

That's not being nice.

If United wants to give itself the power to kick anyone off its planes for any reason, it need to put that in the contract. But there's a price to pay - United risks getting a reputation for being unreliable transportation. Anyone whose travel plans are important to them will avoid an airline like that.

It's better to pay more in cash and miles to buy back a single seat than to risk losing passengers wholesale.

 

[coloradoatheist]

The purpose of the boarding process is to get the people out on time. They were trying to be nice and allow for two things. Allow someone a chance to volunteer and to get the plane out on time. At some point they have to make the decision on when to bump, but now they just do it earlier instead of trying to be nice.

The purpose of the boarding process is to board passengers in an orderly fashion. If airlines had open seating and TSA wasn't so obsessed with tracking every person at the gate they could just leave the doors open and let people seat themselves like they do at movie theaters.

I think you have fundamentally misunderstood what was happening on that flight. The airline wasn't trying to be nice. It was trying to get out of providing a service it was contractually obligated to provide, and it was trying to do it on the cheap. So it offered a fairly paltry inducement - a few hundred in cash and free air miles. Instead of upping the offer when it didn't get enough takers, it decided to violate the terms of its Contract of Carriage with passengers and force some of them out.

That's not being nice.

If United wants to give itself the power to kick anyone off its planes for any reason, it need to put that in the contract. But there's a price to pay - United risks getting a reputation for being unreliable transportation. Anyone whose travel plans are important to them will avoid an airline like that.

It's better to pay more in cash and miles to buy back a single seat than to risk losing passengers wholesale.

The need for 4 seats came after they had started boarding some of the people. So when they had that happened they would have had to stop the boarding process with the last person who they sent on . They would have then had to go through the volunteer process for a while, then they would have had to find 4 people at that time to IDB. So you have just delayed the boarding process for five or 10 minutes at least.

 

[RavenSky]

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.

Yes and no. A police officer does have to establish who owns a property to make their decision. And if the property owner has asked the person on their property leave they are going to remove the person from the property and say settle the dispute in court.

NO THEY WILL NOT!!!

If "someone" has a contract with the property owner, and has paid the property owner, and is already occupying the property, police will tell the property owner that there is nothing police can do... it is a civil matter and the property owner needs to take it to court.

There were several laws that the doctor could have been breaking and they had reasonable cause to remove him and they chose that route. Most people when getting to that point would just rightfully say okay I will leave and hence why it doesn't happen often.

Cite these "several laws" because in reality Dr. Dao did not violate any of the Contract of Carriage rules that would have allowed police to remove him from the flight.

Why is it so important to you that "property owners" should be allowed to unilaterally violate the contracts they have not only agreed to, but wrote themselves, and then use faux-police violence instead of the civil court system?

 

[RavenSky]

The need for 4 seats came after they had started boarding some of the people. So when they had that happened they would have had to stop the boarding process with the last person who they sent on . They would have then had to go through the volunteer process for a while, then they would have had to find 4 people at that time to IDB. So you have just delayed the boarding process for five or 10 minutes at least.

So what.

Or are you suggesting that violently removing an innocent passenger, and thereby causing a far longer delay, was preferable?

 

[coloradoatheist]

The need for 4 seats came after they had started boarding some of the people. So when they had that happened they would have had to stop the boarding process with the last person who they sent on . They would have then had to go through the volunteer process for a while, then they would have had to find 4 people at that time to IDB. So you have just delayed the boarding process for five or 10 minutes at least.

So what.

Or are you suggesting that violently removing an innocent passenger, and thereby causing a far longer delay, was preferable?

United thought when he saw security he would come to his senses and leave peacefully. They didn't expect him to fight the way he did.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Yes and no. A police officer does have to establish who owns a property to make their decision. And if the property owner has asked the person on their property leave they are going to remove the person from the property and say settle the dispute in court.

NO THEY WILL NOT!!!

If "someone" has a contract with the property owner, and has paid the property owner, and is already occupying the property, police will tell the property owner that there is nothing police can do... it is a civil matter and the property owner needs to take it to court.

There were several laws that the doctor could have been breaking and they had reasonable cause to remove him and they chose that route. Most people when getting to that point would just rightfully say okay I will leave and hence why it doesn't happen often.

Cite these "several laws" because in reality Dr. Dao did not violate any of the Contract of Carriage rules that would have allowed police to remove him from the flight.

Why is it so important to you that "property owners" should be allowed to unilaterally violate the contracts they have not only agreed to, but wrote themselves, and then use faux-police violence instead of the civil court system?

The CoC is just a contract, not the property law underneath. That contract deals with the compensation that the airline has to pay if they breach the contract in certain ways. Even the Department of Transportation had no issue with United asking him to removed from the plane.

 

[RavenSky]

So what.

Or are you suggesting that violently removing an innocent passenger, and thereby causing a far longer delay, was preferable?

United thought when he saw security he would come to his senses and leave peacefully. They didn't expect him to fight the way he did.

I'm sure you are correct that United expected him to be suitably cowed by their show of authoritarianism, but you are wrong that he fought. He didn't fight. He was sitting in his seat speaking on the phone when a faux-police-officer violently assaulted him.

- - - Updated - - -

NO THEY WILL NOT!!!

If "someone" has a contract with the property owner, and has paid the property owner, and is already occupying the property, police will tell the property owner that there is nothing police can do... it is a civil matter and the property owner needs to take it to court.

There were several laws that the doctor could have been breaking and they had reasonable cause to remove him and they chose that route. Most people when getting to that point would just rightfully say okay I will leave and hence why it doesn't happen often.

Cite these "several laws" because in reality Dr. Dao did not violate any of the Contract of Carriage rules that would have allowed police to remove him from the flight.

Why is it so important to you that "property owners" should be allowed to unilaterally violate the contracts they have not only agreed to, but wrote themselves, and then use faux-police violence instead of the civil court system?

The CoC is just a contract, not the property law underneath.

that is a ignorant as trying to claim that a lease "is just a contract, not the property law underneath."

That contract deals with the compensation that the airline has to pay if they breach the contract in certain ways.

Wrong

Even the Department of Transportation had no issue with United asking him to removed from the plane.

Wrong

 

[bilby]

So what.

Or are you suggesting that violently removing an innocent passenger, and thereby causing a far longer delay, was preferable?

United thought when he saw security he would come to his senses and leave peacefully. They didn't expect him to fight the way he did.

So you are saying that it's fine to threaten someone with violence, because most people will acquiesce to threats, and so if actual violence ensues, it's the fault of the person who was threatened for standing up for himself?

If I tell you to get out of my way or I will punch you in the nose, do you think that a judge will acquit me of battery, if I argue that I thought you would come to your senses and do as I demanded, and that therefore it was your own fault that you got punched?

Your logic is broken. Your grasp of legal principles is even more broken. Making threats doesn't justify violence when those threats are disregarded.

 

[Arctish]

The purpose of the boarding process is to board passengers in an orderly fashion. If airlines had open seating and TSA wasn't so obsessed with tracking every person at the gate they could just leave the doors open and let people seat themselves like they do at movie theaters.

I think you have fundamentally misunderstood what was happening on that flight. The airline wasn't trying to be nice. It was trying to get out of providing a service it was contractually obligated to provide, and it was trying to do it on the cheap. So it offered a fairly paltry inducement - a few hundred in cash and free air miles. Instead of upping the offer when it didn't get enough takers, it decided to violate the terms of its Contract of Carriage with passengers and force some of them out.

That's not being nice.

If United wants to give itself the power to kick anyone off its planes for any reason, it need to put that in the contract. But there's a price to pay - United risks getting a reputation for being unreliable transportation. Anyone whose travel plans are important to them will avoid an airline like that.

It's better to pay more in cash and miles to buy back a single seat than to risk losing passengers wholesale.

The need for 4 seats came after they had started boarding some of the people. So when they had that happened they would have had to stop the boarding process with the last person who they sent on . They would have then had to go through the volunteer process for a while, then they would have had to find 4 people at that time to IDB. So you have just delayed the boarding process for five or 10 minutes at least.

Five to ten minutes is tiny. I've waited that long for people to find places to put their carry-ons and strollers. Even 20 minutes would have been nothing more than a slight delay. Having airport security come in created an even greater delay (how long was it until they arrived?), and then the violence and cleaning up the blood delayed the flight by hours.

If there were still people at the gate who had not yet had their boarding passes scanned, then United could have stopped boarding passengers and proceeded according the process described in their CoC and 14 CFR Part 250.

But what really happened was this: all paying passengers were boarded and in their seats when word came to the United personnel at the gates that they heeded to get 4 employees on that plane. So they tried to buy back seats. When they didn't get enough people to take the cheap offer they could have 1) made a better offer, or 2) violate the terms of their Contract of Carriage and force people off the aircraft.

They chose poorly.

 

[coloradoatheist]

The need for 4 seats came after they had started boarding some of the people. So when they had that happened they would have had to stop the boarding process with the last person who they sent on . They would have then had to go through the volunteer process for a while, then they would have had to find 4 people at that time to IDB. So you have just delayed the boarding process for five or 10 minutes at least.

Five to ten minutes is tiny. I've waited that long for people to find places to put their carry-ons and strollers. Even 20 minutes would have been nothing more than a slight delay. Having airport security come in created an even greater delay (how long was it until they arrived?), and then the violence and cleaning up the blood delayed the flight by hours.

If there were still people at the gate who had not yet had their boarding passes scanned, then United could have stopped boarding passengers and proceeded according the process described in their CoC and 14 CFR Part 250.

But what really happened was this: all paying passengers were boarded and in their seats when word came to the United personnel at the gates that they heeded to get 4 employees on that plane. So they tried to buy back seats. When they didn't get enough people to take the cheap offer they could have 1) made a better offer, or 2) violate the terms of their Contract of Carriage and force people off the aircraft.

They chose poorly.

Yes they do breach their contract with the Dr. But they already breach their overall contract too with having to deny someone from going to their destination. The law allows that breach with a 4 times a cost of ticket for them to breach the contract. It would be very hard for the courts to rule the damages from already being inside the plane are worth more than the 4 times the ticket. Either way they piss off a customer with having to re-route them. But businesses have to make those decisions once in a while on how to upset and what their impact will be.

 

[Arctish]

Five to ten minutes is tiny. I've waited that long for people to find places to put their carry-ons and strollers. Even 20 minutes would have been nothing more than a slight delay. Having airport security come in created an even greater delay (how long was it until they arrived?), and then the violence and cleaning up the blood delayed the flight by hours.

If there were still people at the gate who had not yet had their boarding passes scanned, then United could have stopped boarding passengers and proceeded according the process described in their CoC and 14 CFR Part 250.

But what really happened was this: all paying passengers were boarded and in their seats when word came to the United personnel at the gates that they heeded to get 4 employees on that plane. So they tried to buy back seats. When they didn't get enough people to take the cheap offer they could have 1) made a better offer, or 2) violate the terms of their Contract of Carriage and force people off the aircraft.

They chose poorly.

Yes they do breach their contract with the Dr. But they already breach their overall contract too with having to deny someone from going to their destination. The law allows that breach with a 4 times a cost of ticket for them to breach the contract. It would be very hard for the courts to rule the damages from already being inside the plane are worth more than the 4 times the ticket. Either way they piss off a customer with having to re-route them. But businesses have to make those decisions once in a while on how to upset and what their impact will be.

Already inside the plane means already boarded. Still at the gate means not yet boarded. In the jetway also means not yet boarded even though a jetway is the property of the airline that holds the lease on the gate.

Involuntarily denied boarding means you aren't allowed on the aircraft. That's what 14 CFR Part 250 is about. But if you're already on the aircraft you have already boarded. In that case you can only be denied transport under the specific conditions spelled out in the Contract of Carriage. If "at the whim of the airline or to suit our staffing needs" wasn't in the contract, then denying Dao transport was a violation of the terms.

Dao was not required to give up his seat. Not by law, and not by the terms of the Contract of Carriage.

 

[RavenSky]

Five to ten minutes is tiny. I've waited that long for people to find places to put their carry-ons and strollers. Even 20 minutes would have been nothing more than a slight delay. Having airport security come in created an even greater delay (how long was it until they arrived?), and then the violence and cleaning up the blood delayed the flight by hours.

If there were still people at the gate who had not yet had their boarding passes scanned, then United could have stopped boarding passengers and proceeded according the process described in their CoC and 14 CFR Part 250.

But what really happened was this: all paying passengers were boarded and in their seats when word came to the United personnel at the gates that they heeded to get 4 employees on that plane. So they tried to buy back seats. When they didn't get enough people to take the cheap offer they could have 1) made a better offer, or 2) violate the terms of their Contract of Carriage and force people off the aircraft.

They chose poorly.

Yes they do breach their contract with the Dr. But they already breach their overall contract too with having to deny someone from going to their destination. The law allows that breach with a 4 times a cost of ticket for them to breach the contract. It would be very hard for the courts to rule the damages from already being inside the plane are worth more than the 4 times the ticket. Either way they piss off a customer with having to re-route them. But businesses have to make those decisions once in a while on how to upset and what their impact will be.

You seem to keep missing the fact that they had already boarded Dr. Dao. Once they gave possession of the seat to Dr. Dao, they can not unilaterally remove him. They can offer to pay him to leave, but they cannot evict him if he declines.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Yes they do breach their contract with the Dr. But they already breach their overall contract too with having to deny someone from going to their destination. The law allows that breach with a 4 times a cost of ticket for them to breach the contract. It would be very hard for the courts to rule the damages from already being inside the plane are worth more than the 4 times the ticket. Either way they piss off a customer with having to re-route them. But businesses have to make those decisions once in a while on how to upset and what their impact will be.

You seem to keep missing the fact that they had already boarded Dr. Dao. Once they gave possession of the seat to Dr. Dao, they can not unilaterally remove him. They can offer to pay him to leave, but they cannot evict him if he declines.

I'm not missing the fact. The legality for both of you comes down to whether or not the court would rule that CoC acts as a lease or acts as a license. If it acts as a lease it would require an eviction and court action to remove him. If it acts like a license then there is nothing that needs to be done because they can remove the permission to use the property at any time and he gets compensated for losing the permission but he loses the permission.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

There's no need for such a law because it's implicit in the owner of the property having the right to tell someone to leave.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

We understand that you don't make the authorities drag you off, and you especially don't use force against them.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

For all the people who keep insisting that inside the plane makes a difference:

After he was removed the first time he broke free and ran back into the airplane. Are you defending that, also?

 

[bilby]

For all the people who keep insisting that inside the plane makes a difference:

After he was removed the first time he broke free and ran back into the airplane. Are you defending that, also?

It needs no defence. If he was entitled to keep his seat (and he was), then he was entitled to resist attempts of any kind to forcibly remove him from it or to restrain him from returning to it.

Authorities must be obeyed if, and only if, they are acting lawfully. Resisting unlawful authority is not only acceptable; it is a moral duty which we should applaud anybody for refusing to shirk.

Your appeal to the sensibility of craven cowardice in the face of abusive force is misguided and pathetic. A uniform does not confer upon its wearer the right to initiate violence on a whim.

 

[RavenSky]

The legality for both of you comes down to whether or not the court would rule that CoC acts as a lease or acts as a license.

WRONG! It will never "come down to" a court ruling that the Contract of Carriage" is a "license" because it ISN'T and it never will be no matter how many times you repeat this nonsense!

If it acts as a lease it would require an eviction and court action to remove him.

Correct

If it acts like a license then there is nothing that needs to be done because they can remove the permission to use the property at any time and he gets compensated for losing the permission but he loses the permission.

FALSE! Even IF - in some bizarro backwards universe some Judge on crack ruled that a CONTRACT OF CARRIAGE is a "license" (to what ), unless said license agreement allows for a unilateral and arbitrary revocation of the license, he can't "lose permission" to something he has already paid for and posseses.

- - - Updated - - -

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

There's no need for such a law because it's implicit in the owner of the property having the right to tell someone to leave.

WRONG!

 

[ZiprHead]

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

There's no need for such a law because it's implicit in the owner of the property having the right to tell someone to leave.

This isn't like kids on your lawn, Loren, and you know it.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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

There's no need for such a law because it's implicit in the owner of the property having the right to tell someone to leave.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

We understand that you don't make the authorities drag you off, and you especially don't use force against them.

Authorities?

Man, United must be dumb paying this guy money having done nothing wrong.