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

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

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?

If mall cops beat you up, you'd probably do something weird, too. Shit happens.

 

[bilby]

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.

I don't think any Premier League football teams paid him anything.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

I don't think any Premier League football teams paid him anything.

I did intentionally add that comma to avoid EPL related snark.

 

[bilby]

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.

I don't think any Premier League football teams paid him anything.

I did intentionally add that comma to avoid EPL related snark.

So, rry.

 

[DBT]

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.

Does that include being 'unassigned' even while you are sitting in your seat?

 

[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.

Does that include being 'unassigned' even while you are sitting in your seat?

Yes, unless the DoT wants to create laws that change that behavior.

 

[coloradoatheist]

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!

It won't in this case because it won't go to court. And yes, it would come down to whether the court saw it as a lease instead of a license. You are arguing that it acts like a lease. There are fundamental differences between something considered a lease, and something considered a license.

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.

Not False. Based on legal precedent the judge would have to go out of the court's way and Illinois Supreme court way to rule it a lease instead of a license. He can certainly lose permission to something he paid for, that's the purpose of a license. He can lose permission and then get his money back for that lose. He never had property rights on that seat.

WRONG!

Loren is right with that one. A property owner can call law enforcement to stop someone from being on or using property that belongs to the owner.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Loren is right with that one. A property owner can call law enforcement to stop someone from being on or using property that belongs to the owner.

Too bad they didn't call law enforcement.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Loren is right with that one. A property owner can call law enforcement to stop someone from being on or using property that belongs to the owner.

Too bad they didn't call law enforcement.

That group was a certified law enforcement agency at the time.

 

[RavenSky]

Does that include being 'unassigned' even while you are sitting in your seat?

Yes, unless the DoT wants to create laws that change that behavior.

Wrong. Contract of Carriage very clearly makes the distinction

 

[RavenSky]

It won't in this case because it won't go to court. And yes, it would come down to whether the court saw it as a lease instead of a license. You are arguing that it acts like a lease. There are fundamental differences between something considered a lease, and something considered a license.

I am arguing that it is neither but if we are going to make analogies then the Contract of Carriage acts more like a lease than it does a license.

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.

Not False. Based on legal precedent the judge would have to go out of the court's way and Illinois Supreme court way to rule it a lease instead of a license. He can certainly lose permission to something he paid for, that's the purpose of a license. He can lose permission and then get his money back for that lose. He never had property rights on that seat.

If you are still yapping about your football stadium case, that is not remotely applicable, and I already spent a substantial amount of time politely explaining (with citations) why.

It is extreme bad faith on your part to blatantly ignore every rebuttal and just repeat the same wrong information over and over and over.

WRONG!

Loren is right with that one. A property owner can call law enforcement to stop someone from being on or using property that belongs to the owner.

Loren is wrong and so are you. I've already demonstrated why multiple times.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Too bad they didn't call law enforcement.

That group was a certified law enforcement agency at the time.

You mean they pretended to be "at the time" after being told to stop pretending by an actual "law enforcement agency".

 

[coloradoatheist]

That group was a certified law enforcement agency at the time.

You mean they pretended to be "at the time" after being told to stop pretending by an actual "law enforcement agency".

And there is contention on whether or not the Department of Aviation overstepped their bounds in determing that. I haven't seen anything lately about the police officers lawsuit against them.

But for United it doesn't matter. Internally it might.

 

[coloradoatheist]

I am arguing that it is neither but if we are going to make analogies then the Contract of Carriage acts more like a lease than it does a license.

But to be a lease it has to to have certain conditions which aren't on a CoC. But you do need it to act like a lease because leases transfer property rights but licenses do not.

If you are still yapping about your football stadium case, that is not remotely applicable, and I already spent a substantial amount of time politely explaining (with citations) why.

I just went back and looked at it and you went off on a wrong tangent. You completely missed several paragraphs in the middle of the case that talked about how a single game ticket was a license in the courts eyes. The specificially mentioned sport events, concerts, and movies. The traditional case was for a movie theatre kicking someone out and that they had to refund the ticket.

Loren is wrong and so are you. I've already demonstrated why multiple times.

We are talking about something else here, not this case for this argument. If in general I own property I have the right to kick someone off my property if I un-invite them.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

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

Apparently, to authoritarians, the answer is no: create artificial limit on free market exchange, enforced by litigious contract, bloated government, and pseudo-police minions.

 

[coloradoatheist]

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

Apparently, to authoritarians, the answer is no: create artificial limit on free market exchange, enforced by litigious contract, bloated government, and pseudo-police minions.

There are two issues. The night that it happened. And in the future. The solution going forward is bump people earlier and if delays happen, they happen.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

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

Apparently, to authoritarians, the answer is no: create artificial limit on free market exchange, enforced by litigious contract, bloated government, and pseudo-police minions.

There are two issues. The night that it happened. And in the future. The solution going forward is bump people earlier and if delays happen, they happen.

Okay, fine, let's pretend there are two issues.

#1. "The night that it happened." Did United Airlines have any other choice than to eject that passenger? Any answer other than "yes," with any other stipulations or right-wing baggage is too much. Just write "yes."

#2. "And in the future." Regardless of your plans, suppose in the future someone is seated on the plane and airline industry corporation wants to get their ticket for an employee. Seated passenger doesn't want to leave their seat. There are other passengers some of whom may want to leave for more money. Does United Airlines have any other choice than to eject that passenger?

 

[Arctish]

You mean they pretended to be "at the time" after being told to stop pretending by an actual "law enforcement agency".

And there is contention on whether or not the Department of Aviation overstepped their bounds in determing that. I haven't seen anything lately about the police officers lawsuit against them.

But for United it doesn't matter. Internally it might.

How in the heck would the Chicago Department of Aviation overstep their bounds by determining whether their own sub-department is a legally constituted police force?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

There are two issues. The night that it happened. And in the future. The solution going forward is bump people earlier and if delays happen, they happen.

Okay, fine, let's pretend there are two issues.

#1. "The night that it happened." Did United Airlines have any other choice than to eject that passenger? Any answer other than "yes," with any other stipulations or right-wing baggage is too much. Just write "yes."

#2. "And in the future." Regardless of your plans, suppose in the future someone is seated on the plane and airline industry corporation wants to get their ticket for an employee. Seated passenger doesn't want to leave their seat. There are other passengers some of whom may want to leave for more money. Does United Airlines have any other choice than to eject that passenger?

Oh... a reverse auction. Okay passengers, we need one more seat for the ass of an employee. I am authorized to offer up to $4000 for the seat. Show me your hand if you are interested in the compensation? Okay, 14 of you. Now, how many for $3000? Alright, 11, we are making progress. How about $2500...

Knowing how competitive people can get, United would likely be able to buy off the last seat for a Buy One-Get One half off coupon for a Whopper at Burger King.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Okay, fine, let's pretend there are two issues.

#1. "The night that it happened." Did United Airlines have any other choice than to eject that passenger? Any answer other than "yes," with any other stipulations or right-wing baggage is too much. Just write "yes."

#2. "And in the future." Regardless of your plans, suppose in the future someone is seated on the plane and airline industry corporation wants to get their ticket for an employee. Seated passenger doesn't want to leave their seat. There are other passengers some of whom may want to leave for more money. Does United Airlines have any other choice than to eject that passenger?

Oh... a reverse auction. Okay passengers, we need one more seat for the ass of an employee. I am authorized to offer up to $4000 for the seat. Show me your hand if you are interested in the compensation? Okay, 14 of you. Now, how many for $3000? Alright, 11, we are making progress. How about $2500...

Knowing how competitive people can get, United would likely be able to buy off the last seat for a Buy One-Get One half off coupon for a Whopper at Burger King.

Some airlines ask you when checking in if you would give up your seat and for how much. But person DoT rules they only have to offer up to 4x times the one way fare so that will be limit. They just make the decision earlier. United changed their internal rules so dead-heads have to check in at least an hour prior to the flight. So if they are late, they are late.

- - - Updated - - -

And there is contention on whether or not the Department of Aviation overstepped their bounds in determing that. I haven't seen anything lately about the police officers lawsuit against them.

But for United it doesn't matter. Internally it might.

How in the heck would the Chicago Department of Aviation overstep their bounds by determining whether their own sub-department is a legally constituted police force?

The argument is who authorized the force and pays for it. The argument is that the City of Chicago and city council authorized the force and pay for it. There were hearings in October but haven't seen a decision yet.

- - - Updated - - -

There are two issues. The night that it happened. And in the future. The solution going forward is bump people earlier and if delays happen, they happen.

Okay, fine, let's pretend there are two issues.

#1. "The night that it happened." Did United Airlines have any other choice than to eject that passenger? Any answer other than "yes," with any other stipulations or right-wing baggage is too much. Just write "yes."

#2. "And in the future." Regardless of your plans, suppose in the future someone is seated on the plane and airline industry corporation wants to get their ticket for an employee. Seated passenger doesn't want to leave their seat. There are other passengers some of whom may want to leave for more money. Does United Airlines have any other choice than to eject that passenger?

For number 1. There isn't going to be a major industry and company policy shift for a one in a billion item. So they had two real options per policy. Do what they did. Take the delay the next day if they can't make it.