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

[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?

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.

That's not how US law generally see it. So long as irreparable harm will not result you're expected to go along rather than make the cop use force to get compliance--resolve it in court, not on the street. It's specifically to prevent resistance by those who think they know the law. (And almost always are wrong.)

- - - Updated - - -

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.

It's United's plane. They can order off anyone they want to. Those who refuse to leave when ordered off are trespassing.

 

[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.

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

There's nothing about the rule that addresses your location. Thus, yes, even when you're in your seat.

And it's obvious that's how the DOT sees it based on that report that your side can't stand.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If I was on the flight and someone offered $20K to take the bump, I'd do it. Likewise, other persons would do it for much less. Exactly how much less may depend on the people present. Would it be $5K, $3K, $1K? So, the option you keep ignoring is letting free market exchange happen.

So, to the question "Did United Airlines have any other choice than to eject that passenger?" the answer is yes.

What you are missing is that the people on the scene didn't have authorization to offer that kind of money, nor was it realistically possible to obtain authorization and get the plane out at a reasonable time.

IDB has been the law of the land for a long time, tens of thousands of people have been bumped this way, this is the first time it's gone badly wrong.

- - - Updated - - -

They were following standard procedures that all airlines followed and it was bad luck for them that security forgot to put up the arm rest on the other chair.

Please submit Standard Operating Procedures from United Airline where it describes method to remove passenger from plane after they do not agree to be bumped from their seat.

The procedure is simple: call security.

It's security's job to figure out how to do it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's interesting that the two people posting in this thread most closely aligned with the Libertarian position are the same two people who think that the 'adult' thing to do is immediately surrender to an authority figure regardless of your rights so that a business can violate the terms of a contract.

Because we feel that contract disputes should be handled in court, not by violence.

Are you perhaps a fan of trial by combat?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No. It is not. The airline does not have the right to "remove" the boarded passenger's ticket without a valid reason under the applicable rule regarding passenger conduct.

The pilot has the authority to remove anyone they choose from their airplane. Period. If the pilot decides he doesn't want you on the plane you're getting off, willingly or not.

 

[Arctish]

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.

That's not how US law generally see it. So long as irreparable harm will not result you're expected to go along rather than make the cop use force to get compliance--resolve it in court, not on the street. It's specifically to prevent resistance by those who think they know the law. (And almost always are wrong.)

That is incorrect. The law does not allow one party to a contract to arbitrarily change the terms at their own convenience or to use the police to bully people into going along with it. If United wants to have the power to kick anyone off their aircraft for any reason, it has to stipulate it has that power in the Contract of Carriage.

Also, it shouldn't have to be said that a police officer can only enforce the law, not whatever self-serving made-up bullshit a business wants to be the law.

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.

It's United's plane. They can order off anyone they want to. Those who refuse to leave when ordered off are trespassing.

It can order anyone off the plane if that's what the Contract of Carriage allows. But if the Contract of Carriage stipulates that it can only do that under certain specific conditions, and airline staffing needs isn't one of them, then it can't order someone off the plane to meet airline staffing needs.

What is it about the contract between United and its passengers that is throwing you? That it exists, or that United didn't give itself the power to screw over anyone it wanted to for any reason it likes?

 

[Arctish]

It's interesting that the two people posting in this thread most closely aligned with the Libertarian position are the same two people who think that the 'adult' thing to do is immediately surrender to an authority figure regardless of your rights so that a business can violate the terms of a contract.

Because we feel that contract disputes should be handled in court, not by violence.

Are you perhaps a fan of trial by combat?

Good to see you finally agree the security guard acted improperly.

Now we can focus on United's breach of the terms in its Contract of Carriage.

 

[bilby]

No. It is not. The airline does not have the right to "remove" the boarded passenger's ticket without a valid reason under the applicable rule regarding passenger conduct.

The pilot has the authority to remove anyone they choose from their airplane. Period. If the pilot decides he doesn't want you on the plane you're getting off, willingly or not.

In principle.

In practice, a commercial airline pilot cannot exercise that authority unless the airline wants him to, without subsequently being fired by the airline, and likely never finding work again. So the reality is that the pilot only has the right to remove people from their aircraft when the owners agree that it is the right course of action. If the owner's contract of carriage doesn't include an applicable rule, then the pilot is very smart to stay well out of any dispute between the company's low-level ground crew clerks and the paying passengers. He stands to gain nothing, and risks his livelihood, by getting involved - unless there is a clear danger to the other passengers, to his crew, or to the aircraft itself.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Because we feel that contract disputes should be handled in court, not by violence.

Are you perhaps a fan of trial by combat?

Good to see you finally agree the security guard acted improperly.

Now we can focus on United's breach of the terms in its Contract of Carriage.

correct. They would have breached his contract. However the courts would have had to say that breach was significantly more material than what they already going to pay which was four times his fare. There is a possibility, but don't think so. So United was on the hook for four times his salary for not flying him to his destination.

 

[bilby]

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.

That's not how US law generally see it. So long as irreparable harm will not result you're expected to go along rather than make the cop use force to get compliance--resolve it in court, not on the street. It's specifically to prevent resistance by those who think they know the law. (And almost always are wrong.)

Ah, yes; The land of the free, where uniformed state enforcers must be obeyed without question and immediately at all times.

Personally, I prefer not to live in a police state, and applaud those who take a stand against the creeping tendency for one to form, whenever the police forget the basic rules of police-work. But that's probably because I hate freedom.

...
To recognise always that the power of the police to fulfil their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour, and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.

To recognise always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also the securing of the willing co-operation of the public in the task of securing observance of laws.

To recognise always that the extent to which the co-operation of the public can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives.
...
To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public co-operation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.

To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
...
To recognise always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.

 

[Arctish]

Good to see you finally agree the security guard acted improperly.

Now we can focus on United's breach of the terms in its Contract of Carriage.

correct. They would have breached his contract. However the courts would have had to say that breach was significantly more material than what they already going to pay which was four times his fare. There is a possibility, but don't think so. So United was on the hook for four times his salary for not flying him to his destination.

You are once again conflating the enforcement of federal regulations with enforcement of contract law. Those are two different things, which is obvious if you think about who enforces each. The federal government through the DOT and the FAA handles enforcement of federal regulations on airlines. A Contract of Carriage dispute is handled in civil court.

Dr. Dao was not in violation of the Contract of Carriage. He was not in violation of FAA regulations or federal laws. He had the right to remain in his seat.

If United wanted its boarded passengers to give up their seats it should have offered them enough cash and compensation to get enough volunteers. What it did instead was inappropriate, unlawful, and just plain wrong.

 

[LordKiran]

correct. They would have breached his contract. However the courts would have had to say that breach was significantly more material than what they already going to pay which was four times his fare. There is a possibility, but don't think so. So United was on the hook for four times his salary for not flying him to his destination.

You are once again conflating the enforcement of federal regulations with enforcement of contract law. Those are two different things, which is obvious if you think about who enforces each. The federal government through the DOT and the FAA handles enforcement of federal regulations on airlines. A Contract of Carriage dispute is handled in civil court.

Dr. Dao was not in violation of the Contract of Carriage. He was not in violation of FAA regulations or federal laws. He had the right to remain in his seat.

If United wanted its boarded passengers to give up their seats it should have offered them enough cash and compensation to get enough volunteers. What it did instead was inappropriate, unlawful, and just plain wrong.

But by all means lets continue trying to justify it being acceptable to treat people that way.

 

[coloradoatheist]

correct. They would have breached his contract. However the courts would have had to say that breach was significantly more material than what they already going to pay which was four times his fare. There is a possibility, but don't think so. So United was on the hook for four times his salary for not flying him to his destination.

You are once again conflating the enforcement of federal regulations with enforcement of contract law. Those are two different things, which is obvious if you think about who enforces each. The federal government through the DOT and the FAA handles enforcement of federal regulations on airlines. A Contract of Carriage dispute is handled in civil court.

Dr. Dao was not in violation of the Contract of Carriage. He was not in violation of FAA regulations or federal laws. He had the right to remain in his seat.

If United wanted its boarded passengers to give up their seats it should have offered them enough cash and compensation to get enough volunteers. What it did instead was inappropriate, unlawful, and just plain wrong.

I agreed with everything up until the last sentence of yours. And I am disagreeing you on your middle word. It was lawful. Sometimes laws aren't what we want them to be. For federal rules, they didn't break anything except the same one of not given him written notice that day. In terms of a contract, they breached it and would either have to pay the four times his ticket or actual expenses if deemed.

 

[coloradoatheist]

So where we are disagreeing Arctish is that the CoC is not law. It's just a contract. Certain stipulations that go into are law and what needs to be done are law, but not the CoC. If the government wanted to make the CoC law they should have found a standard list of provisions they like and just make that the law, but they didn't. The only real area of the laws that apply here is the overbooking section. It lays out the provisions that an airlines must follow for overbooking. And one of the steps was the written statement for the denied boarding. If the overbooking and the denied boarding don't apply per the law, then the airline wouldn't haven't have to follow any procedure when kicking someone of the plane. But I don't think the section on overbooking wanted them to have that full ability so the overbooking would apply.

The two relevant sections of code

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/chapter-II/subchapter-A

This section deals with the consumers


https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/chapter-I

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

If the overbooking and the denied boarding don't apply per the law, then the airline wouldn't haven't have to follow any procedure when kicking someone of the plane.

He wasn't denied boarding since he was on the plane.

Therefore, they'd have to follow their CoC; current laws about committing violence to persons and stealing from them; and also they'd have to follow other sections about when they can kick someone from the plane.

Not to mention basic human dignity.

 

[coloradoatheist]

If the overbooking and the denied boarding don't apply per the law, then the airline wouldn't haven't have to follow any procedure when kicking someone of the plane.

He wasn't denied boarding since he was on the plane.

Therefore, they'd have to follow their CoC; current laws about committing violence to persons and stealing from them; and also they'd have to follow other sections about when they can kick someone from the plane.

Not to mention basic human dignity.

The law that would apply is the overbook portion of the law. If your proposal is the one you accept than all they have to do is say, "You are no longer allowed on the premise, please escort yourself out or law enforcement will escort you out and we'll give you a refund for your ticket"

 

[Arctish]

He wasn't denied boarding since he was on the plane.

Therefore, they'd have to follow their CoC; current laws about committing violence to persons and stealing from them; and also they'd have to follow other sections about when they can kick someone from the plane.

Not to mention basic human dignity.

The law that would apply is the overbook portion of the law.

Why?

The flight wasn't overbooked. The correct number of tickets were sold and the correct number of passengers showed up to claim their seats. The passengers had already boarded the aircraft and taken their seats when United realized it wanted to put four crew member on board. Overbooking and denial of boarding regulations don't apply in that situation.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Because we feel that contract disputes should be handled in court, not by violence.

Are you perhaps a fan of trial by combat?

Good to see you finally agree the security guard acted improperly.

Now we can focus on United's breach of the terms in its Contract of Carriage.

You still sound like a creationist--jumping on any misunderstanding you can make to support your position.

- - - Updated - - -

The pilot has the authority to remove anyone they choose from their airplane. Period. If the pilot decides he doesn't want you on the plane you're getting off, willingly or not.

In principle.

In practice, a commercial airline pilot cannot exercise that authority unless the airline wants him to, without subsequently being fired by the airline, and likely never finding work again. So the reality is that the pilot only has the right to remove people from their aircraft when the owners agree that it is the right course of action. If the owner's contract of carriage doesn't include an applicable rule, then the pilot is very smart to stay well out of any dispute between the company's low-level ground crew clerks and the paying passengers. He stands to gain nothing, and risks his livelihood, by getting involved - unless there is a clear danger to the other passengers, to his crew, or to the aircraft itself.

The reality is the airline normally backs the pilot in such cases. If the pilot is bothered by a passenger they're off the plane.

- - - Updated - - -

correct. They would have breached his contract. However the courts would have had to say that breach was significantly more material than what they already going to pay which was four times his fare. There is a possibility, but don't think so. So United was on the hook for four times his salary for not flying him to his destination.

You are once again conflating the enforcement of federal regulations with enforcement of contract law. Those are two different things, which is obvious if you think about who enforces each. The federal government through the DOT and the FAA handles enforcement of federal regulations on airlines. A Contract of Carriage dispute is handled in civil court.

Dr. Dao was not in violation of the Contract of Carriage. He was not in violation of FAA regulations or federal laws. He had the right to remain in his seat.

If United wanted its boarded passengers to give up their seats it should have offered them enough cash and compensation to get enough volunteers. What it did instead was inappropriate, unlawful, and just plain wrong.

If the contract of carriage disagrees with the federal law then it's void anyway. Anything it's silent on should be interpreted in the context of the law that applies.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Good to see you finally agree the security guard acted improperly.

Now we can focus on United's breach of the terms in its Contract of Carriage.

You still sound like a creationist--jumping on any misunderstanding you can make to support your position.

- - - Updated - - -

The pilot has the authority to remove anyone they choose from their airplane. Period. If the pilot decides he doesn't want you on the plane you're getting off, willingly or not.

In principle.

In practice, a commercial airline pilot cannot exercise that authority unless the airline wants him to, without subsequently being fired by the airline, and likely never finding work again. So the reality is that the pilot only has the right to remove people from their aircraft when the owners agree that it is the right course of action. If the owner's contract of carriage doesn't include an applicable rule, then the pilot is very smart to stay well out of any dispute between the company's low-level ground crew clerks and the paying passengers. He stands to gain nothing, and risks his livelihood, by getting involved - unless there is a clear danger to the other passengers, to his crew, or to the aircraft itself.

The reality is the airline normally backs the pilot in such cases. If the pilot is bothered by a passenger they're off the plane.

- - - Updated - - -

correct. They would have breached his contract. However the courts would have had to say that breach was significantly more material than what they already going to pay which was four times his fare. There is a possibility, but don't think so. So United was on the hook for four times his salary for not flying him to his destination.

You are once again conflating the enforcement of federal regulations with enforcement of contract law. Those are two different things, which is obvious if you think about who enforces each. The federal government through the DOT and the FAA handles enforcement of federal regulations on airlines. A Contract of Carriage dispute is handled in civil court.

Dr. Dao was not in violation of the Contract of Carriage. He was not in violation of FAA regulations or federal laws. He had the right to remain in his seat.

If United wanted its boarded passengers to give up their seats it should have offered them enough cash and compensation to get enough volunteers. What it did instead was inappropriate, unlawful, and just plain wrong.

If the contract of carriage disagrees with the federal law then it's void anyway. Anything it's silent on should be interpreted in the context of the law that applies.

Do you even know what you're writing? Makes no sense...

 

[RavenSky]

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.

It's United's plane. They can order off anyone they want to. Those who refuse to leave when ordered off are trespassing.

False. They can not unilaterally revoke a contract THEY created and were already paid for and already began delivering on by boarding the passenger.