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

[RavenSky]

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.

Then why the fuck are you defending United's use of violence in this case?

Yes! Absolutely contract disputes should be handled in court. United could have sued Dr. Dao later if United really believed that Dr. Dao violated the Contract of Carriage terms by not vacating his seat.

What United did instead was to use violence to settle the dispute.

Are you perhaps a fan of trial by combat?

YOU are the one supporting the use of force/violence or, since you seem to prefer: trial by combat

- - - Updated - - -

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.

FALSE!!!! And don't even try to pretend that you know more on this point than I do

 

[RavenSky]

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.

Not even in principle.

As long as you’ve paid for a ticket and complied with all valid rules in the airline’s published tariff, you have a right to travel. That’s what it means for an airline to be licensed as a “common carrier”.

Your right to travel is guaranteed by, in ascending order of precedence, Federal law, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and international human rights treaties:

Federal law: “A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace” (49 USC 40103). Note that the FAA (and the TSA, as part of the transfer of responsibilities when the DHS and TSA were created) is required to take this right into consideration in issuing regulations, giving orders, or otherwise exercising its authority: “The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall consider the following matters:… (2) the public right of freedom of transit through the navigable airspace” (49 USC 40101).

U.S. Constitution, Amendment 1: “Congress shall make no law … abridging … the right of the people peaceably to assemble.” Note that the right to assemble is not limited by the Constitution to assembly for any particular purpose. It includes the right to assemble with family, with friends, with strangers, or with anyone else, for any or no purpose.

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 12: “Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement.” Note that unlike the Federal law cited above, over which it takes precedence as a treaty ratified by the U.S., the human right to freedom of movement under the ICCPR is not limited to citizens.

To sum up, a pilot or airline would have the authority to deny transportation to a lawful resident holding a valid ticket if and only if:

The pilot genuinely believes that refusal to transport this person is necessary for “safety”;
The airline genuinely believes that the person is or might be “inimical to safety”;
The refusal of transportation is authorized by valid regulations, in the promulgation of which “the public right of freedom of transit” was considered by the rulemaking authority (so far as we can tell, there are no such regulations);
The refusal to transport does not violate anyone’s First Amendment right to assemble; and
Neither the refusal to transport, the laws and regulations purporting to authorize it, nor the manner in which those laws and regulations are carried out violate Article 12 of the ICCPR.

https://papersplease.org/wp/2012/08...ilot-have-the-right-to-refuse-to-let-you-fly/

As an aside, this is probably why United's Contract of Carriage did not give themselves the unilateral authority to deplane passengers just because... it would be a violation of federal laws guaranteeing freedom of movement.

 

[RavenSky]

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.

No, it was NOT lawful. United's behavior was, indirectly, a violation of federal law. The only way United sidestepped federal sanction is the fact that it was the faux-cop that did the actual violence to the passenger.

 

[RavenSky]

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.

Looking in your mirror at yourself again?

Seriously Loren, it is a TOU violation to hurl insults at other members. Just because you aren't using profanity doesn't mean we all can't see straight through what you are trying to do here... you are attempting to insult and disparage Arctish.

Cut it out.

 

[coloradoatheist]

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.

Actually they can. It falls under the efficient breach of contract theory which courts have upheld. And during the financial crisis there was support for homeowners just walking away from their homes.

And that's even if efficient bridge would be necessary.

 

[coloradoatheist]

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.

No, it was NOT lawful. United's behavior was, indirectly, a violation of federal law. The only way United sidestepped federal sanction is the fact that it was the faux-cop that did the actual violence to the passenger.

No, there was not a federal law broken. The amendments to the Constitution are powers from the government, not a private institution. The DoT already allows involuntary boarding and codifies what needs to be done for that.


.

 

[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.

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

Okay Loren. Just for you I'm going to spell it out.

I noted it was 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. You responded by saying "Because we feel that contract disputes should be handled in court, not by violence. Are you perhaps a fan of trial by combat?"

Your response was an argument against United's actions. United violated the terms of its Contract of Carriage with its passengers, and then brought in airport security to employ strong arm tactics to enforce its decree. The security guard made the threat of violence a reality while Dr. Dao was on the phone getting legal advice from his lawyer.

If contract disputes should be handled in court then United should have taken Dao to court and sued him for losses (United would have lost btw - the contract did not allow United to do what it was trying to do, and the airline had other options than to resort to the use of force). It should not have resorted to "trial by combat" in which Dr. Dao was pitted against security guards acting as Mafia-style enforcers in a contract dispute.

I'm quite certain you didn't mean to take a stance against the actions of the airline. But that's what you did, and I was pointing it out to you.

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.

Nothing in the Contract of Carriage conflicted with federal regulations.

 

[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.

Actually they can. It falls under the efficient breach of contract theory which courts have upheld. And during the financial crisis there was support for homeowners just walking away from their homes.

And that's even if efficient bridge would be necessary.

Lordy child, you are really stretching! I will give you credit for trying a new theory though...

but still no.

No "breach of contract" under ANY theory allows the use of violence/physical force to affect that breach. Moreover, a breach of contract is not the same thing as a termination of contract. United was not breaching their contract. They were attempting to forcibly terminate it.

Good effort though!

 

[RavenSky]

No, it was NOT lawful. United's behavior was, indirectly, a violation of federal law. The only way United sidestepped federal sanction is the fact that it was the faux-cop that did the actual violence to the passenger.

No, there was not a federal law broken. The amendments to the Constitution are powers from the government, not a private institution. The DoT already allows involuntary boarding and codifies what needs to be done for that.


.

1. I provided an authoritative source that contradicts your opinion
2. It was not an "involuntary boarding" - that doesn't even make sense. If you were trying to say "involuntary bumping" - wrong. Passenger was already boarded and in his seat.

 

[coloradoatheist]

No, there was not a federal law broken. The amendments to the Constitution are powers from the government, not a private institution. The DoT already allows involuntary boarding and codifies what needs to be done for that.


.

1. I provided an authoritative source that contradicts your opinion
2. It was not an "involuntary boarding" - that doesn't even make sense. If you were trying to say "involuntary bumping" - wrong. Passenger was already boarded and in his seat.

You gave some ranting blog post trying to make an argument. It wasn't an authority there. I wasn't just talking about this case for the involuntary bumping. I was talking in general. If the right to supposedly travel is as keen as you say, then any attempt to block it would be considered violating the first ammendment. Go try and declare the DoT involuntary boarding as unconstitutional and see how far you get on that one.

 

[coloradoatheist]

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.

Actually they can. It falls under the efficient breach of contract theory which courts have upheld. And during the financial crisis there was support for homeowners just walking away from their homes.

And that's even if efficient bridge would be necessary.

Lordy child, you are really stretching! I will give you credit for trying a new theory though...

but still no.

No "breach of contract" under ANY theory allows the use of violence/physical force to affect that breach. Moreover, a breach of contract is not the same thing as a termination of contract. United was not breaching their contract. They were attempting to forcibly terminate it.

Good effort though!

I'm not stretching it though, because what United did was lawful, we can argue about it's morality though.

They didn't weren't going to send him on that plane to Louisville that night, but they were going to try and get him to Louisville or refund his money. That is breach of contract, not terminating it, but I will give you a good try too. By itself, you can't breach a contract and use force. However if that person is on your property and you've asked them to leave, they are trespassing at that point. You can then call law enforcement to enforce trespassing and then the Dr could sue for breach of contract.

 

[RavenSky]

1. I provided an authoritative source that contradicts your opinion
2. It was not an "involuntary boarding" - that doesn't even make sense. If you were trying to say "involuntary bumping" - wrong. Passenger was already boarded and in his seat.

You gave some ranting blog post trying to make an argument. It wasn't an authority there.

Obviously you failed to look at the source (and it most certainly was not "ranting")

I wasn't just talking about this case for the involuntary bumping. I was talking in general. If the right to supposedly travel is as keen as you say, then any attempt to block it would be considered violating the first ammendment. Go try and declare the DoT involuntary boarding as unconstitutional and see how far you get on that one.

Try reading the source for actual comprehension, then we will discuss

 

[RavenSky]

I'm not stretching it though, because what United did was lawful...

It was NOT "lawful" no matter how many times you claim otherwise

we can argue about it's morality though.

It was immoral and unethical, too

 

[coloradoatheist]

You gave some ranting blog post trying to make an argument. It wasn't an authority there.

Obviously you failed to look at the source (and it most certainly was not "ranting")

I wasn't just talking about this case for the involuntary bumping. I was talking in general. If the right to supposedly travel is as keen as you say, then any attempt to block it would be considered violating the first ammendment. Go try and declare the DoT involuntary boarding as unconstitutional and see how far you get on that one.

Try reading the source for actual comprehension, then we will discuss

I did read. The guy was just hoping he could throw out and things and hope something took. He didn't have any cases on it or anything. It's a group that tries to fight for some rights, but doesn't mean they are right on everything.

- - - Updated - - -

It was NOT "lawful" no matter how many times you claim otherwise

we can argue about it's morality though.

It was immoral and unethical, too

And you saying it was unlawful doesn't make it right either. It's easy for me to say that United should have fought this on principal but it was the right business decision just to try and forget about it.

 

[DBT]

I can't see how physically assaulting a passenger who was doing nothing wrong, just occupying the seat he had paid for, can be deemed to be lawful.

 

[bilby]

I can't see how physically assaulting a passenger who was doing nothing wrong, just occupying the seat he had paid for, can be deemed to be lawful.

Why not? It was lawful for Stalin to work the inhabitants of the gulags to death.

(He said, skilfully dodging Godwin)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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

Looking in your mirror at yourself again?

Seriously Loren, it is a TOU violation to hurl insults at other members. Just because you aren't using profanity doesn't mean we all can't see straight through what you are trying to do here... you are attempting to insult and disparage Arctish.

Cut it out.

You're doing absolutely nothing to rebut what I'm saying. And I'm not calling you a name, I am comparing the style of argument. You're obviously not a creationist, I'm saying you're showing the same fanatacism they do.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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

Okay Loren. Just for you I'm going to spell it out.

I noted it was 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. You responded by saying "Because we feel that contract disputes should be handled in court, not by violence. Are you perhaps a fan of trial by combat?"

The contract has been breached. You are saying Dao should use force to attempt to force adherence to the contract. Note that regardless of whether he's right or wrong that's something that by itself will almost certainly get him thrown off the plane as a safety risk. (Pilots do not like it when passengers disobey crewmember instructions! It's unlikely they'll take the time to play judge, they'll throw you off and let you settle it with the airline.)

If contract disputes should be handled in court then United should have taken Dao to court and sued him for losses (United would have lost btw - the contract did not allow United to do what it was trying to do, and the airline had other options than to resort to the use of force). It should not have resorted to "trial by combat" in which Dr. Dao was pitted against security guards acting as Mafia-style enforcers in a contract dispute.

Barring special legal protections a property owner can demand you leave their property. Period. If you are wronged in the process you seek redress in the courts, you don't refuse to leave.

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.

Just had a thought here. By refusing to leave he was in violation of FAA regulations--in theory he could have gotten 20 years in jail for his stunt. (Not that his level of disobedience would draw a penalty anything like that.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No, there was not a federal law broken. The amendments to the Constitution are powers from the government, not a private institution. The DoT already allows involuntary boarding and codifies what needs to be done for that.


.

1. I provided an authoritative source that contradicts your opinion
2. It was not an "involuntary boarding" - that doesn't even make sense. If you were trying to say "involuntary bumping" - wrong. Passenger was already boarded and in his seat.

The highest authority we have on this is the Department of Transportation as it's their rules in question. And they have no problem with considering it an IDB.

The airlines use "boarding" to refer to the whole process of loading passengers--one action, not a hundred or more separate actions. What happens if a passenger steps off the plane during the process? (I've done so, our seats were occupied and the occupants had been told to send us back to the gate if we showed up.)

- - - Updated - - -

I can't see how physically assaulting a passenger who was doing nothing wrong, just occupying the seat he had paid for, can be deemed to be lawful.

His "nothing wrong" was a felony.

 

[RavenSky]

Looking in your mirror at yourself again?

Seriously Loren, it is a TOU violation to hurl insults at other members. Just because you aren't using profanity doesn't mean we all can't see straight through what you are trying to do here... you are attempting to insult and disparage Arctish.

Cut it out.

You're doing absolutely nothing to rebut what I'm saying. And I'm not calling you a name, I am comparing the style of argument. You're obviously not a creationist, I'm saying you're showing the same fanatacism they do.

Again, you are attempting to insult members of this board, and that is a TOU violation.

And is has been Arctish you have been goading, harassing, insulting, & flaming with this bullshit. You are trying to expand it to me too now?... because I called you on your childishness?