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

[coloradoatheist]

And the only thing the DoT said they did wrong was give a wrong schedule to one person and not give the Dr his written statement that day. If that had felt United did something wrong like you suggest they could have easily made the same argument that you did and warned United that they violated whatever code you had said. They oculd have fined United for it or ushered a stern warning. It's the DoT's job to do this, but they didn't. All they said, was you should have given him the paper on the way to the hospital.

Or, they dodged the issue by emphasizing that there was no racial discrimination, and that the violence was done by the faux-cop rather that airline crew, and because United was already settling with Dr. Dao

They dodged the law enforcement issue because the Department of Transportation is not the group that investigates whether or not a group was a law enforcement agent or if a law enforcement acted appropriately. That's the Dept of Justice. If they were okay with the lawsuit than they could have said, "United violated X law for removing him in that matter and violated US Code X. However since we feel the fine is appropriate we won't fine United now, but if this behavior happens again it may face stricter punishment" Instead they just said, "Put the piece of paper in his wheelchair"

 

[DBT]

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.)

Only in bizarro authoritarian nutcase land could sitting in the seat you paid for while talking to your lawyer on the phone be construed as "use[ing] force to attempt to force adherence to the contract."

FFS Loren, what is WRONG with you?

Repeatedly disobeying crewmember instructions is a federal felony. Up to 20 years + $250k fine.

That's your "doing nothing".

The airline management and crew had no business (customer relations, exchange of money for service provided) or moral or ethical right to remove him from the seat he had paid for and peacefully occupied. That is assault.

1) That's not rebutting my point about his actions being a felony.

2) By the time he had been that disobedient the pilot would no doubt want him removed anyway.

The airline was wrong to physically remove him. They had no right to get physical. That is an assault. He had every right to occupy a seat he had paid for. Being overbooked is not an emergency that requires the disembarkation or removal of passengers for safety reasons. The airline stuffed up. The passenger had business to attend to so a later flight would be an inconvenience for him.

The airline should have upped the offer to the point where someone willingly accepts the offered compensation for relinquishing their seat...

It was a stuff up made by the airline, not the passenger.

 

[Arctish]

We have a situation for which the penalty for breaking the contract is defined. They are free to break the contract and pay the penalty.

The penalty for breaking the contract isn't defined. The penalty for violating the terms of a contract is something that's decided in civil court if/when an injured party successfully sues for damages.

I think you're thinking of 14 CFR Part 250, the federal regulations that require certain actions and compensation if/when a flight is overbooked. That is something entirely different from the Contract of Carriage.

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.

Wrong, as you've been shown over and over again. Once a contract goes into effect, the rights of each party is constrained by its terms. The Contract of Carriage spelled out the conditions under which a passenger could be forced to leave the aircraft and those conditions were not met. Dr. Dao had the right to remain in his seat until he (or another passenger) and United reached a mutually agreed upon deal under which he (or another passenger) would give up his seat and United would compensate him for the inconvenience. The use or threat of force to achieve compliance was completely unlawful.

The contract of carriage shows how he could be removed without penalty. The DOT rules define the penalty for removing him for other reasons. (Which can be $0 if it's something like weather, or 4x the ticket (or 4x the cheapest ticket if you didn't pay $ for your ticket) if it's their fault.)

We keep going around in circles. So let's try this: you quote the section(s) of 14 CFR you think relevant. I already pointed out that the most important term in this discussion, 'boarded', is not clearly defined in the regulations, but 'overbooking' and 'passenger' are. We will then discuss whether the United flight was overbooked and whether airline employees without reservations, tickets, or boarding passes can be considered passengers under Part 250.

Then we will look at that DOT letter again.

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.)

No, he wasn't in violation of federal regulations. Dr. Dao is not an airline, railroad, ferry service, or other transportation business regulated by 14 CFR.

You're showing your true colors again. That you would even think the federal government has the legitimate authority to throw him in prison because he wanted to stay in his seat and be transported to his destination per his agreement with United, is appalling. I can't say I'm surprised you would think it, but still... !

I didn't say Dao is any type of business. The felony I am talking about is disobeying a crewmember's instructions.

Passengers only have to obey lawful instructions. 'We demand that you allow us to violate our contract with you, and we'll beat your ass if you don't immediately comply' isn't a lawful instruction.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The DoT makes the rules.

The DoT called it involuntary denied boarding.

Why do you believe they don't know what they are saying?

Because your interpretation of what you think the letter said is not the same as what the DOT actually says

There's nothing ambiguous about it. They don't go into detail about it being an IDB because they consider that obvious. A lack of spoon-feeding doesn't make it not say what it says.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Passengers only have to obey lawful instructions. 'We demand that you allow us to violate our contract with you, and we'll beat your ass if you don't immediately comply' isn't a lawful instruction.

You are on someone else's property and the property owners have asked the person to leave their property. That is a lawful order.

 

[RavenSky]

Passengers only have to obey lawful instructions. 'We demand that you allow us to violate our contract with you, and we'll beat your ass if you don't immediately comply' isn't a lawful instruction.

You are on someone else's property and the property owners have asked the person to leave their property. That is a lawful order.

Not when the property owners have signed a contract authorizing you to be on their property.

All you are doing is repeating the same wrong information over and over... especially on this specific point.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And the only thing the DoT said they did wrong was give a wrong schedule to one person and not give the Dr his written statement that day. If that had felt United did something wrong like you suggest they could have easily made the same argument that you did and warned United that they violated whatever code you had said. They oculd have fined United for it or ushered a stern warning. It's the DoT's job to do this, but they didn't. All they said, was you should have given him the paper on the way to the hospital.

Or, they dodged the issue by emphasizing that there was no racial discrimination, and that the violence was done by the faux-cop rather that airline crew, and because United was already settling with Dr. Dao

They didn't dodge the issue. They just didn't elaborate on it because it was a very obvious IDB. They excluded the things that aren't within their regulatory realm and addressed what was--and that was imperfect compliance with the IDB rules, but not to the extent they felt any action should be taken as there was no intent to deceive. (And the rule in question exists to avoid airlines trying to deceive passengers about their rights in an IDB situation.)

- - - Updated - - -

Passengers only have to obey lawful instructions. 'We demand that you allow us to violate our contract with you, and we'll beat your ass if you don't immediately comply' isn't a lawful instruction.

The DoT obviously felt the instructions were lawful.

 

[Arctish]

Passengers only have to obey lawful instructions. 'We demand that you allow us to violate our contract with you, and we'll beat your ass if you don't immediately comply' isn't a lawful instruction.

You are on someone else's property and the property owners have asked the person to leave their property. That is a lawful order.

It would be lawful in the absence of a contract that gives you a right to be there, or if the terms of the contract that spell out when the property owner can evict you were met.

There was a contract that gave Dr. Dao the right to occupy that seat and be flown to his destination for the agreed upon price. The conditions under which United could lawfully deboard him from the aircraft weren't met. United's attempt to simply evict him wasn't lawful.