While I think it was a jerk move by United, I think they DO have the right to kick people off their planes. That passenger had no "legal" right to stay on the plane.
With that said, I think it is very important to remember that airlines are just faceless corporations who (along with the TSA) force you to give up far too many rights for the convenience of quick travel. It is a good reason why airlines should get ZERO money, or special treatment, from the government.
Boycott all the major airlines!
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
While I think it was a jerk move by United, I think they DO have the right to kick people off their planes. That passenger had no "legal" right to stay on the plane.
With that said, I think it is very important to remember that airlines are just faceless corporations who (along with the TSA) force you to give up far too many rights for the convenience of quick travel. It is a good reason why airlines should get ZERO money, or special treatment, from the government.
Boycott all the major airlines!
he had every "legal" right to be there as he paid for a ticket.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is some boring boilerplate attached to the purchase of a ticket. Namely, that they can bump at their discretion and that they can boot you off the aircraft IIRC. Most airlines consider those who get aboard on the cheap to be at the top of the bump queue.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
They bumped four paying passengers for four United employees who needed to get to Louisville... which is apparently only a ~5 hour drive away. Why the f!ck didn't someone from United rent a damn car and drive the employees there?! How is that United employee more important than the doctor whose patients needed to be seen the next day and cwouldn't have time/be able to reschedule?!
Boycotting isn't enough. People from United and the CPD to be disciplined at a minimum, if not fired. And as for the CPD involved, they need to be investigated and their conduct written into their records; they absolutely should not be allowed to quit, so the investigation can be dropped, leaving their record clean to be re-hired at some other PD.
They bumped four paying passengers for four United employees who needed to get to Louisville... which is apparently only a ~5 hour drive away. Why the f!ck didn't someone from United rent a damn car and drive the employees there?! How is that United employee more important than the doctor whose patients needed to be seen the next day and cwouldn't have time/be able to reschedule?!
Boycotting isn't enough. People from United and the CPD to be disciplined at a minimum, if not fired. And as for the CPD involved, they need to be investigated and their conduct written into their records; they absolutely should not be allowed to quit, so the investigation can be dropped, leaving their record clean to be re-hired at some other PD.
At one point offering $800 per passenger volunteer. The compensation for one passenger at that rate could have paid for an alternate transportation for the standby crew.
Well I'm going to assume the passenger who was drugged off the plane is going to sue. With all the evidence rolling around on the internet and passenger witnesses I would have to ask if anyone knows his name so We can all know what the new name for the United Airlines will be.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
They bumped four paying passengers for four United employees who needed to get to Louisville... which is apparently only a ~5 hour drive away. Why the f!ck didn't someone from United rent a damn car and drive the employees there?! How is that United employee more important than the doctor whose patients needed to be seen the next day and cwouldn't have time/be able to reschedule?!
Boycotting isn't enough. People from United and the CPD to be disciplined at a minimum, if not fired. And as for the CPD involved, they need to be investigated and their conduct written into their records; they absolutely should not be allowed to quit, so the investigation can be dropped, leaving their record clean to be re-hired at some other PD.
Well, if those employees needed to be in Louisville for a flight in 4 hours and not making it would lead to hundreds of other passengers being delayed ...
Perhaps they shouldn't overbook like that in the first place.
They weren't even offering the volunteers cash or a check, just a voucher redeemable only through United and its partners. If you volunteer, you've just agreed to take whatever they've offered and hope they don't change any unwritten offer more to their favor. If they have to bump you, they're required to pay you in cash/check either up to four times your ticket price or $1350, whichever is higher; they are also still required to get you to your destination.
United was taking heat on Twitter before, but that's nothing; the news has broke in China, and they are not happy.
Edit: And United's CEO sent this email to the company employees. How can he write that while ignoring what is actually recorded in multiple videos?
Wow practically caused an international incident that takes some serious screw-up right there. Just imagine if anything happens to the doctors patients. This one needs to go in Guinness book of world records for screw ups.
Admittedly, the state of domestic travel in the United States is in such shambles that it would cause an international incident. I do plenty of both international and domestic travel, and all the stories about hours on the tarmac, constant delays and cancellations, etc. in domestic travel don't occur in international travel because the US airlines can't afford the lost business to everyone else.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
He had every "legal" right to be there as he paid for a ticket.
It's not that simple.
"Can an airline really treat passengers like this? - by Simon Calder, travel correspondent for the Independent
Yes. The captain is in charge of the aircraft. And if he or she decides that someone needs to be offloaded, that command has to be obeyed. From the moment that the unfortunate individual in this case said, "I'm staying put", he became a disruptive passenger.
From that moment he was disobeying the captain's command. Officials were legally entitled to remove him, and as the videos show, he was dragged from the plane. ...
Once the captain decided that passenger should be removed, the passenger no longer had a legal right to be there.
I'm not saying it's moral or just or whatever, just warning everyone that the law is not on the passengers side in this sort of situation.
As A. Slaad mentioned, the airline is required to provide various compensation, but that does not change the fact that the captain has legal authority to remove passengers as he deems appropriate.
The airline acted awful in this situation, but they did not act illegally. I'm guessing that the police violated procedure in this situation, but they had the legal right to remove (and probably arrest) the passenger. Generally if you are asked to leave a commercial property, and refuse, you are trespassing, although it might be a different charge on an aircraft.
Laws are often written by the wealthy and powerful to protect their interests, not the interests of the average person.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Once the captain decided that passenger should be removed, the passenger no longer had a legal right to be there.
Depends on the captain's reasons for the decision. Just because you're in command doesn't give you carte blanche to make "arbitrary and capricious" decisions. If the passenger wants to sue, he can force the captain into a deposition and make him explain exactly why that particular passenger was removed from that particular flight. If the captain isn't able to provide a satisfactory answer,.... well, let's just say that both United Airlines and the captain personally hope that he can.
Of course, this kind of after-the-fact lawsuit doesn't help get the passenger to his destination on time.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Airlines were deregulated decades ago. This is the result. Blame deregulation, not the law that allows the captain of a vessel total control of the vessel.
Here's an explainer
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
He had every "legal" right to be there as he paid for a ticket.It's not that simple.
"Can an airline really treat passengers like this? - by Simon Calder, travel correspondent for the Independent
Yes. The captain is in charge of the aircraft. And if he or she decides that someone needs to be offloaded, that command has to be obeyed. From the moment that the unfortunate individual in this case said, "I'm staying put", he became a disruptive passenger.
From that moment he was disobeying the captain's command. Officials were legally entitled to remove him, and as the videos show, he was dragged from the plane. ...
Once the captain decided that passenger should be removed, the passenger no longer had a legal right to be there.
I'm not saying it's moral or just or whatever, just warning everyone that the law is not on the passengers side in this sort of situation.
As A. Slaad mentioned, the airline is required to provide various compensation, but that does not change the fact that the captain has legal authority to remove passengers as he deems appropriate.
The airline acted awful in this situation, but they did not act illegally. I'm guessing that the police violated procedure in this situation, but they had the legal right to remove (and probably arrest) the passenger. Generally if you are asked to leave a commercial property, and refuse, you are trespassing, although it might be a different charge on an aircraft.
Laws are often written by the wealthy and powerful to protect their interests, not the interests of the average person.
except he did pay for his ticket, and wasn't anywhere he wasn't supposed to be. He was selected for removal under very shady circumstances. You can twist this into whatever LN pretzel you so wish, but the law is going to be very much on his side when he sues.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
except he did pay for his ticket, and wasn't anywhere he wasn't supposed to be. He was selected for removal under very shady circumstances. You can twist this into whatever LN pretzel you so wish, but the law is going to be very much on his side when he sues.
The law is going to be on the airlines side. They're still going to have the pants sued off of them because laws run at least as much on the desired outcome as what's written.
Allow me to provide a Counter Point
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Allow me to provide a Counter Point
while I may have picked the wrong week to quit smoking, United chose the wrong week to quit sniffing glue.
This situation is basically identical to getting arrested at a protest. Once the police tell you you're "blocking the sidewalk" or whatever, they can then legally arrest you. That arrest is 100% Legal until a judge says otherwise. That might be later that day, or ten years from now. Until that happens, the law is on their side.
The airline is totally within the law here. They had a passenger who was lawfully asked to leave. He failed to comply. The airline informed the authorities. The cops who removed him might have done something wrong, but the airline never broke the law. Also, whether the police broke the law will not be decided until the situation goes before a judge.
I'm NOT saying it is right, but we live in a society where the police have authority over you until a judge says otherwise. It sucks, but it is what it is.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As I understand it so far, what United did is legal. They can deny passengers service and are required to provide compensation to non-volunteers in cash. But, how United enforced that policy is total lawsuit bait. A few deescalation steps were skipped before violently removing a passenger from the airplane.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I said the law was powerless to help you. Not to punish you.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
A legal nerd analysis of the situation. His argument rests on whether United Airlines is using Rule 21 or Rule 25 of the "Contract of Carriage".
And how the Chinese market may factor into the ultimate price United pays for this event
They bumped four paying passengers for four United employees who needed to get to Louisville... which is apparently only a ~5 hour drive away. Why the f!ck didn't someone from United rent a damn car and drive the employees there?! How is that United employee more important than the doctor whose patients needed to be seen the next day and cwouldn't have time/be able to reschedule?!
Boycotting isn't enough. People from United and the CPD to be disciplined at a minimum, if not fired. And as for the CPD involved, they need to be investigated and their conduct written into their records; they absolutely should not be allowed to quit, so the investigation can be dropped, leaving their record clean to be re-hired at some other PD.
Well, if those employees needed to be in Louisville for a flight in 4 hours and not making it would lead to hundreds of other passengers being delayed ...
Perhaps they shouldn't overbook like that in the first place.
At this point, I think that chartering a plane for their employees (or booking them on a competitor) would have been cheaper than the ensuing fallout. In particular their Chinese market sales are looking to take a big hit.
This situation is basically identical to getting arrested at a protest. Once the police tell you you're "blocking the sidewalk" or whatever, they can then legally arrest you. That arrest is 100% Legal until a judge says otherwise. That might be later that day, or ten years from now. Until that happens, the law is on their side.
The legal system has an unspeakable disdain for citizens using protests to lobby for changes outside of a voting and legislative process that could charitably be described as glacial and more accurately described as paid off. That dislike affects the outcome far more than the actual written law.
In this case, with a well respected doctor trying to get back to his patients, the likability factors going to go the other way. Its not that the airline used that level of force, the problem for the airline is they used that level of force on someone with status.
You'd think they'd have noticed the "Dr." on the passenger manifest...
a well respected doctor
Unfortunately, this may not be true. Which is totally beside the point. His respectability and his profession should not be a consideration here. Though, as thejeff points out, it likely will be. His past will probably completely overwhelm the story and United will tiptoe out the back of the room during the mud slinging.
|
And now the local media seems to be mounting a smear campaign against the doctor.
Joy.
Yup. Just read that the guy lost his medical license on a felony drug conviction in the early 2000's, and just got it back in 2015. I don't know for sure, but for a doctor, I'd guess that type of conviction probably means that he gave out drug prescriptions to people who were addicted to them.
And you know what? I don't care. He's not perfect. Who cares? It doesn't matter if he's a doctor or not. It doesn't matter if he's an ex-con or not. He just got the crap beat out of him for sitting on a plane minding his own business, and refusing to leave the seat he paid for on the whim of the airline.
And after all this, the airline is refusing to admit they did anything wrong. And the cops are saying he "fell" and hit his head on the arm rest (when video available from several angles shows that this was clearly police brutality).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And they're well on their way to getting him cast as a drug abusing sexual predator.
We need that fire out. Quick, throw more gas on it!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You'd think they'd have noticed the "Dr." on the passenger manifest...
Most physicians -- indeed, most "doctors" -- that I know don't use the title socially. There's normally no reason that an airline flight attendant need know that I have a J.D., an M.D., a D.D., a Ph.D., an Sc.D., a D.Eng., a Th.D., and a prize for spelling from third grade.
I hope that one lesson that comes from this is not to use that level of force on anyone... even if for no other reason than they might have status they're not using on this particular flight.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
We need that fire out. Quick, throw more gas on it!
And they're well on their way to getting him cast as a drug abusing sexual predator.What? That some drugged out criminal fought with police?
If that becomes the story, they win. It's nonsense of course.
Like you said, it's his status that makes this more of a problem for them. Dragging his name through the mud lowers that status.
United handled this series of events terribly, needlessly escalating this into a situation where the CPD reacted (surprise!) violently. That said, I'm not really surprised by it.
What I am surprised by is the number of ordinary Americans being interviewed by the media and posting online who seem to want to justify United's and the CPD's actions, and then their follow-up spin, against this man. A significant portion of our fellow citizens seem totally fine that this man was violently concussed, bloodied, and terrified for simply refusing to comply to authority. I find their reactions and lack of empathy both disgusting and horrifying.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A legal nerd analysis of the situation. His argument rests on whether United Airlines is using Rule 21 or Rule 25 of the "Contract of Carriage".
Looks like I'm wrong, yet again! I think Freehold called this one correctly.
It seems like airlines have a lot of discretion when it comes to boarding passengers, but unseating is another matter entirely. I'm guessing that's why the guy from United claimed the passenger was being 'belligerent' - in order to justify removing him.
I'm very happy to have been wrong about this! Also, thinks for the great link CrystalSeas.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We need that fire out. Quick, throw more gas on it!
And they're well on their way to getting him cast as a drug abusing sexual predator.What? That some drugged out criminal fought with police?
If that becomes the story, they win. It's nonsense of course.
Like you said, it's his status that makes this more of a problem for them. Dragging his name through the mud lowers that status.
United handled this series of events terribly, needlessly escalating this into a situation where the CPD reacted (surprise!) violently. That said, I'm not really surprised by it.
What I am surprised by is the number of ordinary Americans being interviewed by the media and posting online who seem to want to justify United's and the CPD's actions, and then their follow-up spin, against this man. A significant portion of our fellow citizens seem totally fine that this man was violently concussed, bloodied, and terrified for simply refusing to comply to authority. I find their reactions and lack of empathy both disgusting and horrifying.
Forgot about November already huh?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Forgot about November already huh?
The alchohol helped. next rounds on you now.
The alchohol helped. next rounds on you now.
Forgot about November already huh?
Is it *wise* to accept alcohol from a dead person?
I've never understood why airlines in America (presumably it happens everywhere, but I've only ever seen it in the US) overbook flights.
Surely it's easy for a computer to count how many tickets have been sold through the myriad of platforms and stop when the plane is full? (even if occasionally there's a few minutes delay in notifying the unsuccessful purchaser due to near simultaneously selling the final seat). Is there some marginal revenue benefit from people who miss their flight through their own fault and therefore aren't entitled to refunds or something?
It seems like a really odd system to me - given how annoying it must be to be ejected from a flight you've bought weeks/months ago. I can't imagine that the increase in revenue is significant compared to the PR cost (and the stories you hear of people being paid or upgraded to fly later).
Is it *wise* to accept alcohol from a dead person?The alchohol helped. next rounds on you now.
Forgot about November already huh?
as long as you're not using the same glass i don't see the problem.
Is there some marginal revenue benefit from people who miss their flight through their own fault and therefore aren't entitled to refunds or something?That's exactly why.
Cheers.
I'm very surprised it's not totally swallowed up by the poor PR and the need to occasionally reimburse people significantly more than the cost of their ticket.
I've never understood why airlines in America (presumably it happens everywhere, but I've only ever seen it in the US) overbook flights.
Surely it's easy for a computer to count how many tickets have been sold through the myriad of platforms and stop when the plane is full? (even if occasionally there's a few minutes delay in notifying the unsuccessful purchaser due to near simultaneously selling the final seat). Is there some marginal revenue benefit from people who miss their flight through their own fault and therefore aren't entitled to refunds or something?
Yes, and it's actually fairly substantial. Some estimates I've seen are that roughly 10% of the seats on a plane are likely to be sold-but-unused, either because they're business travelers with adjustable tickets who change flights, or because they're people who miss flights.