Hacker News Reader

Comment by hackbinary | Hacker News Reader

In this situation, shouldn't there have been some form of mandatory auction, where the Airline would have to bid to buy the seat back. Or do what Delta does, and form a contract with the passenger to buy back the ticket for a pre-agreed price?

I do find it shocking that the airport police got involved with what really seems to be a civil, rather than criminal matter, but then again, such are the times.

Airlines should not be allowed to use violence to enforce arbitrary, or even random rules.

View on HN

Obviously United screwed up and seems like a horrible company, and I think that forcing airlines to more explicitly disclose how flights are overbooked to their customers, including the resolution process seems reasonable.

But police getting involved in non-criminal matters? Not strange in the slightest. It wouldn't be strange at all for someone to call the police about a trespasser or removing a customer that refused to leave (from a bar, restaurant, retail store, and so on).

It's even less shocking since as part of buying a ticket you agree to a contract of carriage (which is a shitty adhesive contract, but that is a separate issue) in which you agree that United has the right to remove you from a flight.

And again, just reiterate, I found the content of the video abhorrent, but making a 1 off rule against airlines seems totally arbitrary. If all other types of businesses are allowed to call the police, why not airlines?

Do police coerce people with violence? Sometimes, yes. But what does that have to do with United. That's an issue with political authority.

The issue is that the guy refused to leave a private space, getting security or police to remove him seems like the solution to that problem in most other contexts. It's a different situation but if someone refused to leave my office they would definitely call the police

As you say, this is indeed a different situation. Here are their own rules on when they may remove a passenger from the plane.

https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriag...

None of them address this situation. They broke the contract of carriage (as well as, it appears, his nose; three bully boy police officers beat up a 69 year old man, who has committed no crime, at the request of an airline).

Also, I suspect it could be argued that it was not a private space. Privately owned, yes, but not a private space. This wasn't trespass.

I'm not sure of the legal terms but it's private in the same way that Disneyland or a store in the mall is private. There's a lot of people there but they obviously have the right to arbitrarily evict you. I've been kicked out of a store for just being too loud before

It's private property. Which does not automatically make it private space. As I recall, part of the definition in at least one set of law involves whether or not it's reasonable to expect members of the public to be there without explicit invitation.

There's a lot of people there but they obviously have the right to arbitrarily evict you.

That's just plain not true. There are reasons why people can be asked to leave; those reasons are curtailed. There are unacceptable reasons to kick someone out. You may not arbitrarily evict people. If you evict someone for the wrong reason, you may have committed a crime. Obviously I'm talking about US law; in other places, other rules apply.

While I'm here, just because it's one of my favourite legal misunderstandings, putting something in a contract doesn't necessarily make it legally binding. But that one's just for fun.

If your reason is discriminatory you can't evict someone but kicking someone off to make room for an employee isn't illegal at all

I understand that's not true. I understand it is an FAA violation (i.e. breaking the law) to drop someone with a confirmed reservation in favour of an employee.

Additionally, what happened was also a violation of the conditions of carriage that the airline had set up. They were breaking their own rules.

What makes you say it's not illegal? Perhaps I'm reading the rules incorrectly.

I'm aware of the fact that they can't outright refuse service to most people but I was under the impression that they had some latitude in rescheduling people.

EDIT: that article makes sense. I'm obviously not sure on the legalities so I will defer to your understanding of it. I guess this case goes close to home for me because if I had to make the decision between canceling a few whole flights and kicking 4 people off a plane I probably would've done the same thing and I don't think that's unreasonable. I'm all for sticking it to the man but people seem more outraged at the company making a pretty understandible decision when it seems to me the security officer who really made the bad decision and bloodied the guy.

Here is a lawyer who took the tobacco companies for billions talking about it: http://www.valuewalk.com/2017/04/david-dao-united-airlines/

It's disturbing to see here and elsewhere (not so much you, but certainly others) the degree to which people doff their caps to big business.

Some people did ask for more money to leave which united didn't agree to btw their was no overbooking which airlines can usually stop by not issuing the boarding pass. This was done so that united could send some of its employees to another place. For this they should have done an open auction instead of forcing someone out after issuing them a boarding pass and seating them.

It's crazy that freeloading squatters have more rights than paying customers.

Technically the passenger is in a private space when the plane is in flight as well. Can I remove him without reasonable cause? Probably not. I wonder at what point it's okay to remove a passenger when they paid for boarding, sat in their seat, and there is no reasonable cause.

I was as horrified by the video as the next person, but I don't think your little thought experiment isn't relevant as the consequences of throwing someone off a grounded and in flight plane are totally different.

But back to reality, I can't speak for other countries, but in America the right to exclude people from your property is quite strong. But much more importantly, while there are many factors, the police are generally not in a position to evaluate them, and as a result they do not.

For example, if I go to a restaurant, pay for my meal, but before receiving it get kicked out by the owner (without refund) due to my race/religion/whatever, I am clearly in the right and I can definitely sue. But that's in the future. If I call the cops, they can't do anything. They can't conduct a mini, instant trial to determine if I was discriminated against and determine appropriate damages. On the other hand, if the restaurant owner calls the cops, and tells them that a customer is refusing to leave, the cops will almost certainly come and take me out of the restaurant. I can sue later, but that's it.

Edit: just adding that a United passenger has even less rights than the aforementioned restaurant patron, because as part of buying a ticket they agreed to a shitty adhesive contract, the United Contract of Carriage (https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriag...).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com