Hacker News Reader

Aren't cops supposed to be a neutral party? Shouldn't they have inquired what was happening and tried to find all possible ways to communicate without force?

Cops in the US seem way too ready to snap into a confrontation. They could have spent 30 minutes discussing with the guy and it would had caused less disruption and delay to the other passengers.

This concept of a comply or die mentality is a real problem.

Do we not know how much discussion happened before the video was taken? The man was already asked to deplane multiple times and he aggressively refused.

Would a pretty please have really helped?

> he aggressively refused.

No comment necessary, you already did it yourself.

Not an expert, but my understanding after reading that article was that at an important level, whether or not Dr. Dao was obligate to exit depends on whether or not he was appropriately told to exit. If he was, he was trespassing; if not he was not.

In this way, it does come back to the police action, because they should have treated it more as an investigation, asking all the parties involved about what was going on, and attempting to mediate, and then when that failed, taken him off the plane.

Overbooking policy in the US is heinous, but at some legalistic level this seems to me to be more about how Dr. Dao's removal occurred, rather than about the overbooking per se.

Honestly, I'm disturbed by the classism that's run rampant throughout the coverage of this and subsequent events. Airline overbooking practices, security unprofessionalism, etc. are all just part of the system until it happens to a physician (whose services for a day or so should not in fact be critical, even if they are inpatient or critical care--a hospital or clinic needs to be able to cover for illness, etc.), or as in the case of a subsequent LA Times story, a wealthy businessman. But for everyone else? The plumber whose livelihood depends on scheduled appointments? Who cares.

The article raises the point about whether or not the police were acting under the controlling authority's (i.e., the pilot's) instructions, but that's not the only consideration. Other expert opinions have raised the point that the carriage of contract does not explicitly equate being denied boarding with being removed. In other words, the gate agents are acting like denying boarding allows them to remove Dr. Dao, when that seems to be a false but (until now) unchallenged assumption. Once you're seated, different rules apply.

Your point about classism is very fair, but a plumber would have an equally valid claim to Dr. Dao, insofar as being forced to accept a voucher incurs a much more real cost in lost business.

The trespassing argument is very shaky. There's good analysis out there of the regulations and contract of carriage suggesting the airline had no basis to order him off in the first place, and generally to claim trespass you first need to have the right to exclude the person. "I don't feel like performing my part of my contract with this person" doesn't get you there.

And since the instruction to leave his seat may not have been a lawful/reasonable one, the other prong of the usual argument ("federal law requires compliance with crew member instructions") might not get there either.

>to claim trespass you first need to have the right to exclude the person. "I don't feel like performing my part of my contract with this person" doesn't get you there.

It doesn't? Trespass is criminal while a contract is civil. The police don't enforce contracts do they?

Further, I should be able to break a contract at will (how could that ability even be taken away?) and accept the consequences.

What you're arguing for is the ability to manufacture a crime on someone else's part, at will. I don't think you would enjoy living in a society which allows that.

Why do we use "plumber" as an example of a "non wealthy" person? Ironically, your argument itself is classist by suggesting plumbers are somehow lower class in terms of wealth or financial status. http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1851673,0...

Not at all. They are saying that classism exists and people wouldn't care if it was a plumber, that doesn't mean they think that plumbers are lower status.

If they had said this happened because racists chose Dr. Dao since he was Asian that wouldn't make them racist either.

Many plumbers make amazing money. Idk how people think someone who can charge you 100+/hr for a specilized and critical skill is somehow lower class. Most people use "wage slave" for that discriptor now, usually service or retail.

It does matter, because the airline is not a king that can order police into action.

The airline can (and occasionally should) call the police. However, the police have a duty to investigate the dispute - if they instead act like a hired goon squad, then they should be blamed (and punished) for that, it's a violation of how they are allowed to work.

Agreed. I only wanted to dispute that the primary blame should be on the police themselves. And "Chicago police" is a whole topic itself.

Funnily enough, these "police" were actually rent-a-cops, not sworn officers. In effect, they were a "hired goon squad."

> Certainly we are putting too much of a premium on peacefully resolving situations at the expense of fair treatment.

I think we're not. In the civil world, you are expected to resolve the on-scene dispute without violence, and then later bring your case for damages.

Attempting to mitigate damages often does not go as far as violence, since after all (a) that'd result in criminal claims and (b) medical recovery is often more costly than whatever civil damages you were trying to protect against.

"you are expected to resolve the on-scene dispute without violence"

Only to a limited degree, and this forbearance is itself subject to abuse. When everyone politely agrees to "grieve later", it creates an organization-level moral hazard where large companies can pay less in lawsuits than they can save in expenses by abusing the individual's restraint. Walmart during the 1980s practiced a scorched-earth legal defence against any and all employment claims, clearly aimed to exhausting the ability of plaintiffs to sue, regardless of the legitimacy of their claims and depending upon their financial endurance to eke out a net win, which they did for a decade.

I'm not sure that's a great example. If Walmart employees had started to 'grieve' in store, they'd have been arrested for trespassing unless they moved away to a public street and picketed the location.

Picketing the location is a-okay, and counts as aiming to resolve the dispute without violence.

Resolving it "with violence" would mean attacking some floor manager who gets paid $13/hr, and immediately being imprisoned. This doesn't seem like it'd change corporate's strategy at all.

My real issue here is violence vs non-violence.... not necessarily using lawsuits as the only option---there are others, but I am a bit biased to believe lawsuits are best.

I agree that's not a great example from the perspective of what the individual should do. It's just the best example off the top of my head of an organization using its size to make lawsuits largely worthless as a remedy.

That said, I disagree that Dr. Dao is responsible for the violence that occurred or that he chose violence. His was a classic act of civil disobedience: he simply didn't comply, even when violence was used against him, and it's turning out that the predicates for using violence against him are falling apart. He wasn't trespassing, the police acted incorrectly, the gate agents acted incorrectly, and the whole airline business leading up to that moment has built up a faulty expectation of what's allowed and expected. The Walmart equivalent wouldn't be attacking a floor manager, it would be staging a sit-in, which would be much more clearly a simple case of trespassing because it's a store rather than an airplane.

Careful. Even in the most "business friendly" parts of the US, workers still have some federal-level protection for organized action, meaning there are things workers can do which the business cannot just decree to be off-limits and force them out.

> in fact, obligated to incur thousands of dollars in losses by being "randomly" selected to miss a work day on which an entire medical office depends, in exchange for 800 units of United scrip.

But its the law and he knew full well that there was always a risk that he would be bumped from a flight, as any passenger does.

If he did not want to be bumped he should buy a business class seat.

Now the fact that it can be argued legalistically that he was not "denied boarding by bumping", but was "deplaned", is something he can pursue in the courts if he chooses to. But I don't think he was even arguing this at the time.

His behaviour was simply childish.

> But its the law and he knew full well that there was always a risk that he would be bumped from a flight, as any passenger does.

The contract with United says you can be denied boarding, but not much about boarding and then being kicked off after.

> If he did not want to be bumped he should buy a business class seat.

That's no guarantee. http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/aviation/328495-uni...

> Geoff Fearns, who purchased a full-priced first-class ticket to travel from Hawaii to California, was asked to get off the plane by an airline employee because the flight had been overbooked, according to The Los Angeles Times. “That’s when they told me they needed the seat for somebody more important who came at the last minute,” Fearns told the newspaper. “They said they have a priority list and this other person was higher on the list than me.”

This guy didn't get kicked off the plane...he was put in an lower class (and some guy in Economy maybe got bumped).

The article states first he "was asked to get off the plane by an airline employee because the flight had been overbooked".

> The priority of all other confirmed passengers may be determined based on a passenger’s fare class, itinerary, status of frequent flyer program membership, and the time in which the passenger presents him/herself for check-in without advanced seat assignment.

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

Seems this is part of the contract.

Who would he be angry with if the weather caused the plane to be grounded?

All of that's in the "denied boarding" section. This guy, given that he was on the plane and sitting in his seat, wasn't denied boarding. He boarded.

I was responding to your "That's no guarantee." statement.

Did you miss the part where the law says they were not only under the legally mandated entitlement, but also not fulfilling the part where the law demands they pay out cash?

Did they not pay out the compensation? I can't seem to find that part.

They offered $800 vouchers, which are limited flying coupons. Legally they're required to offer cash up to $1350. They'd already failed to exhaust their legal duties in this situation, and if this actually ends up in court, one argument sure to be raised is that they used the police and an abuse of the "deny boarding" part of the contract of carriage to keep their expenses down, which was what they seemed to actually be doing: Republic is a subcontractor operating under bankruptcy protection.

> abuse of the "deny boarding" part of the contract of carriage to keep their expenses down

If they keep their expenses down is does benefit customers in paying less for tickets.

> They offered $800 vouchers, which are limited flying coupons. Legally they're required to offer cash up to $1350.

Legally, they can negotiate with customer. If they refused to offer cash that is illegal. But they can offer whatever they like.

"As you can see, in many cases you’re entitled to a sizable cash payment, up to $1,350. However, here’s the dirty secret of the airlines. In a vast majority of cases they’ll only offer cash compensation if you specifically ask for it. Otherwise they’ll offer you the same voucher they gave anyone who was voluntarily denied boarding."

http://onemileatatime.boardingarea.com/2017/04/11/what-are-y...

They are also legally required to inform you of your rights once your ticket has been revoked. Judging from the fact they still were calling him a "volunteer" as of the CEO's press release the next day, I'd bet they did not actually go through any of this process of revoking his ticket. If this is a policy then these internal policies are wrong too.

I don't know what conversation they had with him, but I'd wager a guess their policies are slanted in the direction of calling it a voluntary bump no matter what actually happens. If you don't ever actually revoke their ticket, you never actually have to pay out at 400% of the ticket value! /s

It is not the passenger's responsibility to know their rights and request the cash payout either, it is the airline's responsibility to apprise them of their full rights when the ticket is revoked for any reason. Negotiating would be offering $1600 in vouchers (or say, a value in excess of 400% ticket price) to avoid a cash payout. I would call it "negotiating in bad faith" to offer a lesser value of non-cash vouchers than the amount that the passenger is actually entitled to receive in cash, by law. (At least once you've decided, as in this case, which passenger is the passenger that is being bumped.)

I don't know what exactly "revoking the ticket" means, or if it has anything to do with a physical boarding pass, but I've heard lots of conjecture suggesting that since he was boarded and in his seat, they would not have been within their rights to revoke his ticket at all. He would have had to meet one of the "Rule 21" criteria for Refusal of Transport, in other words, those cases limited to reasons including government request, safety, failure to pay, or in cases of international travel where your documents are found to be not in order.

> "negotiate"

A negotiation with an entity that "can" (for varying definitions), and will, have you trespassed or otherwise forcibly removed is not a particularly fair "meeting of the minds". It's somewhat what happened here. Passengers _were_ negotiating. Someone offered to leave for $1500, then $1300, on video, and the gate agent responded. "Not happening. Someone's getting off or the plane's going nowhere", and look at the result.

That's "my way, or the highway", not a negotiation in any meaningful sense.

> Passengers _were_ negotiating

I mean after involuntary bumping which is allowed after making an offer for voluntary bumping which is not required to be negotiated.

By "negotiation" it means they can offer free flights or vouchers.

This is very common place. The final mandated offer is subject to many conditions as outlined here: https://www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/fly-rights which would be specific to each customer.