Hacker News Reader

"The aircraft you're being told to leave isn't the proper forum for legal and contractual disputes."

That's the only time they really count. It's exactly the place for it. If you can't assert your rights when you need them, they're worthless.

>That's the only time they really count.

They also tend to count in context of litigation and social media, all of which can be pursued after leaving the aircraft.

>It's exactly the place for it.

I'm honestly baffled here. It's basically the "I want to speak to the manager!" behavior that so many decry, and yet, it's somehow OK in context of holding up a commercial aircraft to insist you settle your individual dispute right then and there.

>If you can't assert your rights when you need them, they're worthless.

There is no right to be on an aircraft, just as drivers have no explicit right to be on the road. Despite the fact one pays for their car, pays insurance, pays the state all manner of fees, driving remains a revocable privilege should that person not follow the rules. A flight is no different in this respect.

It's like failing to pull over on the shoulder for emergency vehicles, insisting you have a right to remain in your lane. While that might sound proposterous on the face of it, what if the crew that's positioning is operating a flight that's transporting organs? Suddenly the person refusing to give up their seat for crew isn't so righteously justified.

You confuse inalienable rights with contractual rights. The passenger had a contractual right to be on the plane.

On the contrary, I was saying exactly that: since the rights aren't inalienable but contractual in nature, that holding up a flight to the point of refusing to comply with law enforcement is not the way to go about a contractual dispute.

Neither was the action of calling law enforcement...

it's somehow OK in context of holding up a commercial aircraft

I do not agree that business must have priority, and while I recognise the practical nature of the universe in which we live, I do not subscribe to the axiom that the needs of the many inherently outweigh the needs of the few.

I suspect our differences are simply axiomatic.

They also tend to count in context of litigation

Litigation is all about trying to make things better after something bad happened. We can never make things right because we cannot change the past, so litigation is not a solution; it's mitigation. I subscribe to the idea that it is better for that bad thing not to have happened. On a personal note, I suspect (but cannot prove) that the doctrine of letting people do bad things because we can litigate later is corrosive to society.

>...I do not subscribe to the axiom that the needs of the many inherently outweigh the needs of the few.

Generally speaking I'm in agreement with you there.

It's just that I view giving up a paid seat due to rare but exigent circumstances analogous to motorists involved in a minor collision pulling off to the side of the road as a common courtesy.

>We can never make things right because we cannot change the past, so litigation is not a solution; it's mitigation.

Litigation is somewhat of an imperfect solution when it acts as a deterrent.

>On a personal note, I suspect (but cannot prove) that the doctrine of letting people do bad things because we can litigate later is corrosive to society.

Agreed, but unfortunately there's far from perfect oversight of corporate behavior. Even when you're talking cases where people die due to gross negligence, criminal charges are extremely rare.

Litigation—when it has merit—acts as an imperfect second line of defense against misbehavior that would otherwise go unpunished. It's capitalism's way of keeping itself in check.

It is however far from perfect. Many companies will simply fight meritorious litigation on the basis that it's the cheaper option, regardless if doing so is morally bankrupt. For example, a company may decide issuing a recall for an issue that kills people is more expensive than just dragging the existing litigation out as much as they can.

>Sorry, but that's hyperbole.

I respectfully disagree. As soon as United requested LEO intervention; use of force was an implied outcome.

>the dispute became more than a civil dispute once he refused flight crew instructions to leave the aircraft.

The dispute became more than a civil dispute the moment that LEO intervention was requested, and not before.

>There was [a safety or security justification] once a passenger demonstrated they're not willing to comply with the flight crew.

Is that really true? It insinuates that all flight crew instructions considered safety and security instructions.

>Contrary to popular belief, commercial aircraft are not glorified busses.

Commercial Aircraft of the type being discussed are flying buses, by definition. bus : a large motor vehicle designed to carry passengers usually along a fixed routed according to a schedule. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bus

>Then argue that to your heart's content after deplaning. The aircraft you're being told to leave isn't the proper forum for legal and contractual disputes.

The assertion here being that a person should allow their contractual or legal rights to be violated for the convenience of others?

>As soon as United requested LEO intervention; use of force was by definition put on the table.

It was put on the table, but not with intent to harm him. That's the hyperbole part.

It's reasonable to presume that in the vast majority of cases, people tend to comply with LEO instructions without force coming into play. If it must come into play, it shouldn't take the form of an utter disaster as with what happened to that gentleman. That's precisely why this whole situation is an edge case.

>Is that really true? It insinuates that all flight crew instructions considered safety and security instructions.

Yes. Once a passenger demonstrates they're not obeying the flight crew, chances are they're not going to listen to safety or security instructions either.

>Commercial Aircraft of the type being discussed are flying buses, by definition.

We can argue semantics all day long, but I think it's fairly obvious that operating a commercial aircraft is hardly analogous to the operation of a city bus once you move past the fact they both carry passengers.

>The assertion here being that a person should allow their contractual or legal rights to be violated for the convenience of others?

Yes, actually. That's why other avenues exist to settle such matters beyond holding up a flight until an individual dispute is resolved. If there's critical cargo such as organs on the flight the deadheading crew is slated to operate, it's more than just a matter of convenience.

> Contrary to popular belief, commercial aircraft are not glorified busses.

In what way are they not?

A bus can't modify the skyline of New York City as easily.

Nothing can an aircraft sitting on the tarmac. Stop trying to make this a safety or security issue, there's no justification for it.

>Stop trying to make this a safety or security issue, there's no justification for it.

Wasn't trying to make it about anything, just responding to a comment asking the difference between an aircraft and a bus.

That said, if you have a passenger who's repeatedly not complying with the flight crew on the ground, why then become airborne with that passenger on board? That is a safety issue.