"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. It's exactly the place for it. If you can't assert your rights when you need them, they're worthless.
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.
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.
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.