> What else would you expect them to do?
How about...to not physically attack a paying customer who had done nothing wrong (and had medical patients to see, to boot) so that a bunch of airline staff could fly for free?
How about...to not physically attack a paying customer who had done nothing wrong (and had medical patients to see, to boot) so that a bunch of airline staff could fly for free?
Once he's off the plane, then the issue is resolved. Why would they lock him up after that? What's with the extremes and what does it have to do with any of this?
Maybe reconsider when you have to start the post this way.
What is this strange refusal to accept consequences? You are responsible for your actions.
Last I checked, TSA was nearly universally despised, airlines in particular are dubiously popular, and aside from the ATF and FCC, I see more griping about the tyrannical tendencies of the FAA by those subject to it's capriciousness, no matter how well justified one may think it to be.
Point being, I'd refrain from making assimptions on the "Public's" behalf, when it's more "a bunch of bureaucrats" dictating things.
https://www.transportation.gov/individuals/aviation-consumer...
https://www.transportation.gov/individuals/aviation-consumer...
https://www.transportation.gov/individuals/aviation-consumer...
https://www.transportation.gov/individuals/aviation-consumer...
It's called proportionate response. Leave voluntarily without issue, or create more havoc and a bigger force will be applied. The limiting principle is your own resistance to authority.
Are they responsible for their actions that caused an innocent person to suffer both the physical and other injuries for something that he was not responsible?
Stop excusing this nonsense. The force applied was unnecessary, excessive, and unjustified.
https://www.transportation.gov/individuals/aviation-consumer...
> "On January 13, 2021, the United States Department of Transportation amended its rules, forbidding involuntarily bumping from an overbooked flight after boarding starting on April 21."
The point is that you don't see beating and dragging a man as 'extreme', so I am postulating other extremes like indefinite incarceration or execution which it would then likewise stand to reason are warranted because what if this man, a known troublemaker now, ever tries to get on a plane again? Incarceration and execution would preempt that problem.
If he left voluntarily then there would be no force. If he started attacking others then there would be more force and more injuries. The response was proportionate and even lax considering he was allowed to run back on to the aircraft.
How would you remove him? What is your actual issue here?
Is your position that it would not have been possible to remove him (even without his cooperation) without injuring him to this extent?
The security staff is charged with removing someone from an aircraft, without knowing their intentions, who's already acting strange by refusing to leave in the first place, and acting in limited space with lots of other people around. They could've done a better job, but it also could've been much worse.
Now you're just using ad hominem to make your point.
I would also suggest considering that e.g. bus drivers face noncompliant passengers (non-paying, even!) far more frequently, and they have pretty good peaceful means of dealing with them.
Clearly it was adjudicated that it was excessive in this United instance by people qualified and knowledgeable of all the factors but that doesn't override that fundamental point that when force is used then injuries are possible and probable.
Sure it does. Because force isn't binary, which circles us back directly to where I made this point above. Your logic only makes sense if you treat "force" as binary.
I already answered your question about the degree of force in that I don't know, and that "people qualified and knowledgeable of all the factors" have already decided for this particular instance that it was excessive.
They needed the seats to move their staff operationally. To do that, they needed some passengers to volunteer to not fly. To do so, they needed to offer incentives, not demands.
The airline's problem is that they didn't want to pay enough. So they used force, not only that, they used public security (police) to enforce a private contractual matter (not providing travel, even though the passenger was in complete contractual compliance).
The security staff were briefed, and if not, should have waited until they were. He wasn't "acting strange", he was upset at not travelling as he had paid for, and wasn't been offered a reasonable alternative.
Excusing this behavior is allowing it to continue.
This isn't just my hearsay. The Chicago City Inspector's Office ruled that the action violated the City's personnel rules, 2 of the officers were discharged, the other 2 disciplined.
The airline staff shouldn't have removed him. They should have given up and made increasing large offers of travel vouchers until someone accepted, or they should have found an alternative way to get their staff to Louisville.
At no point should the airline ever have even considered forcibly removing someone so that their staff could fly instead. No matter what happened, the paying customer should have been the priority.
Defending the actions of the airline makes me think you should never run a business.
It's no different than you deciding that you no longer want a guest in your house (for whatever reason) and calling the police when they refuse to leave.
"but once decided to remove a passenger than that passenger needs to comply or be removed"
I do not get this type of argument at all. "once decided to take the victim's money then the victim needs to either comply or have the money physically removed from their possession" uses the same logic.
Anyway, you have made 25 flamewar comments in this thread. Posters that do that are usually banned so I would advice you to stop. (just a friendly advice)
Nope, not "at any time" or for "any reason". Air companies are subject to several regulations, and another person posted it here: after boarding there are pretty specific reasons for why you can expel someone, and "because I say so" is not one. Not to mention that planes fly so you obviously can't "surprise deny" service at "any time".
At hotels you also can't throw people out on the street in the middle of the night, unless they did something wrong. Which is clearly not the case.
You also cannot throw out tenants without reason and without proper proceedings, for example.
> "What is an authority for someone is a criminal for another (see certain regimes)"
What does this have to do with air travel? This person isn't fighting tyranny, they're being asked to leave a plane. The authority is the same for everyone that participates in that state, airport and aircraft.
> "the airline is not an authority under the law"
No, but it can call authorities just like you can call the police when required. Also airports and aircraft do operate under different rules for security.
> "you have made 25 flamewar comments in this thread"
My comments are not "flamewar" because you disagree with them. I've always posted civilly in the face of very harsh and rude replies and will continue the discussion as long as I want. I advise you leave the moderation to the admins here.
>Generally, no. If you have met the following conditions, airlines are not allowed to deny you permission to board, or remove you from the flight if you have already boarded the flight: You have checked-in for your flight before the check-in deadline set by the airlines; and A gate agent has accepted your paper boarding pass or electronically scanned your boarding pass and let you know that you may proceed to board
https://www.transportation.gov/individuals/aviation-consumer...
> "On January 13, 2021, the United States Department of Transportation amended its rules, forbidding involuntarily bumping from an overbooked flight after boarding starting on April 21."
https://www.transportation.gov/individuals/aviation-consumer...
> "On January 13, 2021, the United States Department of Transportation amended its rules, forbidding involuntarily bumping from an overbooked flight after boarding starting on April 21."
>the issue is resolved
love how the passive voice always pops up whenever someone tries to justify obvious bullshit
The stated "requirement" was so that they could know who was travelling, but for international travel, that's covered by your passport, and for local travel, by your local ID (driver license etc). Having your "name" on your ticket is just bullshit.
As for the "security sensitive" it's actually "security theatre" that has been in place since 9/11.
Excusing the behavior of the airline is ridiculous. They didn't need to drag this person off the plane, they needed to offer enough to the passengers until enough had accepted their offer so that they could deadhead their staff. That is what is supposed to happen when they need to offload passengers.
Don't excuse their behavior.
I'm not talking about how effective the security practices are; only that they exist and result in much faster and more forceful action.
I didn't excuse their behavior; I agree that it was poorly chosen and should be criticized.
What I'm explaining is that they can lawfully (at that time ) cancel a ticket and remove a passenger at their will; regardless of how they were chosen or whether it was a good idea. What happened after is a series of escalations that is standard procedure with countless other examples where force was proportional and effective without ending in a scandal.
It is categorically NOT a “request” if you “do need to follow it”
Being in the right (if that is the case) does not mean you can behave however you want. If a hotel denies your booking for whatever reason, would you just stay in the lobby anyway?
To make it worse, he paid to be there. If they didn’t want him in the seat, they shouldn’t have sold him a ticket.
He already paid, already received the ticket, and already had his ass in the seat.
Why would you call this medieval?
And no, btw, pretending to be confused isn't convincing.
He paid for the flight, was checked in, allowed into the plane and didn't provide any reason himself for being thrown out. The people who escalated the situation were the airline staff and airport staff. Huge difference.
The property owner of the property he is occupying against the owner’s wishes.
> What is this, medieval Europe?
Capitalism isn't the same thing as feudalism, though both give preeminence to property rights (in capitalism, the important ones are more likely to be marketable rather than fixed to predefined systems of inheritance.)
The United incident was a total disaster for United, they were incompetent and doubled down on that incompetence because of policies driven by their bottom line. The “police” that removed the trespasser were no trained and were also incompetent.
None of that changes the fact that if the captain of the airline thinks it’s a safety problem he can remove the passenger.
The equivalent analogy would be: you paid for and were situated in your hotel room, when you receive notice from the hotel that they have overbooked their hotel and that hotel staff from another hotel need to stay in your room and you must evacuate your room immediately. When you refuse to do so, they have security slam your head into the bedframe, resulting in you breaking your teeth, and then leave you outside on the curb.
The correct thing for the airline to do is call the police if necessary and resolve the dispute using the law.
Throwing someone out in the street with a proper reason is not entirely legal in most jurisdictions, at least not in mine. Proper reasons include disruption, property damage, violating the rules, committing crimes, being intoxicated, not having paid, being past the leave date, etc.
In this case, the reason is "hotel staff from another hotel need to stay in your room", which is not grounds for expelling anyone.
Even when hotels make mistakes and overbook they can't throw out guests that are already accepted and accommodated. Hotels even go the extra mile of directing the additional guests to other hotels and foot the bill.
It's not unreasonable to expect them to plan ahead better. Perhaps they need to have more jumpseats, or force them to displace the highest paying customer first to discourage that kind of planning.
There are many more humane options available when we realize we should be in control of the rules governing their operations, if only this whole shitstorm wasnt massively corrupt.
They are the ones that should have let him fly and dealt with the issue separately without creating a new incident if they felt he was in the wrong.
You may not like it (and I don't either), but overselling flights is not fraud; it's a normal, accepted, legal practice.
If he had followed the rules and done what he was -- legally -- told to do, he wouldn't have to have become a "victim". That doesn't justify what security did to him, but he's the one who started the escalation.
No.
Telling a paying passenger who is not behaving belligerently in any way that they must vacate their seat so that an airline staff member can fly in that seat is what starts the escalation.
https://www.transportation.gov/individuals/aviation-consumer...
That is pretty clear, so you can stop making up stuff for the sake of an invalid argument.
Whatever rights an airline has in this specific situation, it does not entitle or justify that they inflict any violence on others. Even if this violence is done by airline staff, airport security or even the police, it's still not justified.
Instead of picking on specific passengers and escalating it to violence, they should have kept asking other people. Maybe even give up boarding four staff. Even giving up would still be a mild inconvenience.
Violence should never be a way to solve mild inconveniences. The airline was completely in the wrong for allowing it to escalate, even if law allows them to do it.
Especially if you have wilfully ignored the terms of service and caused disruption to other passengers.
That is precisely what United did.
> if the gate agent accepts a passenger for boarding after collecting or scanning the passenger’s boarding pass, the carrier is prohibited from removing the passenger from the flight thereafter.
If United rented out their house to two tenants, they can't just drag one of them out by the ears? It's on them for being two-timing fraudsters.
https://www.transportation.gov/individuals/aviation-consumer...
That said, the rule seems to be that once you've boarded, they need specific reasons (behavior, safety, etc.) to remove you from the flight. In this instance, it sounds as if the airline fucked up.
Except that's still not a good analogy because that involves the personal property of a discrete individual, not the somewhat public service vehicle of a faceless corporation. We shouldn't allow corporations to run roughshod over the little man. Just because civil suits exist as a potential route for renumeration doesn't mean we should allow this behavior from airlines in the first place.
The trespassing is in their jurisdiction to enforce, as it is a crime. Being shorted on a ticket is not in their power to address.
It is bad when you get stuffed by a corporation, but it’s no excuse to break other laws.
It’s not that simple. This was a crew being sent to operate another plane. If they can’t move the crew, that could potentially cancel several other flights, and affect hundreds of other passengers.
What does that have to do with it? We all have important reasons we just absolutely have to be on that particular flight, but we're not entitled to be there.
I would have been incredibly annoyed had I been in his position... but I would have sucked it up and gotten off the plane, not acted like an entitled child, clinging to my seat. Should he have been hurt the way he was? No, of course not. But, c'mon, it's ridiculous to suggest that he wasn't in the wrong at all here. He was given a lawful order to vacate the plane, and refused. That's not "had done nothing wrong". Quite the opposite.
The Dr. refused a lawful (if highly fucking annoying) request, and then when they tried to force ably remove him, he started screaming. He was not "beaten" or "physically attacked".
> Dao was taken to the hospital with non-life-threatening injuries including a broken nose, loss of two front teeth, sinus injuries and "a significant concussion"
What phrasing would you prefer be used instead to describe the sustaining of said injuries?
So I guess his injuries were self-inflicted? How does one sustain injuries if not physcially attacked? If someone places their hands on another, that's assault which according to dictionaries means physical attack.
https://www.transportation.gov/individuals/aviation-consumer...