Hacker News Reader

Comment by jdminhbg | Hacker News Reader

> His injuries are unfortunate

Maybe reconsider when you have to start the post this way.

Reconsider what? Follow the rules and orders given. If you don't then force will be applied. When force is applied, injuries may be sustained.

What is this strange refusal to accept consequences? You are responsible for your actions.

Just get on the train sir.

Just go to the back of the bus, sir.

Just pay your taxes to the King of England, sir

Reconsider whether your mindless deference to authority has any limiting principle. If someone sells lemonade on the street without a license, should force be applied and injuries sustained? What is this strange refusal to accept consequences?

Not your plane, not your rules. Comply with the authority or get off the flight. You’re projecting rights that don’t exist in the situation.

Not your airport, not your plane. Comply with the public’s will or give up your flight slot.

No one is losing their flight slot over unruly passenger treatment. The unruly passengers are a vocal minority.

They’re just begging the government for power they won’t be granted. If they were actually independent like Greyhound or Uber, this wouldn’t be a story, the passengers would already be banned.

Funny thing that public. Everyone thinks everyone else sees it their way. You can always pick out the authoritarians in the room, because they are usually the only ones without doubt "the public" will be on their side.

I’m an extremely laissez-faire person, but we’re talking about publicly-bailed out airlines operating out of publicly-funded airports begging for publicly-maintained law enforcement. I think you might misunderstand who’s trying and failing to invoke “the public” here.

You invoked "the public's will".

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.

But there are rules and the airline violated them.

https://www.transportation.gov/individuals/aviation-consumer...

Yes it is, he paid for the seat and has every right to be there. If he was unruly, sure. But he wasn’t - he held up his end of the bargain, and had every right to expect the airline to hold up their end.

Except that paying for a seat doesn't actually give you the right to be there. I'm sure none of us have fully read the contract of carriage. But you can certainly pay for a seat but be denied that seat. It's not great, and I wish customers had more power in this situation to be able to negotiate a better contract, but... that's where we are.

The department of transportation disagrees with you. Once you are in the seat you do have a right to be there.

https://www.transportation.gov/individuals/aviation-consumer...

You keep saying this over and over, but it's not true. He didn't have "every right". It's been explained to you multiple times.

The department of transportation disagrees with you.

https://www.transportation.gov/individuals/aviation-consumer...

Please explain more mysteries to me oh wise one

But, there are rules and the airline did not follow them. The airline was in the wrong from the start.

https://www.transportation.gov/individuals/aviation-consumer...

I don’t disagree, but if the flight crew tells you to get off the plane, you get off the plane. You can argue about it with the airline’s corporate team. You’re not going to win a fight with the flight crew, nor should you expect to. Make a best effort attempt to make your case (politely and with decorum), and if they still boot you, you’ll have to seek recourse post event.

What are you even arguing?

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.

I mean, the dude created more havoc and United’s disproportionate response netted him a few million dollars instead of a $250 voucher, so I think I’d say it worked out ok.

Proving that the initial act by the airline staff was complete unjustifiable.

Just like the German soldiers running concentration camps during WW2 right? Rules are rules, doesn’t matter if the majority of people disagree with them.

Is the airline staff that caused this in the first place due to their lack of professionalism required to accept consequences?

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.

Follow the rules? The airline was the one not following the rules.

https://www.transportation.gov/individuals/aviation-consumer...

You keep posting this, but the rules were changed after this incident:

> "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."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com