I haven't seen it mentioned yet, but a huge and mushrooming problem is probably at the heart of the United Airlines incident.

People who consider themselves to have "authority" will often tell any lie, make any accusation, to get police to respond when their "authority" has been challenged or ignored. They start having violent fantasies and expect the police to act them out as retaliation. And yes, those were airport police, I see them hanging around all the time.

It's become quite predictable in many business, government, and educational situations. Little tyrants make demands just for the hell of it, and then say the person is "unruly," "belligerent," or "violent" or "may have a gun." Then they drool with sadistic delight when at least some cops predictably overreact. They may also stand around joking that someone's going to get raped in jail. Many essential jobs are filled with absolutely contemptible people.

I hope the police calls and any communications between police are made public for this incident. If they settle out of court, the reason will be to suppress the evidence not only of incompetence and misconduct, but of openly accepted sadism.

Since the "dress code" incident happened just a couple of weeks ago, I'd tend to agree. There's a busybody culture that grew up in the wake of 9/11. People are herd animals so they fall into roles. The airline got too used to people playing the role. How do we free up seats without upping the ante above $800? I know, we'll use authoritah. That always works. Unless you get someone who just isn't feeling it.

It takes outrageous scenarios like this one to really get people to think, so maybe there will be a little more sensibility going on. We don't need the Stanford Prison Experiment writ large.

I find it interesting that one of the few people to fully defend the airline incident on here, said that the passenger's non-compliance was equivalent to speeding or running a red light.

I think that poster is a current, or past, serving police officer.

the fact that this incident has resonated around the world says 'this is unacceptable'
There was a 5 minute segment on Polish TV news last night, FFS!

and while we have our police officer friend defending the action, i now read that this may have actually been an illegal removal

He was abused for staying in a seat he'd paid for after the airline accepted his valid ticket.

If United needed a seat, they should have offered higher and higher incentives rather than picking a random passenger to bully and manhandle. If they'd offered thousands of dollars, someone would have volunteered.

I don't care so much that he was a doctor. I think any passenger's plans for their trip are just as valid even if they're only tired and want to sleep in their own bed.

Here's what I think about at least one who replied defending United. I think he was a United paid legal troll who was paid to intercede on internet discussion groups and try to sway opinion against the poor injured victim.

One of my best friends was once physically slammed and verbally abused by "security" as she left a store with her purchases. The clerk had forgotten to remove the sensor setting off flashing lights and a blaring alarm.

A crowd gathered to gape at my poor friend. The guard finally found the sales slip in the bag he'd grabbed and he gruffly told my friend she could leave. She ran off crying without her bag and never went back.

Her husband is a 6 foot 6 inch highway patrol officer. He returned in uniform and dressed down the clerk and guard and had them squeezing back tears which entertained another crowd of onlookers. The store management sent a gift and an apology.

None of us owes it to tin dictators with abusive tendencies to be overly "compliant."

Shame on the so-called air police and shame on that store guard who humiliated my friend.

A clerk once forgot to remove a sensor on one of my purchases which set off a loud nasty alarm. At least the employees were nice and apologetic which helped. I still frequent that store but will never give business to United or the store that humiliated my friend.

"He was abused for staying in a seat he'd paid for after the airline accepted his valid ticket.

If United needed a seat, they should have offered higher and higher incentives rather than picking a random passenger to bully and manhandle. If they'd offered thousands of dollars, someone would have volunteered"

In general, I agree w/you. It should have been resolved prior to boarding the plane and yes more money should have been offered to entice people....but I also understand what my (and everyone elses') rights are (and AREN'T) when flying.

Long story short...if the airline wants your seat and security shows up to take that seat...give up the f@$&ing seat.

It is not blaming the victim by saying he should have given up his seat when he was asked. If he was legally obligated to give up his seat, what length does the airline have to go to to get him to give up the seat? Keep saying please until he gives in? Say we are not leaving until Mr Dr here gets off the plane?

The passenger has some responsibility here. If I have police telling me to get off the plane, I am going to do as I am told and find out later what the law says. There is no way I would have taken it as far as he did.

I am not saying the police had the right to physically remove him. I do not know the law. But if confronted by police, I am going to do as I am told.

No, you don't have to give up your seat just because an authority figure tells you to. I cannot understand why people so instinctively defer to people who have, or pretend to have, power.

The airline broke the law. Even if it did not, no one has the right to use violence against a person who is not a threat. The police broke the law. They employed more force than was necessary or appropriate. No experts are contending otherwise.

What did the airline have to do to get him out of his seat? In the first place, they had no right to get him out if he didn't want to go. The airline should have kept increasing its offer until someone accepted the offer. The airline was in fact obligated to pay $1,350 because there were no other flights out within four hours. Delta has gone as high recently as $11,000 for a family. THAT is what United should have done. As a legal expert said this morning, offering $100 million would have been a bargain for United.

The bottom line in all of this is that authorities don't get to break the law. We live in a constitutional republic. The passenger had no responsibility in this. You do not need to apologize for exercising your constitutional rights.

To those saying just comply to ludicrous "rules" - What if Rosa Parks had just "given up her seat"?

Apples and Oranges...

You are doing a disservice to Rosa Parks with this question.

The airline should be required by law to hold an open auction right on the plane, as the only available option to open up seats that were paid for by anyone. When no one bites, a higher price is offered. Eventually, someone will take the money. Even if I had somewhere to be, I would take ten thousand dollars to leave a flight. The bidding would probably never get that high. But if they have to pay fifty thousand dollars to open up a seat, that should be the price the airline has to pay. Also, when someone buys a ticket, it is theirs to waste if they choose to not show up. I have no sympathy for the airline who over-sells seats to make more money on seats that others choose to waste.

When you buy a ticket, it's your damned ticket, a contract to be fulfilled at a specific time. No one should be able to take it from you forcefully. I hope that guy who was taken off forcibly wins millions of dollars in court.

Apparently, the maximum that could have been offered was $1,350 by law (a law likely drafted by lobbyists for the airlines).

In any event, the gate employees should have offered the full $1,350 plus a confirmed seat on the very next flight -- first class if at all possible. The problem often for gate agents is their hands are tied by senior management and in a crisis senior management isn't around to authorize further money, first class, etc. I have friends who are gate agents and it's not an easy job.

I don't at all mean to excuse the airline's behavior which was abhorrent and despicable -- and compounded by the CEO's infuriating attempts to justify it. Does United not have a top notch PR advisory firm on retainer for heaven's sake? Good grief. This will be a business school case study for the next century.

The FAA needs to take charge of this mess and, if it continues to allow overbooking and bumping passengers in favor of crew needed in the destination city, remove any restriction on the money that can be offered and ensure that employees at the gate have the authorization -- whenever they deem it necessary with no permission from a supervisor -- to just keep upping the ante until someone bites.

I almost never take the offered money when airlines do this. But, if they got up around $5,000 or more, I'd probably bite.

"Apparently, the maximum that could have been offered was $1,350 by law (a law likely drafted by lobbyists for the airlines)."


This is incorrect. Airlines are required by law to offer compensation, up to 400% of the ticket price-up to $1,350.
There is no rule or law keeping the airline from offering more.
A few day prior to the United debacle, Delta Air Lines was in the news for giving a family 11,000 to give up their seats. The first day, they were offered 4,000 not to fly from NY to FL. Returned the next day & took another 4,000 not to fly. Then, the third day, they took 3,000.
United should have upped the offer to $1,500 & a hotel room. They'd probably have more takers than the 4 seats that they needed.


http://money.cnn.com/2017/04/11/news/companies/how-much-to-give-up-an-airline-seat/

No cash ceiling. They should have been a little more generous. Especially since this was a corporate decision to bump 4 passengers for United employees. It's not like the gate agents were giving away the store because of a booking error. I'll bet that the United CEO, and Board of Directors, would pay $50,000 per seat if they could go back in the past to avoid hundreds of millions of dollars in bad publicity and market loss.

Aaaand, if you read the fine print on that ticket, i.e., the contract to be honored, you'll notice that you are agreeing to get off the damn plane if it's overbooked and that the airline reserves the right to revoke the "validity" of your ticket in such cases as overbooking. By accepting and presenting the ticket, you are agreeing to the terms.

Next time you book a flight, go read the small print. All of it. Now this passenger obviously did not and was unaware that the airline has the right to boot you off a flight for whatever reasons (which are all spelled out clearly in the fine print). That does not, however, make it right to beat the shit out of the guy. I don't really blame him for digging in his heels. There have been times when I absolutely could NOT change my travel plans and no offer in the world would have been sufficient incentive. And there have been times when flying out the next day would be fine.

To be clear, I can't justify a beat down of a customer for any reason and I'd also like to point out that the people who beat this particular customer are not real cops. They were airport cops, which is a fancy way of saying "security guy who washed out of police academy." Now sending security to deal with a disruptive passenger? Sure, okay, I guess. Seems like overkill but flight attendants shouldn't be expected to go to blows with customers. But nobody, and I repeat, NOBODY has the right to be judge, jury, and executioner and decide to dole out whatever punishment one sees fit in response to whatever crime one has decided that another has committed.

So, even when we're talking about real cops, I cannot justify police brutality. That is not how "protect and serve" works. That is why we have a justice system. It's not up to cops to hand out physical punishments whenever the fuck they want to.

It says nothing about being able to forcibly remove you from a flight for overbooking.

Right there with you on "forcibly removing." I classified the forcible removal as "police brutality" which you can see above, I condemn.

The airline will always reserve the right to modify, or even cancel, your booking. Yes, they are legally bound to honor the contract, perhaps by issuing a direct refund or a seat on the next flight, but the airline has the right to kick anybody off their plane.

It's comparable to your local restaurant owner having the authority to remove you from the premises if, say, he or she has to close shop early unexpectedly.

Are you suggesting that using force to remove a trespasser shouldn't be allowed?

I suppose that is someone comes into my house and sits down and won't leave that I will have to wait for half a year while a trial proceeds before I can get him out since you need that whole judge/jury thing before any force can be used.

OP, you made an excellent point, going to the genesis of the issue.

Where are the laws requ ring any sort of evidence before violent police action can be taken?

I am related to LEOs, and military, and I can say that defending the weak is primary. Who was the one with less "power" in this situation?

I was so disappointed and hurt by our usually reasonable long-time LEO bragging about dragging a middle-aged woman out of her car, letting her hit the ground hard, for (IIRC) running a stop sign (blowing through) and not noticing the LEO for a mile. That was her "agression" and the LEOs rationale.

Just yesterday, on a 70 mph limit freeway, where I was doing 70, a car changed lanes, no signal, just whipped in front of me with about 5 feet to spare. I saw the beginning of the move, so avoided collision. The woman had no idea that I was even there, and I was feeling both powerful for being so alert, and miffed that she was so the opposite. In this jacked-up (and stupid) mood, I thought, "I'll MAKE you notice me," and "camped" on her rear bumper (really stupid). It took her until the next exit to notice me (about 2.5 mls), and when she did, she brake-checked me (I was ready for that), and she eventually moved over, again, no signal, just a whip over. As I passed her, she gave me a (non-obscene) WTF is wrong with you, hand in air questioning gesture, which I returned.

The point of sharing that is two-fold.

1) Either one of us could have rightly claimed "agression" on the part of the other; intent "follows the bullet," right? If I had been a driver equal to her, we would have had a 70 mph collision, possibly not survived, and once dead, those in car 2 have no recourse, not to mention the other cars that would have also slammed into us. Then there's my aggressive and risky behavior, already detailed.

2) SHE DIDN'T KNOW THAT I WAS THERE, either when she "agressed" into "my" lane, or for 2.5 miles at 70 mph. I've seen drivers completely startled by sirens and lights emergency vehicles, cozily deaf in their surround-sound vehicles, failing to yield, until they notice everyone else who is yielding.

For either of us, only a camera would have told the story in the same way. It would be up to the LEO whom to believe, whom to cite and/or arrest, and "drag out" and let "hit the ground hard."

But, I'm much older and uglier than she. It would have been a "mood" decision for a LEO, who would write "the facts" in a report, to become "evidence" in a court of law. Having read our posting LEOs decision-making abilities, I put myself at greater risk from an intervening LEO, than any I "suffered" from the driver of car 1.

Humans make errors, and LEOs, absent evidence, can only throw a dart as to whom, if either, requires protection or offers the greater threat. The UA situation was a civil matter, and the airline could have sued the MD into bankruptcy for any lost revenue. But no, they chose to drag him from the vehicle, and let him hit the ground hard.

The Airlines didn't "drag him from the vehicle and let him hit the ground hard"... The police did. Those were policemen who decided that force was necessary.

I'll bet the Airlines will change their short sighted policy of limiting the amount of money to offer bumped passengers and to turn problems "over to the police".

It's notable that the doctor and his wife were interested in the travel vouchers for $800 apiece before boarding the flight. Until they learned there was no other flights out that night, they declined to take United up on the offer.

When United used the pretext later that it randomly selected these individuals by computer, I wonder how really "random" that was? They may have reverted back to those customers who showed some interest like this man did, and picked his name that way.

I don't trust their version of what happened, based on what is known.

I don't know all the facts, but the video appears that the man was minding his own business, had paid for a ticket, was allowed on the plane, and that other passengers are heard saying things like "this is right." I know his mouth was bleeding in the picture. I am thinking the man will be able to retire this year given the sum that he will be rendered in the fall out.

Actually, the lady heard in the video was saying "This isn't right" - she didn't think what the cops were doing was right either, and she was right there on the scene.

typo..thx

Did I ever tell you that I hate police? I do. And I don't trust them to help, serve, or protect me at all. They are poorly trained in a non-uniform variety of regional police academies, poorly paid, and never nicked or punished for their unprofessional behavior unless it presents a PR disaster. And today, it seems that they can get away with mistreatment of any person who is not white.

"And today, it seems that they can get away with mistreatment of any person who is not white."

Why is it that people, generally those on the leftist end of the political spectrum, resort to playing the race card in lieu of making a rational, informed argument?

Excellent point of view, Historischer. I have seen with my own eyes police over reacting and using force so many times in the big city I live in.

If someone wants to get them all keyed up, it isn't hard to do for many of them but many of them can push themselves over the top in a heart beat.

We had an employee accidentally get locked out of one of our buildings and set off an alarm at the same time. He waited out front for the police with his hands out where they could see them and calmly explained what happened. The female officer threw him on the ground,(he was slight build) and hand cuffed him while kneeling on him. He could barely move and was so bruised I could not believe it. And I've seen a lot more.

And actually, I am very afraid of flight attendants. Don't ever get on the wrong side of one. The captain will take their word on anything, made up, exaggerated or not and you will be taken off the plane in handcuffs.

"And actually, I am very afraid of flight attendants. Don't ever get on the wrong side of one. The captain will take their word on anything, made up, exaggerated or not and you will be taken off the plane in handcuffs."

Interfering with a Flight Crew carries severe penalties.


US Code 46504;

"An individual on an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States who, by assaulting or intimidating a flight crew member or flight attendant of the aircraft, interferes with the performance of the duties of the member or attendant or lessens the ability of the member or attendant to perform those duties, or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both."

While Flight Attendants go through a rigorous and lengthy training program (6-8 weeks 24/7, away from home) to weed out potential problems, F/A's are just like the rest of the US work force. They have bad days, get divorced, get sick,have a seriously ill child, etc. The Flight Attendants that I know are dedicated professionals that take a lot to get them angry. But once you do- you're probably not going to like the results.
Dealing with the flying public, I could probably do that job for about 6 hours before I got arrested for punching someone.

You don't get to use the "he deserved it" argument.

Our law enforcement friend who rejoiced at the passenger's roughing up on my original thread has now become conspicuous by his absence.

We can only hope that he has reconsidered his harsh attitude.

Yes, he said that he hoped that the passenger's nose was broken. That's just sick.

Wishing suffering on anyone is a horrible thing to do.

The heart of the problem is that we as sheep believe EVERYTHING that is posted in the media. Kind of like being a mormon....

we believe what we want to believe....

Not sure what point you're trying to make. There were multiple videos. The entire world SAW a 69 year old guy get roughed up by airport police a dragged up the aisle and off the plane. It's not sheep believing what the media says- it's what we saw that has people upset.

No, seeing IS believing.

I see the media playing with sheep....

And to think this board talks about Critical Thinking....

Gad....

Please, however, talk to a family that's lost a loved one who was an officer on duty. Police officers can take risks that, for the rest of us, are impossible to imaginable. They never know when things may turn deadly. At times it's a profoundly frightening job.

There are good and bad people in all professions, but please ask yourself what your community would be like if there weren't people willing to protect your homes and families when the worst happens.

so much as an airlines problem. The one officer under investigation wasn't acting for all policemen everywhere.

I've always had good service from helpful policemen. I admire them greatly.

It in fact is a police problem.

Are all police bad? Absolutely not. But as cellphone cameras have shown dozens of times over the last few years, a significant minority of police violate the law and brutalize citizens.

When society gives immense power--the legitimate use of force--to an entity, that entity must be held to the highest standard. A substantial number of police do not meet that standard, as our glorified-traffic-cop demonstrated a couple of days ago when he expressed hope that an innocent man should have had his nose broken. Such police believe they are above the law.

Are most police good? Yes. But abuse of power is common enough, and the consequences dire enough, that society can't just say "most are good" and leave it at that. The fact is that we must do a much better job of training cops and enforcing the laws against those who disregard the constitutional rights of individuals.

Common you say?

Cite statistics that are verifiable...

I, myself, do have a bad attitude towards police because of how my son is treated in Utah. He doesn't look like a good little mormon kid, so he has been labeled by the police. He isn't pulled over as often now that he has my boyfriend's deceased father's S10 Chevy, but he still gets pulled over and then the police give him some story about why they pulled him over.

He was geocaching one day and got pulled over and the car was searched. They found his pill bottle that he had just picked up at the pharmacy and were reading it wrong, saying it should have #30 pills when it actually only had #10 pills as my son couldn't afford the whole Rx that day. He had to keep pointing out to them that the whole #10 pills were there. There were 3 police cars by the time they let him go. The last guy to come told the other 2 they were wrong and pointed out how they read the pill bottle wrong. This happens a lot to my son.

My boyfriend, who doesn't look mormon in the least, got pulled over and the cop never did come up with a reason he pulled him over. My boyfriend is still pissed about it months later.

I know there are good cops and bad cops. There are always those few who make it bad for all the rest.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/12/2017 12:52PM by cl2.

In 2002 or so, I had to travel to Provo from Germany to attend the trial of my son. He had been harassed by police for 2 years for failing to conform. He and two friends founded the "August Arts Center" in a building along the tracks, and had a library and coffee house, and sponsored punk and rock bands. It was a sort of underground anarchist-friendly place, and BYU students poured into it to listen to live rock and dance. Naturally, Provo city fathers didn't like that, and kept on the police to do something about my son and his two friends. The police followed them, stopped them, harassed them, and illegally searched them many times. Although the men were all part of various elders and high priest quorums around town, they'd use all kinds of expletives and abusive language on the kids. We even have pictures that the cops took of them that we got through the FOI Act.

Finally, they showed up and arrested my son for "urban terrorism." Their basis for arrest was my son being an organizer of a "critical mass" bike rally held in Provo and in SLC months earlier. In Provo, only about 100 people--mostly BYU students--showed up and rode bikes and Roller Blades down University Ave. In SLC, mayor Rocky Anderson attended. ACLU represented my son, but he still got a Class B misdemeanor, suspended 30-day jail time, and a $1,000 fine. The LDS cop who arrested him lied his ass off to the LDS judge. The LDS judge warned my son to leave the city and not come back.

One of the organizers came before the judge, but was released because he had a mission call to Thailand. The other organizer was one of three kids tragically killed in that cave flooding incident in Provo.

OP: "He was abused for staying in a seat he'd paid for after the airline accepted his valid ticket."


That pretty much sums it up, except for one little detail that is just now beginning to emerge.


Seems that there is a LEGAL distinction that falls into play here, according to several websites written by LAWYERS.


Apparantly, the agreement we are FORCED to sign in order to be able to board a plane ONLY allows an airline to prohibit a passenger from boarding a plane, in the case of overbooking.


You would have to read the detailed descriptions of lawyers posting over on the New York Times website (where I read it) or others, but apparantly, there is a valid legal distinction to be made.

And what it gets down to is that United could have legally refused this poor guy boarding. But once he was in that seat that he legally purchased (and minding his own business), they did NOT have the right to force him off the plane!


At any rate, the OP really summed up this matter in one single sentence, that I will repeat:

"He was abused for staying in a seat he'd paid for after the airline accepted his valid ticket."


All the rest of this $hit is window dressing...


And I hope he sues the wings right off of United Airlines !

United thought that their employee was more entitled to a seat than a paying customer. That is a very bad policy when it is applied AFTER everyone has already boarded the plane. Even though they were legally correct (all that fine print in "Terms of Carriage' allows this), it is bad policy.

As for the passenger he thought he was more entitled to stay on the plane than anyone else and thus he WAS unruly and disobeyed crew members instructions. While that law is intended to keep everyone safe on the plane while its flying or in an emergency situation, not necessarily to force people off, it is a law. The passenger claimed authority he was more entitled to stay because he was a doctor and patients were depending on him - turns out his medical license had been revoked.

"United thought that their employee was more entitled to a seat than a paying customer. That is a very bad policy when it is applied AFTER everyone has already boarded the plane. Even though they were legally correct (all that fine print in "Terms of Carriage' allows this), it is bad policy."

Good grief. This was not about entitlement. This was about United sending another flight crew to replace one that either "went illegal"(flying over the max hours the FAA allows) or got diverted to another airport. Rather than cancelling an entire flight (130+ passengers) they brought in another crew. This happens all the time in bad weather, long duration storm situations. Delta cancelled over 3000 flights during those storms. United should have offered more financial incentives to other passengers until they hit someone's number. They should not have had airport cops drag the guy off the plane.

So you know that United had no other option for the flight that would have been cancelled without those 4 crew members?

They have the where-with-all to put 4 crew members on a NetJets or WheelsUp plane and get them where they need to be. An individual passenger generally does not.

When airlines are running their systems at such overcapacity (overbooked flights) and under staffed (insufficient standby crew for such contingencies) such that there is very little no slack in the system it is fundamentally wrong, and presumably because they are trying to jack up profits in the face of other challenges. So there is another entitled group, the upper management and shareholders.

Thanks to the poster who corrected me about the passenger's medical license; I had not heard about the reinstatement.

"When airlines are running their systems at such overcapacity (overbooked flights) and under staffed (insufficient standby crew for such contingencies) such that there is very little no slack in the system it is fundamentally wrong, and presumably because they are trying to jack up profits in the face of other challenges. So there is another entitled group, the upper management and shareholders."

Give it a rest. This was nowhere near normal situations. A 3 day storm wreaked havoc on schedules for passengers, crews and equipment. Thousands of flights were cancelled, delayed or rerouted. All major carriers have standby crews at major airports. They get used and they call in other available crews. This was the case on this flight. Airlines overbook because some customers are no shows. Airlines try to offset those losses by overbooking depending on destinations and markets. Everyday, people are paid to give up their seats for stranded passengers or crews. United just didn't offer enough. Airlines offer hotel rooms, even if they don't have to. Read the "act of god" (read storms) clause in their responsibilities. So now shareholders are "entitled". by a few shares in major carriers. Next time there's weather delays or equipment issues, just tell the gate agents that you're an entitled shareholder and that you demand priority. See how well that goes over.

His medical license was once revoked, but has since been reinstated.

Yes, I think that most people would have left the plane once ordered off of it. That doesn't make what the airline did right or proper. This incident highlighted the mistreatment of many passengers. The other three passengers who were ordered off were also mistreated, albeit not as badly.

From what I've been reading, United was not legally prohibited from offering whatever amount of money would have gotten people to volunteer. Evidently the law requires the airline to offer a certain amount of money, but there is no set ceiling.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/12/2017 01:22PM by summer.

No, you don't get it.

If the lawyers over at the New York times are correct, the Terms of Carriage does NOT address the issue of forcibly removing a legally, lawfully person off of an airplane AFTER they have boarded the plane! Not in a situation where that person is just sitting there and minding their own business. (It would be different if the person pulled out a knife or something, or even just verbally threatened to hijack the plane or something, but that is covered under other clauses in the Terms of Carriage).


A lawyer whose specialty is transportation law is saying that United's Terms of Carriage ONLY addresses the issue of the airline having the right to refuse boarding, in case of overbooking.

That legal expert (and several others, from what I'm reading on other websites) are arguing that United's Terms of Carriage does NOT go as far as to allow a passenger to be carried off a plane without their consent, in case of overbooking!!!!


That is what these lawyers are arguing.


I am not a lawyer, and do not even play one on the internet.


But so many other non-lawyers are making claims on websites like these that United had the right to pull the guy off, based on the Terms of Carriage that he was strong-armed into signing in order to board the plane in the first place.


But that is a legal issue that will have to be hashed out in court, because there are legal experts who are arguing that this is NOT the case.


No matter how many times you and other people might argue that it is the case.

I was unclear in what I wrote above. I apologize for that.


Let me put it this way: according to some legal experts who specialize in transportation law and who have posted on the New York Times website and other places on the net,


The Terms of Carriage will allow the airline to refuse a person boarding (getting on to the plane) if there is an overbooking situation.

HOWEVER,

Once a passenger has boarded and is seated, using a lawfully purchased ticket, he CANNOT be forcibly removed from the plane just because the airline has overbooked.



A passenger can be removed IF his behavior warrants it.


But NOT just for the convenience of the airline!



This passenger was just sitting there, minding his own business. He did not precipitate any misbehavior that would warrant his being removed from the aircraft -- at least not until airline BULLIES began to harass him.


Therefore, there was no LEGAL justification - based on the Terms of Carriage - that allowed United to force him off in the first place.

The passenger WAS "entitled" to fly on that flight. He paid for the ticket and obtained legal rights.

I don't understand why some people here keep acting as if there is a legal question here. When you pay money according to a contract, you are entitled to what you paid for. The airline violated the law in several respects.

United is the one with the problem with "entitlement" in the sense of thinking it has rights it does not.

I guess I've come to see this as a cascading series of events that has anomalies and bad behavior at each new step.

1. It's wrong, but a fact of life that airlines overbook. It's part of their business model.
2. When bumping an overbooked passenger, airlines should continue to increase the offered compensation until they get the number of volunteers needed. Trust me, somewhere south of $10K, you'll have a stampede of people who magically find time to catch a later flight.
3. If you're on a flight and randomly chosen to be booted, cuss and swear a lot. Then get up and leave. Do not make a further scene. What just happened is wrong, but you don't own the plane. You're a guest.
4. If you're the police officer called to remove that passenger who cussed a lot, but refused to leave, be kind and gentle. Lure them off the plane somehow using your skills short of brute force.
5. If you're the CEO of the airline, immediately contact the aggrieved flyer and offer whatever compensation you can to express your regret about what happened. Do this before your company loses $1BN in market value.

Some of this is right, some is wrong.

The errors are

1) You assert the plane was overbooked. That is not true. It was fully booked. United claimed it was overbooked so that it could invoke the rule allowing the expulsion of the passenger. The airline has subsequently acknowledged that the plane was not overbooked, meaning that it had no legal right to do what it did.

2) Even if the plane were overbooked, the airline had no right to remove the passenger after he was seated. That was illegal.

3) A paying customer is NOT a "guest." The law distinguishes between "invitees," paying customers, etc. Once a person pays, he obtains legal rights and is not a guest. The company owes him what he paid for.

4) The police have to obey the law. They cannot employ violent tactics simply because they want to do so. Citizens do not owe unlawful authority any deference.

On the positive side, you are correct that the airline should have continued increasing its offer. The market should decide the compensation level and the law does not impose a cap on how much is paid. In order to save a couple thousand dollars, United squandered hundreds of millions.

Hear hear!

It's like the promises unwary mormons make in the temple.

There's definitely a power imbalance at play.

Bravo, Cheryl!

You've actually managed to make the thread relevant to Mormonism.

I cannot help but feel there is a racist element in this. Do you think for one moment they would have hauled off a good-looking white man? Or woman for that matter?

The decisions to detain, arrest and manhandle are based on assessments based on the status of the individual in question. Let me share with you my own personal experience:

One day I was going through security for a plane flight and had inadvertently brought a knife in my purse. A big Leatherman. I was dressed in a business suit and had a couple of employees with me. Recognizing their biased in favor of the elite, I summoned my best white voice and as they waved me aside, I said, "One moment please, let me notify my staff..." I then called out to an older man who worked for our non-profit and told him I would be "momentarily delayed by TSA" and to notify the "rest of the staff." He stepped out of line and so did five others.

They immediately waved me on, apologizing that they had to confiscate my Leatherman.

Imagine if I had been black, casually dressed, by myself with a box cutter.

Had the passenger victim been white sported an English accent and announced himself as a doctor who was scheduled for surgery in the morning, I am sure they would have drawn again.


Kathleen

I think racism in the police force is a huge problem.

In this case, though, I am skeptical. What I have read in the press is that the doctor and his wife inquired about selling their seats but then decided not to do so when they learned there was not a flight out later that evening. The airline claims they were subsequently selected "at random" to be bumped. I had a similar experience in Europe several years ago. My family and I inquired about selling our tickets and decided not to do so. Later we were selected "at random" and bumped. I think the airlines believe that anyone who asked is less likely to object to being kicked off the plane.

Now the police's actions may have been racist--meaning the decision to use violence. But usually Asians are treated effectively like white people. It is blacks and Latinos and Middle Easterners who are treated as subhumans by racist police. Also, we have seen cellphone videos of white people roughly ousted from airplanes by police for various reasons.

My instinct is therefore that racism was not a major factor in this case. I think we were just dealing with a stupid police officer intoxicated with his own power. Naturally, I could be wrong about the racial element.

"Later we were selected "at random" and bumped. I think the airlines believe that anyone who asked is less likely to object to being kicked off the plane."

That's probably accurate. Delta has a policy of not bumping active military, Medallion members or passengers that have been previously bumped. I'm sure United's definition of "random" is a lot different than most of ours.

The real point to me is that the airlines are gambling with heads I win tails you lose terms. They are gambling that more people will buy tickets than can fit on the plane. If that happens then their profit increases. If people turn up then instead of the airline losing on the gamble then it is the people that lose. To say there are conditions on the ticket is unfair and unreasonable in these circumstances. It is the airline that has acted in bad faith.

Airlines will behave better when the Hyperloop comes online...
Right now the airlines own the fast travel industry.