United Airlines Forcibly Removes Passenger from Flight

[cronus]

Technically the passenger who refused a request from the pilot to leave the plane is the one who broke the law.

Realistically, that's not going to matter a jot.

Reality is above the law unless you have a very good lawyer.

[Forty Two]

Technically the passenger who refused a request from the pilot to leave the plane is the one who broke the law.

Realistically, that's not going to matter a jot.

Which law?

I've been parsing the United Contract of Carriage - https://www.united.com/web/en-US/conten ... riage.aspx I can't see a thing this guy did that is cause to remove him.

1. Regarding the overbooking or seating of employees in his place, the rule on that allows United to "deny boarding" to someone when it's overbooked, etc. However, he was given a seat, allowed to board the aircraft, and took his sea. He was already boarded, so denial of boarding was not an issue. The people who wanted his seat were the ones who ought to have been denied boarding under the Contract of Carriage.

2. The Contract allows removal of passengers for various reasons, which are listed as examples of safety and security concerns. They include when a passenger is taking pictures and refuses to stop, talks on the phone and refuses to stop, causes a disturbance and interferes with the flight crew and such. But, here they walked up to him and said "get off the plane, because you are being bumped by a United employee..." (or words to that effect). He said, no, I have to get home and go see patients, or words to that effect. Refusing to get up out of his seat did not interfere with anybody and he wasn't the one causing the disturbance - the United and law enforcement personnel were doing that.

So, what law allows them to remove him from his seat just because he wouldn't agree to get up voluntarily?

[Forty Two]

Also, the flight wasn't even overbooked. That was a lie told by United. The flight was full, but all passengers were seated when four employees of Republic Airlines, a carrier that is part of United's network, showed up and needed seats to get to Louisville to work on the Louisville to Chicago flight. The only way a flight is "overbooked" is if more passengers are "booked" than there are seats on the airplane. That did not happen. Unbooked persons showed up at the gate at the last minute and demanded seats.

And, then Munoz, the CEO, declares that United followed "established procedures." Man, I'd like him to point to the "established procedures" he says was followed. The overbooking procedures only allow the airline to "deny boarding" to the plane, and it only applies when overbooked. Here, they were removing an already boarded and seated person from the plane in order to seat people who had not booked a flight.

United is fucked, and right well they should be. Fuck them.

[Strontium Dog]

Technically the passenger who refused a request from the pilot to leave the plane is the one who broke the law.

Realistically, that's not going to matter a jot.

Which law?

It's aviation law pretty much everywhere. The pilot is in charge of his aircraft. As the Independent's excellent travel expert Simon Calder points out.

http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/new ... 77601.html

Is it legal for the airline to treat a fare-paying passenger like this?

Yes. The captain is in charge of the aircraft. And if he or she decides that someone needs to be offloaded, that command has to be obeyed. From the moment that the unfortunate individual in this case said, “I’m staying put”, he became a disruptive passenger. He was disobeying the captain’s command. Officials were legally entitled to remove him, and they did so using plenty of physical force.

It appears from the evidence that the law was broken – by him, not by the airline. But I would be surprised if United pressed charges.

And here's another expert opinion.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 78716.html

Andrew Harakas, partner and aviation expert at Clyde & Co law firm, told The Independent that Mr Dao was effectively obliged to disembark under federal law if asked to do so by staff.

“Once you’re a passenger on board an aircraft you can’t interfere with the crew performing their duties or the aircraft being operated, that’s the basic rule,” he said.

“He was denied boarding, he should have got off the plane but he didn’t and the authorities were called. From a legal perspective, he was violating the law if he interfered with the crew members’ duties or the ability for the plane to be operated."

[DaveDodo007]

Lol, what a timeline to live in. The sad, pathetic lefty/liberals are supporting the globalist corporations when they act like fascists. I thank you with all my heart, you can continue to suck the globalist, corporate, open border federalist cock for all it is worth. Be sure to look down on the 'racist', 'sexist' scumbag working class from your ivory tower as we recruit them for the day of the rope and your free 'one way' helicopter rides.

[JimC]

I hope he hires a firm of lawyers with reputations like rabid sharks. I'll be interested in the size of his settlement - he should be able to buy his own private hospital...

[JimC]

Lol, what a timeline to live in. The sad, pathetic lefty/liberals are supporting the globalist corporations when they act like fascists. I thank you with all my heart, you can continue to suck the globalist, corporate, open border federalist cock for all it is worth. Be sure to look down on the 'racist', 'sexist' scumbag working class from your ivory tower as we recruit them for the day of the rope and your free 'one way' helicopter rides.

I hope he hires a firm of lawyers with reputations like rabid sharks. I'll be interested in the size of his settlement - he should be able to buy his own private hospital...

You were saying?

[DaveDodo007]

Lol, what a timeline to live in. The sad, pathetic lefty/liberals are supporting the globalist corporations when they act like fascists. I thank you with all my heart, you can continue to suck the globalist, corporate, open border federalist cock for all it is worth. Be sure to look down on the 'racist', 'sexist' scumbag working class from your ivory tower as we recruit them for the day of the rope and your free 'one way' helicopter rides.

I hope he hires a firm of lawyers with reputations like rabid sharks. I'll be interested in the size of his settlement - he should be able to buy his own private hospital...

You were saying?

You are just one of those ebil centralist who we have to tolerate unfortunately.

[pErvinalia]

Technically the passenger who refused a request from the pilot to leave the plane is the one who broke the law.

Can you quote that law?

[pErvinalia]

Technically the passenger who refused a request from the pilot to leave the plane is the one who broke the law.

Realistically, that's not going to matter a jot.

Which law?

It's aviation law pretty much everywhere.

Really? You act live you've read it. If you have, then post the law that applies.

The pilot is in charge of his aircraft. As the Independent's excellent travel expert Simon Calder points out.

http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/new ... 77601.html

Is it legal for the airline to treat a fare-paying passenger like this?

Yes. The captain is in charge of the aircraft. And if he or she decides that someone needs to be offloaded, that command has to be obeyed. From the moment that the unfortunate individual in this case said, “I’m staying put”, he became a disruptive passenger. He was disobeying the captain’s command.

LOL, that's a circular argument if ever I've heard one. He could only be a disruptive passenger if he was disobeying a legal command. He wasn't being disruptive when the command was issued.

And here's another expert opinion.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 78716.html

Andrew Harakas, partner and aviation expert at Clyde & Co law firm, told The Independent that Mr Dao was effectively obliged to disembark under federal law if asked to do so by staff.

“Once you’re a passenger on board an aircraft you can’t interfere with the crew performing their duties or the aircraft being operated, that’s the basic rule,” he said.

That's another circular argument. Their duties don't involve arbitrarily removing people from the plane, unless that person is a disruption.

“He was denied boarding,

No he wasn't. This guy can be dismissed from this alone. In that last sentence he argued from the perspective of the guy being boarded already, and then he claims he wasn't boarded. He appears to be simply engaged in apologetics.

[JimC]

Andrew Harakas, partner and aviation expert at Clyde & Co law firm, told The Independent that Mr Dao was effectively obliged to disembark under federal law if asked to do so by staff.

“Once you’re a passenger on board an aircraft you can’t interfere with the crew performing their duties or the aircraft being operated, that’s the basic rule,” he said.

“He was denied boarding, he should have got off the plane but he didn’t and the authorities were called. From a legal perspective, he was violating the law if he interfered with the crew members’ duties or the ability for the plane to be operated."

Incorrect, based on what 42 said earlier. He was allowed to board...

If, in the boarding lounge, he was told sorry, but we're overbooked, we can't let you on, and then he attempted to board anyway, some form of restraint might be appropriate. Not in this case...

[JimC]

pErvin wrote:

...I'm with 42 on this...

[pErvinalia]

See my edits...

Although, I'm still with 42 on this.

[Hermit]

Technically the passenger who refused a request from the pilot to leave the plane is the one who broke the law.

Realistically, that's not going to matter a jot.

Which law?

It's aviation law pretty much everywhere. The pilot is in charge of his aircraft. As the Independent's excellent travel expert Simon Calder points out.

http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/new ... 77601.html

Is it legal for the airline to treat a fare-paying passenger like this?

Yes. The captain is in charge of the aircraft. And if he or she decides that someone needs to be offloaded, that command has to be obeyed. From the moment that the unfortunate individual in this case said, “I’m staying put”, he became a disruptive passenger. He was disobeying the captain’s command. Officials were legally entitled to remove him, and they did so using plenty of physical force.

It appears from the evidence that the law was broken – by him, not by the airline. But I would be surprised if United pressed charges.

And here's another expert opinion.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 78716.html

Andrew Harakas, partner and aviation expert at Clyde & Co law firm, told The Independent that Mr Dao was effectively obliged to disembark under federal law if asked to do so by staff.

“Once you’re a passenger on board an aircraft you can’t interfere with the crew performing their duties or the aircraft being operated, that’s the basic rule,” he said.

“He was denied boarding, he should have got off the plane but he didn’t and the authorities were called. From a legal perspective, he was violating the law if he interfered with the crew members’ duties or the ability for the plane to be operated."

You were asked to cite the law. What you cited is "expert opinion". Furthermore, there is a difference between airline rules and law. Those rules can be anything the airlines decide on, but unless they are backed by actual law they are not enforceable in court.

The only avenues United had at its disposal to create four vacant seats for its staff was to induce already boarded passengers by verbal persuasion or material incentives to voluntarily vacate their seats. The use of physical force is not a legal option.

[Brian Peacock]

I think this will rest on what 'boarding' means in the context of air travel on US soil.