They called the police to remove a trespasser who refused to leave of his own accord.
WHY is that so difficult for you people to understand?
No. Assuming he’s not actually threatening, the police are only able to use the force necessary to remove him. Depending on the situation, it’s entirely possible that they exceeded that (though, again, that’s not the airline’s fault). They wouldn’t have been justified in shooting him in any case (unless he started attacking them), because shooting him wouldn’t have removed him from the plane. This isn’t difficult.
They called on the law enforcement people to remove him. So far as I’m concerned, it’s perfectly legitimate to hold them responsible. For all practical purposes, they caused it to happen.
They should bear that burden. Once they saw how violent it was getting, they should have called a halt and asked the cops to leave.
If they don’t want to be held responsible for what happens, they just should not try to remove a passenger under those circumstances. And I’m saying that regardless of what they might have viewed as their “every right to do so.”
And the same goes for law enforcement. They should not be allowed to use that level of force in those circumstances.
Both the law enforcement personnel and the airline should bear the burden.
Yeah ShadowFacts. The correct way to debate is to just attempt to ask a string of sophomoric “gotcha” questions with the occasional one line snark response thrown n just for variety.
To start with the flight wasn’t overbooked. It was full. The need for crew space occurred after the tickets were sold. Normally the situation would be handled prior to boarding but in this case boarding had already occurred. None of the passengers agreed to the maximum exchange offered for their seat so the alternative is to randomly choose a passenger.
The passenger in question was certainly given the opportunity to leave peacefully along with the pro-offered compensation. His refusal to do so was his choice.
As a doctor his medical license should be called into question because of his inability to handle a simple situation.
It doesn’t matter why. It’s their plane; if they want you off it, you have to go. If you were kicked off for reasons related to membership in a protected class (which absolutely no one is claiming was the case here) then you’d have grounds for alegal claim against the airline after the fact, but even then the law doesn’t recognize self-help as a valid remedy–you still have to get off the plane and pursue damages in court after the fact.
They don’t have to, because it doesn’t matter. It’s their plane; assuming it’s not for membership in a protected class, they can remove anyone they want for essentially any reason they damn well please.
So - as a lawyer - you say that if someone is trespassing on my property, I call the cops and the cops beat him up, then I am responsible for the beating? Really?
Can you cite some kind of precedent-setting case maybe?
I disagree with all of this. Once a passenger has boarded legitimately, an airline should not be able to use force just because they decide they want his seat for someone else. Period. If no one takes the offer of money, the airline has to suck it up.
Now, you say, what about the domino effect of not getting the flight crew to their assignment on time? That should be something an airline plans for. Shit happens. They should make sure that there are alternative personnel available nearby in such a situation. Or they should make arrangements to borrow crew from another airline. That’s their responsibility to plan for.
If you’re in my house and I want you out, and I call the cops to remove you, but the cops go way overboard, I’m responsible? That’s a bunch of utter nonsense.
He caused it to happen by trespassing. Because, once he was told that he was no longer allowed on the plane, that’s what he was, and he should have gotten off right away.
Not getting off right away doesn’t justify the cops doing whatever the hell they feel like, of course, but let’s not pretend that the airline is at fault for someone’s decision to trespass on their plane.
If this your standard then legal rights become meaningless, because no one will ever exercise them for fear that the state actors charged with their enforcement might go overboard. It’s an incredibly stupid standard.
If a company wants to treat it’s paying customers that way (eg as a trespasser because they over booked), well the company might legally be in the right, but I’m never ever going to choose to use that company. United has consistently been the worse airline I have ever flown in the world in terms of quality of service, rudeness of staff and overall treatment. And yes I’m comparing that to Aeroflot and Garuda Indonesia, both of which I’d rate higher than United in service.
Also, this overbooking problem seems to be unique to the US. In my many many travels world wide I have never heard announcements asking people to give up their seats anywhere except in the US. If Asian budget airlines like Air Asia or JetStar can manage without this problem why is it so hard for US airlines?
Has the man been identified, other than reports saying he is a doctor? Has it been reported whether he is a citizen or an immigrant? You seem to be making an unfounded assumption. I concede the man was roughly handled and undoubtedly in fear of his safety, but can you cite whether his immigration status, if any, was a factor?
Your house is not a business open to the public. It is not a common carrier. No one has paid to be there. This is a ridiculous analogy. If you were running a hotel, I would take a bet that there are laws saying that you can’t forcibly remove someone from his or her room just because they wanted to give it to someone else.
You say it’s trespassing only because you choose to define it as trespassing. There’s nothing in this situation compelling that conclusion.
It’s their fault for calling the cops to remove him by force. I don’t accept that as a legitimate definition of trespassing—and if airline regulation does call it trespassing, I say that regulation should be rescinded.
Unless someone is causing some kind of legitimate danger or disruption—not just refusing to give up his seat just because you suddenly want it for someone else—then, hell, yeah, they should be required to think twice or three times before calling in cops to force him to move. Yes, I want to discourage airlines from calling the cops without a legitimate safety reason.
Going forward, I now feel like an airplane ticket is something like a 50/50 proposition. “We might fly you there … or we might not. Who can say?” I guess I’m fortunate never having to fly anywhere.
Can you give me some kind of precedent case that would support your contention that as an owner of a business I am responsible for cops’ behavior when I call the cops to remove a customer?
No, and it isn’t my burden to do so. I have not researched the law, and I don’t take at face value any of the assertions about the law in this thread. My position is that in this situation I consider it the airline’s responsibility and that I want the law to be such that the airline to be held responsible.
Well my anecdotal experience is this: I’ve lived in Europe, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and Thailand, and travelled widely both domestically and internationally in all those places. in 20 years I have never once heard a gate announcement asking people to give up seats anywhere except in the US. Not saying it doesn’t happen but it must be incredibly rare. In comparison every single time I travel to the US I constantly hear gate announcements asking people to give up seats.
NONE. Delta would be using computer models to book flights for maximum efficiency just as their competitors do. This is how airlines are able to offer fares so cheaply. Your premise is emotional waffle.
The requirement for law enforcement was based on the passenger’s actions and not the airlines.
A guy got bloodied by the cops. That should not happen in this situation. Period. No matter what the airline wants. If that’s “emotional waffle,” then so be it.
In Japan, once the ticket is issued, that seat is yours. No one else gets your seat. Of course, if you can’t make the flight, then you pay for another one.
And some companies act like goons.
The airlines makes money by allowing the overbooking situation to continue. Use some of that money to solve the problem rather than hire some legal thugs to protect their profit.
They could have solved in a number of different methods, including offering actual money instead of vouchers, offering more money or finding alternative methods. They used the one way which resulted in a guy getting beated up.
I wonder if there are insurance concerns. What if he Uber car gets in an accident and the passengers are injured? Note: I’m not saying I know this to be a problem, I’m just wondering if it’s more complicated than “they should’ve hired an Uber car to take them to KY”.
And… sometimes a solution looks simple if you assume it’s a one-shot deal. But this happens many times per day, so maybe it doesn’t make financial sense to offer anything other than vouchers.
I was assuming he is a citizen until there is further information, but we know he doesn’t fit any of the various silly definitions of “white” and that he had an accent. His fear seems very real and with current events seems quite rational that he was especially worried about being removed from the airplane and detained.
I live in a neighborhood surrounded by citizens that remind me of him, but the fact that it is even a question proves my point.
The fact that that United Airlines is not sensitive to this very real problem, in airports shows how little regard they have to their customers in general.
Has the man been identified, other than reports saying he is a doctor? Has it been reported whether he is a citizen or an immigrant? You seem to be making an unfounded assumption. I concede the man was roughly handled and undoubtedly in fear of his safety, but can you cite whether his immigration status, if any, was a factor?