And there is a law that says this? Which law specifically says this?
I know we’ve been over this a few times in this thread, but you may not be able to see those poster’s comments, so I will point out that he was not denied boarding. He not only had a ticket and a boarding pass, but was in his seat when they decided to remove him.
If you see my post above this one, you will see my argument for why this was not a legal action on united’s part.
He could have chosen to abrogate his own rights, and accept the breach of contract on United’s part and follow the non-lawful instructions of the flight crew, and that would have been convenient for the airline, but he also had another recourse, stay in his seat, which is what he did.
Airport security was called in to the situation because the flight crew is not allowed to use force to ensure compliance with their orders, but then, the airport security is not allowed to use force to resolve commercial disputes between the airline and the passengers. So the airline was in the wrong in asking for force to be used on their behalf to enforce an illegal order, and the police were in the wrong for agreeing to use force to resolve a commercial dispute between the airline and a passenger.
The problem came up due to unexpected circumstances, for the most part. I do nt fault the airline for needing to alter it’s plans and get a crew moved. Paying volunteers to disembark from the plane is a perfectly acceptable action.
Once the airline went to involuntary bumping, they were in the wrong, and all the actions they took after that put them further into the wrong.
The Doctor was a victim in this situation, and the only thing he did wrong was not being able to explain his rights, and how the airline was violating them, better.
[some in this thread]
Meh, he’s defended airline passengers in cases against airlines in the past. Everything he has to say can therefore be summarily ignored as slant and exaggeration.
[/some in this thread]
Regulations as spelled out in the CoC. read mhendo’s post, as it goes into it better than I can, and I don’t have time to rehash what has already been gone over in this thread.
Yes, I see that it is the CoC. But you said the action was ILLEGAL. Which means breaking an actual US law.
So, which law was broken again?
I disagree. First you start with property law principles. Ultra Vires, get the hell out of my house, my car, my airplane, my office. Those are the basic rights of property ownership that I must respect. If you made a mistake and I otherwise had a contractual right or statutory right to be in one of those places, I can sue you later.
But I think that the “on the spot” default remedy is that a property owner can control his or her own property. Along with Bricker, I am unsure, and am prepared to be corrected, but I don’t think I am wrong on this.
Their orders were illegal, in that they did not have a legal right to make them, and that their orders were violating the rights of a passenger.
Like I said, IANAL, so if you want to substitute non-legal for illegal, be my guest.
Point is, they were in the wrong on every step.
But, if you want to get into it, they were engaging in coercion and extortion to try to get him to comply with orders they did not have a right to give. If I threaten to call the police, and lie to them about why they should use force on you to get you to cooperate, I would consider that to be extortion, which is in fact illegal. Not so much so that I feel the flight crew should be charged with extortion, but more than enough that I feel that their orders were not just beyond their rights to give, but also violating the rights of others in a fashion that is generally frowned upon by the law in nearly any other circumstance.
Won’t someone think of the poor put-upon airlines, who only want to have their cake and eat it too, by overselling seats on their flights and not having to compensate passengers fully for that inconvenience? What about their right to have to both ways?
I mean, in the parlance of the Internet, it’s time for some game theory. In the unlikely event that passengers, newly emboldened by their bargaining power, start to hold out for $2000, nay, $3000, nay $7500! in order to be voluntarily deboarded from their oversold flights, what is it that you think airlines might do? Will they continue on overselling flights and eating this cost because they have no other choice, or will they, perhaps, stop selling more seats for the plane than they have? This is not a universal practice among airlines. It’s strange that people can’t see another way out of this mess.
Incidentally, I’m curious what year this $1350 max mandatory offer was put into law - if it was just a couple of years ago, then inflationary effects won’t have eaten much into its negotiating power, but if it’s 10 or so and hasn’t been adjusted since then, then maybe Delta’s bump to $2000 is simply overdue.
I’m fairly certain that the air crew has the legal right to order someone off of their airplane.
And I wasn’t aware of a person’s right to stay on an airplane when the aircrew is telling them to get off.
No, the point is, you went beyond saying they were wrong. You are saying their actions are illegal, yet somehow fail to show HOW they were illegal.
Yes they do, under certain circumstances, of which, these were not.
You are correct in that you will often be advised to follow the instructions of police and other authority figures, even if they do not have the right to give you those orders. It certainly is more convenient, and can save you some broken teeth and neurological damage too. Can save you legal trouble even, as refusing a non-lawful order can still get you into legal trouble.
So, as far as the law goes, he had the legal obligation to follow the orders of the crew, even thought hey had no legal right to give them.
As far as the ethics goes, he had the right to stand up for his rights. Civil disobedience and all that.
They lied to him and attempted to extort him into complying with instructions that they had no right to give.
Threatening someone with force or violence if they do not comply with instructions that you do not have authority to give is not a legal act. They were in fact breaking the law when they were ordering him off the plane under threat of persecution or force.
The right-wrong axis here, from a mountain-top view, does not neatly line up with the legal-illegal axis. The legality of any given action is but a single piece of the puzzle. There is no one legal principle – or law, or regulation, or line in a contract – that carries the day here.
But it should. As I think about it, at the end of the day, should I not be able to tell someone to get the hell out of my home, my car, my business, or my airplane? If it turns out that I did that wrongfully, then you can sue me, but on the spot, shouldn’t a property owner be able to eject someone?
To me, it’s a case-by-case thing. There are commonalities between private homes, businesses, vehicles, etc. … and there are salient differences. Hard to figure that a one-size-fits-all rule would be applicable in all conceivable situations. Others’ MMV.
They have that right in an emergency, and after the emergency they can be required to justify their actions. If their actions are not justified they can be subjected to penalties.
The airlines can refuse to board a passenger on an overbooked flight - but this flight was not overbooked.
I wasn’t aware of an airline’s right to have a person beaten up if they don’t want them on an airplane.
Beating up an unarmed man who is offering no more resistance than words is called assault. It’s illegal.
But isn’t the right to exclude the sine qua non of property ownership? IOW, what does it mean to you that you own your home or your vehicle? It means that you can use it how you want and can tell me to get the hell out if you don’t want me there. The right to exclude others is almost synonymous with property ownership.
Now, if I have breached a contract, or used my property in a way that violates the law, I am responsible for damages. But we don’t know that as the situation unfolds. In that short term situation, doesn’t “get the hell out” rights trump a contractual or statutory privilege?
But property is a bundle of sticks. You can by contract temporarily alienate some of your rights, such as the right of occupation and the right to exclude.
That’s what a lease is, after all. The owner of the land is temporarily alienating his right to occupy and to exclude others, and transferring it by contract to the lessee.
Commercial activities would be impossible if the owner of the property always has the right to exclude, even if the owner has signed a contract temporarily granting the right of occupation and exclusion to someone else.
No, because running a public accommodation or a common carrier is not analogous to your private home or your personal car. The baseline of your relationship with the public—in terms of refusing entry or service—are the rules of fairness set down by statute and regulation, not your private property rights.
This seems like a baseline difference in our assumptions. I simply don’t accept private property law and trespassing as the baseline assumption for these situations.
If you run a business that invites members of the public to enter to engage in business—and especially if your business is a common carrier or a public accommodation, like an airline, a train, a taxi, a restaurant, a hotel, a telecommunications service, etc.—then I absolutely do not want to start from the principal that you should be allowed to eject whomever you want.
I want to start from the principal that you must treat all members of the public fairly and according to the rules and that you may not eject individuals without some rational basis for doing so.
Once you open your business to the general public—especially if it’s a heavily regulated business—then the place you are doing that business is not treated as if it’s your private property.
Now if your business is not a public accommodation or a common carrier, that’s different—a private membership club, for example, from which members of the general public are absolutely barred from entry without specific permission.
But this is not anywhere near that kind of case. The assumption is that anyone can come on and purchase services, so the baseline must be that all members of the public must be treated fairly.
I can only offer what’s sure to be an unsatisfactory non-answer: maybe, maybe not.
I go right back to what I posted earlier: no one covering rule seems applicable. Reasonable people may agree or disagree with that idea.
Oversimplified. Or ‘should’ as opposed to how the world really works. I own some rental properties and I can tell you with great certainty I’m not able to just kick out tenants if I feel like it, worlds away from it, in my jurisdiction. But as was said MMV. Likewise as has been gone over a bunch of times, the idea that the police if called to a customer dispute in a store would always follow the store owner’s ‘instruction’ to kick the complaining customer out is not realistic either. If the store owner admits it’s because they don’t like to serve people of that particular race? If the customer says, ‘just give me what I paid for’ the cop would never turn to the store owner and say ‘how about that?’ first before proceeding to manhandle the customer?. In most cases local PD’s see the path of political least resistance as siding with businesses against patrons as a practical matter, maybe that confuses some people into believing that’s an absolute axiom. Or again that’s how they want society to work.
The real answer is ‘it depends’. And to again note this isn’t the exact same question as whether the patron should nonetheless follow police orders they believe are illegal. That one isn’t absolute either (as in example given previously, cop tells you to lick his balls, ‘you must comply and take legal action later’, seriously?).
It seems on general weight of evidence UAL’s legal position was far from unassailable, and the Chicago airport cops violated their own dept’s policy against boarding to settle customer service disputes. But again this doesn’t carry through simply to what the customer should do, which itself might differ depending on whether you are super-legalistic (legalism uber alles, a growing strain of American culture well demonstrated in this thread), looking instead more at ethics, or looking more at practically (is it worth getting your head cracked?)
(1)
Several articles I saw earlier today reported on interviews with various lawyers and other such experts with specific expertise in commercial aviation law. There seems to be a consensus that Dr. Dao has a strong case, and that the airline should and probably will settle out of court to make this case go away. They are saying that Dr. Dao can probably name his own price. One said something like (I’m quasi-quoting from memory here): "The airline’s lawyers should should sit him down at a table in a room and say: ‘There’s a signed check on the table with amount left blank. Just take it and fill in whatever you want.’ "
They (the lawyers interviewed) seemed to agree that cases of this sort are almost always settled and rarely go to court, and that this extreme case should be a no-brainer for the airlines to just settle.
(2)
All that said, we still haven’t resolved whether Dr. Dao actually committed a very serious federal felony by refusing to comply with instructions from the crew, regardless of the circumstances of those instructions. (ETA: I’m pretty sure that, technically, he did.)
So, questions:
(a) Could Dr. Dao now be charged, prosecuted, and tried for this?
(b) Should he be so charged?
© Do you think he will be?
Bear in mind that the decision will be made by federal attorneys or prosecutors. It will not be up to the airline, or Oscar Munoz, or the Chicago Airplane Police, or Mayor Emanuel, or op-ed opinion writers, to call this shot. It will be some (possibly bloodthirsty hard-ass, or possibly not) federal prosecutor, who might or might not give a damn about public opinion.