Who also have their ear to the political ground, no matter how they protest to the contrary. So the answer to 2 (c) is ‘no way’, not in any way which would have any serious impact on Dao (offering a no jail time misdemeanor plea would be at the outer edge of plausibility, though low probability, very likely just nothing).
We already know some members of the forum think 2 (a)/(b) is the only ‘relevant’ question and are willing to argue about it literally forever. I think it’s moot practically speaking.
If you and your tenant have a contract that they are allowed to stay in your home under xyz conditions, they are allowed to stay unless they break such conditions.
Your welcome to kick out a guest or intruder at any time.
The contract/conditions for the UAL CoC are being looked at very closely of course. But it is looking like UAL did not have the right to remove him. They are welcome to ask and offer incentive.
Some things are bound to change because of this incident, that we can count on.
Gate agents and airline crew will be given more authority to offer a higher amount of $ to be deigned boarding, or be removed from the aircraft.
What ‘boarding’ really means will be more clearly defined. Are you boarded when you are in your seat? Or when your boarding pass is acknowledged and approved and you are walking to your seat.
What is really overbooked? Does that include airplane crew that want or need a seat?
And related to #3 above. What is need a seat and must fly. That will be defined more clearly.
What will happen IMHO -
Dr. Dao, will get a generous settlement.
Things will pretty much go on as they have been, with airlines (and TSA) making more and more restrictions on passengers.
Airlines and most well run corporations aren’t oblivious to the bottom line that is tied to customer satisfaction. When airlines crammed more and more people in the plane, people complained. Now, we have stretch seating for a price. And are getting more of it. I’m very happy about that.
Are these penalties and when they can be applied enshrined in some US law? If so, can you point it out?
So what? What US law says the airlines cannot remove a passenger already on the plane? After all, k9bfriender seems to think this is illegal.
Sorry, I’m not asking about that. I’m questioning THIS statement: “He did not comply with the illegal instructions of the flight crew” and what law specifically makes the flight crews’ instructions illegal.
I think I covered this with another poster that refused to answer the question.
You rent a car. You filled out all of the paperwork and paid for it. As you are about to pull out, they say they want the car so the office manager can use it. They promise to TRY to get you a replacement and to make up for it they offer some vouchers that expire in one year, which depending on how much you rent cars may be worthless. So should they be allowed to pull you out of the car or call police to do so?
Why wouldn’t they be? They own the car don’t they? Is it a shitty business practice? Sure. But they still have the right to do it because they own the car.
So you think that there is no law against denial of services you have paid for provide you meet your side of the contract, in this case Rule 21 of United CoC?
And if you assume it was an overbooking situation, United violated 14 CFR 250.2a
“In the event of an oversold flight, every carrier shall ensure that the smallest practicable number of persons holding confirmed reserved space on that flight are denied boarding involuntarily.”
I guess he was the smallest practicable number of persons.
As a general proposition, “tough shit, it’s mine” is not a good assumption to make when you are in the business of serving customers.
Things that are shitty business practices are very often banned by consumer protection laws and other regulations.
If you have rented something from someone legally, you have protections, and one of them very well may be that they can’t just change their minds and yank you out of a car.
I don’t know why you think this would be or even should be the basic assumption for the circumstances. A car you rent out as part of a business open to the public is not analogous to your personal, private car. And it shouldn’t be.
Have you ever rented a house or an apartment? Do you think that the landlord—the person who legally owns the property—is able to throw you out on the street with no notice? No, there are very strict rules regarding how you can evict someone from property that you own, and there are similar rules for all kinds of public accommodations and common carriers.
“It’s mine and so I can kick you out whenever I want” is not a basic principle of how our society works when it comes to regulated commercial activities.
So, let me be clear: Simply property law and the concept of trespassing is not the most important or most basic principle in these circumstances, and furthermore, there’s no good reason for anyone to think that it is or should be.
Yes, it may very well be. But is it? Or are you just guessing?
Is this true for hotels/motels? If you’ve paid for a room and are physically inside it, is it illegal for the hotel to then tell you that you have to leave? What law are they breaking if they ask you to leave?
I disagree. My proof is the “Soup Nazi” episode of Seinfeld.
This gets into the definition of “boarding”. There is an argument that denial of boarding cannot take place after boarding. Where that gets you depends on what “boarding” is – and “boarding” seems to be loosely defined with wiggle room on all sides.
Another tack – regulations about deboarding may not cover situations in which seated passengers are involuntarily deplaned. In a way, it’s a pity that this will never see a courtroom … it would be good to have a precedent.
Still, the Dao incident will prove to be a watershed moment in American commercial aviation. There will doubtlessly be additions and refinements to the CFR to cover these kind of scenarios and similar ones.
This is basically saying that in an emergency a pilot can do whatever is required to achieve a safe resolution to that emergency, including breaking the rules. This has been extended beyond the aviation regulations to things like anti-trespassing laws not applying to a pilot making an emergency landing in a location like private property. Flight crew telling passengers what to do in an emergency is seen as an extension/delegation of the pilot in command’s authority.
This is what says that after the fact the pilot has to be able to justify his/her actions. If they are not justified then if the pilot broke the rules the normal penalties apply.
So, for example, if an “emergency landing” is deemed to NOT have been an emergency a pilot could face trespassing charges for landing on private property.
Or, in the case in this thread - if a passenger poses a danger during a flight and to control said passenger the pilot has to knock him out, and after the fact the pilot’s actions are viewed as justifiable, then there is no penalty to the pilot. IF, however, the pilot’s actions are deemed to NOT be justified then the pilot in such a case could face criminal assault charges.
You’re looking for some sort of prescriptive penalties. That’s not written down the in the regs. Part 91.3 is there to allow pilots to deal with actual emergencies, which may involved unanticipated circumstances, without being penalized for taking necessary action to safeguard lives. That is the justification for subduing unruly passengers in flight and having law enforcement arrest and remove such people.
HOWEVER -
the airplane was NOT “in flight”. Therefore, using the usual justification under the in flight rules would not apply.
the CoC rules/contract only talk of removing a passenger prior to boarding. Mr. Dao was clearly on the airplane and seated so those should not apply.
Dr. Dao was not offering any physical resistance. He refused verbally, but that’s not considered justification for assault.
The force used was clearly disproportionate to any “threat” posed by an unarmed, 69 year old doctor. When cops use excessive force they can be prosecuted for assault, just like any other citizen who uses unjustified physical force. It doesn’t matter if the assault occurred in a bar, or on board an airplane.
The authority of pilots and police is not unlimited and subject to review.
I don’t see the point of this tangent. Cases have already been presented where owners of property face serious legal restrictions kicking out non-owners, such as apartment landlords. That demonstrates the absence of a universal legal principle ‘it’s mine so I can have the police remove you at any time for any reason’. And since nobody has claimed the opposite, that owners can never kick non-owners out, it’s not particularly important to find some cases where they can.
In case of airlines federal regulations do seem to put potential limits on airlines kicking people off planes and in favor of employees and UAL might have acted outside them. And it doesn’t seem (from what I’ve read) there’s a big case history of similar incidents so it’s not necessarily clear to anyone unless we saw the result of UAL going to court insisting they had the right to do this…but they’ve already admitted they were wrong so this whole line of discussion is moot IMO.
This line of discussion is whether their actions were “illegal” as postulated by some posters. Whether they admit they were wrong or not is irrelevant.
If the courts were not willing to enforce contracts there would be no point in having them. There certainly can be legal penalties for breaking a contract.
I’m bringing up assault because an assault clearly occurred. Even if what the flight crew orders were legal the level of force used on Dr. Dao is arguably excessive and would therefore be illegal.
You’re talking about the claim that the airlines actions being illegal?
OK. So if the CoC is irrelevant, and UAL said they where wrong and did not follow the CoC, what’s the point of the CoC then? This would then just be assault by the airport police.
Perhaps this is what UAL is trying to do.
On one hand I really hope this goes to court. On the other, I hope that airlines and DOT looks very closely at the CoC, makes some CLEAR/UNDERSTANDABLE changes and it provides a better understanding between airlines and travelers.