United airlines brutally removes passenger after overbooking flight

[enipla]

@Broomstick

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.<snip>

Thank you.

[Slash1972]

@Broomstick

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.

who cares? It is not illegal to break a contract. If I have a contract with a guy to mow my lawn, if he doesn’t show up, I can’t have the cops arrest him.

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.

Again, who cares? That’s not what I am asking about.

[Slash1972]

@enipla

You’re talking about the claim that the airlines actions being illegal?

OK. So if the CoC is irrelevant

I didn’t say “irrelevant”. I said “illegal” You don’t understand the difference?

[Slash1972]

@Broomstick

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

Please point me to the law that says breaking a contract is illegal.

[UltraVires]

@Corry_El

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.

You guys are starting to convince me that you are right and my initial inclination is wrong. First principles are that a property owner can use reasonable force to eject a trespasser. If I am there under a claim of right such as under statute or contract, then by definition I am not a trespasser and the owner then has no right to use such force. Like all self-help remedies, one uses them at his own peril if it is later determined to be wrong.

In my mind it would be similar to a situation where a black man is eating in a restaurant. The owner comes up to him and says that he doesn’t serve black people in his restaurant and orders him to leave.

The order to leave is illegal. As the owner has opened his private property to anyone who presents themselves ready to eat and pay, he may not order black people to leave. As the owner has no right to eject the black patron, the patron is not trespassing and the owner may not use force to eject him.

Similarly, if the airline did not follow the statutory rules to bump Dr. Dao, then he was on the plane under a legal claim of right to his seat, and the force used was actionable.

That’s why I like this board; you all make me rethink my initial gut reaction.

[Slash1972]

@UltraVires

If I am there under a claim of right such as under statute or contract, then by definition I am not a trespasser and the owner then has no right to use such force

Are you serious? They are just stating their opinion without any cites to back them up. I like the renting a car scenario above. Nobody has provided a cite that states the company cannot force a person to leave the vehicle if they decide they need it for a manager.

[Slash1972]

@UltraVires

In my mind it would be similar to a situation where a black man is eating in a restaurant. The owner comes up to him and says that he doesn’t serve black people in his restaurant and orders him to leave.

The order to leave is illegal

This scenario is not at all comparable to what this thread is talking about. If a person, doesn’t matter what color, creed, nationality, or religion is eating at a restaurant, and the owner comes up and says “Sorry, I need this table for a friend of mine” is THAT order to leave illegal? If you think it is, please cite the law that makes it illegal.

[DrDeth]

@John_Stamos_Left_Ear

I haven’t read this whole thread but based on what I have seen on other online forums, there are undoubtedly people who take the position that what United did (the removal of the customer) if not the way they did it was perfectly legal. Certainly the media narrative has been that the airline has great latitude for bumping passengers on overbooked flights.

Jens David Ohlin, theAssociate Dean for Academic Affairs and Professor of Law at Cornell Law School, makes a different case on the Dorf on Law Blog:

But, but he was trespassing!!! :rolleyes:

Some folks here just cant get over the fact that Federal regs overule local trespassing laws, and airlines must follow federal regs.

[Slash1972]

@DrDeth

But, but he was trespassing!!! :rolleyes:

Some folks here just cant get over the fact that Federal regs overule local trespassing laws, and airlines must follow federal regs.

Some folks here just can’t get over the fact that simply saying stuff doesn’t make it true. Please cite the laws that say the air crew didn’t have the right to order him off the plane.

[enipla]

@Slash1972

I didn’t say “irrelevant”. I said “illegal” You don’t understand the difference?

To quote you again -

@Slash1972

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.

[DrDeth]

@Czarcasm

He did not comply with the Captain’s instructions, and he did not comply with the instructions of a duly authorized representative of the law.

and such instructions were after the airline violated federal law, it appears no less than 4 times.

[DrDeth]

@Slash1972

I keep seeing this, and I didn’t see the answer in this thread (might not have looked well enough) but what law was being broken by the flight crews’ instructions? I mean, if the instructions were illegal, they must be breaking some law, right? Which law exactly?

1. They were not actually "overbooked
2. They did not read Dr his rights.
3. They did not offer cash only vouchers
4. They "deplaned’ him rather than “denied boarding”
   Originally Posted by John_Stamos’_Left_Ear
   I haven’t read this whole thread but based on what I have seen on other online forums, there are undoubtedly people who take the position that what United did (the removal of the customer) if not the way they did it was perfectly legal. Certainly the media narrative has been that the airline has great latitude for bumping passengers on overbooked flights.

Jens David Ohlin, the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Professor of Law at Cornell Law School, makes a different case on the Dorf on Law Blog:United Airlines' Own Contract Denied it any Right to Remove Passenger

[Slash1972]

@DrDeth

and such instructions were after the airline violated federal law, it appears no less than 4 times.

And you can cite the law that they violated by telling the passenger to get off the plane?

[DrDeth]

@Clothahump

I’m going to chime in on this.

When I first read this story, my initial reaction was “Those bastards - I’m never flying United again!” But then details started coming out that completely changed my point of view.

1. United was flying a crew to Louisville to staff a scheduled flight. They were required by FAA to do this; they are not allowed to cancel flights on a whim. So it was a given that some folks were going to lose their seats.

2. Having a ticket and a boarding pass is no guarantee that you will be be on the plane when it takes off. This is true of every airline. It’s in the fine print on the ticket and clearly stated in their Contract of Carriage. Here is United’s.

3. Once the passenger in question was selected, that was it. His ONLY recourse was to follow the lawful instructions of the flight crew. When he failed to do so, the flight crew quite correctly involved the police and then got out of the picture. United did not remove him from the plane - law enforcement did.

Bottom line - we can all toss the outrage back in the closet. The only person responsible was Dr. Dao. He chose to act like a jerk and he paid a price for doing so.

1. That is not the Doctors problem. They had other ways of getting the crew there, including offering higher inducements.

2. Yes, which they violated. . a.They were not actually "overbooked
   b They did not read Dr his rights.
   c They did not offer cash only vouchers
   d. They "deplaned’ him rather than “denied boarding”

3. Nope. Once he was in his seat-* that *was it. United was SOL unless he volunteered. United flies under DOT regulations, Federal law. They did not follow said law.

[enipla]

@Slash1972

Some folks here just can’t get over the fact that simply saying stuff doesn’t make it true. Please cite the laws that say the air crew didn’t have the right to order him off the plane.

No shit. Please site the laws that they did.

CoC has been cited again and again through this thread about what air crews can and can’t do. The CEO of UAL believes they did the wrong thing. As well as the Chicago Airport Police Authority. And the DOT is looking into it. How many sites do you need?

[Slash1972]

@DrDeth

1. They were not actually "overbooked
2. They did not read Dr his rights.
3. They did not offer cash only vouchers
4. They "deplaned’ him rather than “denied boarding”
   Originally Posted by John_Stamos’_Left_Ear
   I haven’t read this whole thread but based on what I have seen on other online forums, there are undoubtedly people who take the position that what United did (the removal of the customer) if not the way they did it was perfectly legal. Certainly the media narrative has been that the airline has great latitude for bumping passengers on overbooked flights.

Jens David Ohlin, the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Professor of Law at Cornell Law School, makes a different case on the Dorf on Law Blog:United Airlines' Own Contract Denied it any Right to Remove Passenger

That’s a nice cite you have there, that almost exclusively relies on violating the CoC. Not surprisingly, at least to me, not a lot of US law is mentioned. Please cite the US law that was violated for each of your 4 points.

[DrDeth]

@Slash1972

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?

DOT regulations on overbooking.

[Slash1972]

@enipla

No shit. Please site the laws that they did.

CoC has been cited again and again through this thread about what air crews can and can’t do. The CEO of UAL believes they did the wrong thing. As well as the Chicago Airport Police Authority. And the DOT is looking into it. How many sites do you need?

That’s weird. I didn’t know that laws dictated things we are allowed to do. I thought they just defined things we weren’t allowed to do. The CoC is not US law and breaking it is not “illegal”

[Slash1972]

@DrDeth

DOT regulations on overbooking.

Sorry, but can you be more specific?

[DrDeth]

@UltraVires

But isn’t the right to exclude the sine qua non of property ownership?

Not when there are Federal regulations that cover that issue. They spell out when you can and can not deny boarding and what you must do when you do deny boarding. That’s the Law.