There ought to be a law against forcibly removing a paid passenger from their seat unless they did something wrong other than refuse to be removed from their seat
AFAICT United offered $800 and then stopped because the law allows them to forcibly remove passengers for less than that. Delta OTOH paid out over $11,000 to a family to voluntarily surrender their seats.
If the law is on their side in this matter, then I would suggest that the laws and regulations are being written by a captive regulators who are trying to get a job in the industry after they retire or from politicians whoa re looking for campaign donations.
I’m sorry, but we are going to need to remove you from this thread. You’ll be offered a voucher to start 4 other threads in the other forums of this MB.
The law is the law. United has every right to remove passengers. The passenger also disobeyed a police order so they had little choice but to forcibly remove him. It wasn’t pretty but I can’t of a whole lot of better options.
I’m no defender of the airlines and I agree new laws need to be made but the fact is the gentleman was offered compensation and everyone would have been a little better off if he had just taken it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Since this is the pit, I’ll actually post what I wanted to say in the other thread.
The law is the law is the way of fascism/authoritarianism. It would mean that even evil regimes are justified because they have laws saying they can do what they do. It’s fucking stupid.
The law allows persecution of homosexuality in Russia. Does that make it okay? Hell no.
There are arguments about when it’s best to fight the law. But this mindset that “following the law” is itself the right thing is ridiculous, and it’s weird that so many supposed “liberals” are pushing such an authoritarian ideal.
The guy stood up against a bad law. In doing so, he can expect at most to be taken away. Not to be knocked unconscious to the point he was throwing up blood.
i agree w everything you said, right up until the part i underlined. the guy was clearly not standing up against a bad law. he was either being selfish, elitist, or fearful depending on how you look at it. fortunately for him, there was also bad business policies and law enforcement tactics involved to take some of the heat off of him.
How is this supposed to work? The airline was obviously of the belief, correctly or incorrectly, that the passenger wasn’t entitled to be on the plane. The police have no reasonable way to evaluate whether that belief is true.
That’s why I said it’s a bad law. Airline consumers deserve greater protection.
Besides, there’s such a thing as basic human decency. If an organization screws up so badly that it can’t fix its own mess without using force on a person who’s just sitting there minding his own business, then maybe it should rethink how it does things.
If he wasn’t entitled to be there, then why did they allow him on in the first place? You can’t jusyt change your mind on a dime. The airline had an obligation toward its passengers; it can’t just suddenly decide that the obligation doesn’t exist if it happens to inconvenience it. That’s not how obligation works.
Sure, and if some couple is enjoying a romantic meal in my restaurant I can offer them a dollar to GTFO now. Everyone will be better off if they take the dollar and don’t make a scene.
I don’t want to make my goons have to throw them through the window.
The contract doesn’t even matter at that stage. The police aren’t there to pick through the intricacies of contract law and research how federal courts have interpreted the word “boarding.”