Doesn’t really work, as “resisting arrest” is a specific crime in and of itself, whereas “not getting off a plane, when you have every right not to” is not.
Essentially what you’re arguing is that if a steward told me “Slap yourself, or else I will punch you in the face”, and if I refuse to slap myself, then the resulting assault is at least partly my fault.
But there is no law obliging me to slap myself, nor a law saying I must follow all commands, no matter what they are. I’m right to refuse to slap myself.
I don’t know or really care. I don’t think effectiveness at changing corporate policies is really a good measure for the worthiness of a particular action. But I don’t see what he was asked to do as some inherent injustice. I think it’s okay for airlines to be allowed to bump passengers to make room for necessary crew travel, and I think the issue of whether that’s allowed to happen after boarding is a minor technical question, not a great matter of personal justice. Maybe it will turn out that the airline wasn’t allowed to require him to get off the plane for that reason (although I don’t think it necessarily follows that he was allowed to refuse to get off), in which case that should certainly be followed, but if the law were to be changed to allow that in response to the ruling, I wouldn’t really care.
To each their own. Personally, I would have responded the same way he did - or at least, I hop I would have had the courage to do so. Maybe I have an overdeveloped sense of fairness, but I don’t like being screwed over, and I get positively offended when I see people who think they have the right to screw people over.
Also, to me the difference between not allowing someone to sit and forcing someone who’s sitting down to stand up is the difference between night and day. It’s the difference between refusing to give someone something, and taking back something you have already given him. The former is an inconvenience; the latter is an insult.
So earlier you were saying that both parties were in the wrong.
Now you’re saying they are both in the wrong in your opinion, not legally, and anyway you neither know nor care, and it’s a minor technical question anyway? Wow.
I said that I don’t think the airline being wrong necessarily means that the passenger is allowed to refuse to comply. Maybe it will turn out that he was actually allowed to stand his ground and refuse to get off. I kind of doubt it, but I guess it’s possible. (I doubt we’ll ever get final answers, though. The airline would be stupid to take this to trial in open court. They’re going to do everything they can to pay to make this all go away.)
I also don’t think it’s some major injustice for a passenger to be removed in this kind of situation. I think it’s bad customer service to let it wait until after boarding for sure. And maybe it is illegal, in which case airlines shouldn’t do it, but even then I don’t see it as some grave civil rights issue for a passenger to be asked to get off the plane because of a last-minute need for crew to use the seats. (The cops escalating force too quickly is a grave civil rights issue, though, and it happens all over the place.)
It was a really poor decision to attempt to remove this man, who had already boarded and had an operation scheduled for the next day, for the convenience of four crew members who at the last minute needed a spot. I wonder how they feel now? Could they have caught the next flight perhaps instead of a paying customer?
I hadn’t thought of how they feel. I wonder if they were in some United employee’s lounge completely unaware, or at the gate watching the bloodied man being dragged off on their behalf… they could’ve been yelling “Enough! We’ll rent a car!” for all we know.
It’s MUCH more involved than that. The crew was late due to mechanical difficulties on one of their other flights. And there was not a flight leaving ORD in time to get them to crew their next plane. And there where issues DOT regs that may have grounded them because of required rest periods.
A snafu all around that could have been easily and quickly solved by offering more money/bonuses for a passenger to get off the flight.
Why? He had the legal right to be on the plane, and United had no right to remove him - both morally and (as has now come out) under the law and the terms of their contract. What exactly makes it ‘dumb’ for him to exercise his legal right to remain on the plane and refuse to comply with illegal orders made by an airline that didn’t want to offer him market value or reasonable compensation to give up his seat?
Because when the flight crew ordered him off, he had the legal obligation to comply.
Just as if the flight crew had told him to stand up and dance the macarena, he would have a legal obligation to comply.
If they had told him to perform sexual favors on the flight crew or other passengers, he would have had a legal obligation to comply.
If they had told him to commit murder/suicide with his wife on the plane, he would have had the legal obligation to comply.
In all of these situations, they have exactly the same right to give those orders, i.e., absolutely none, but, even in the face of blatantly illegal orders, the law says that he has to comply.
So, it’s dumb to stand up for your rights. It’s dumb to question authority.
The smart thing to do is to not think, not care about your rights, and just follow the rules and the instructions of the authorities. People are usually pretty good at that, the milgram experiment showed us that.
This guy has some defect that makes it hard for him to fit in in an authoritarian regime. Sad!
What I’m wondering is why didn’t they increase the amount they were offering for voluntarily giving up the seat? Did they only offer as much as the airline allowed? Why did they insist that Dr Dao give up his seat rather than moving onto someone else?
In short, were corporate policies flexible enough to allow them to come up with a reasonable resolution, or were they tied by the rules?
I’m pretty sure that the law requiring passengers to cooperate with crew member instructions has to do with safety during flight. Does it apply during the boarding process?
Unclear, but I think that everyone is operating under the assumption that the rules start as soon as you board the plane.
If it were the case that they only have authority while the plane is in the air, then he had even less reason to give up his seat, as their illegal orders would also have nor force of authority behind them, but I am not sure that that’s the case here.
My point was only that legal obligation != moral obligation.
Why should the passenger bear the burden of suing the airline for a flight he didn’t get to take? Why shouldn’t the airline bear the burden of suing the passenger for remaining on a flight that he has a paid ticket for but the airline doesn’t want to honor? There are all sorts of legal and economic principles that would lead us to placing the burden of lawsuit on the airline and not the passenger, I can think of none that would lead us to placing the burden on the passenger.
Why is the airline allowed to cap their liability for bumping a passenger? Why is it that the auction mechanism works in almost every other aspect of the economy but not in handling this situation? If United is not willing to pay more than $1350 and the passengers are not willing to take $1350, then it is clear that the flight is worth more to the passengers than to United so why aren’t we giving the seat to the people who place the highest value on those seats? Airlines reap the benefits of overbooking, why shouldn’t they bear the costs of overbooking? Placing this arbitrary cap on payouts to passengers artificially induces airlines to overbook more than they ought to.
Why do we give airlines the ability to call in cops to settle a civil dispute without adjudication? I have to get a court order to repossess a car, I have to get a court order to evict you but a cop will come onto a plane and bash my face in just because flight crew says so.
We ought to be really clear. The cops were assholes in this situation but there is NOTHING the cops can do in this situation that the flight crew could not do except use force or credible threat of force. So when the flight crew called the cops, they were calling the cops to forcibly remove the passenger and they own that.
Obviously, I was not there. But my understanding is that the cabin crew indicated it was a matter for the police, and all evidence suggests that it was not.