4 ms·

No. It's a federal crime to disobey instructions of the flight or the captain. If they ask you to leave the aircraft you're required to leave. If you refuse and

No. It's a federal crime to disobey instructions of the flight or the captain. If they ask you to leave the aircraft you're required to leave. If you refuse and need to be physically removed, tough. Not that I'm saying this makes United's behavior acceptable - I have no idea how they managed to load the plane before realizing they needed extra seats - just that the law is, in this case, on their side.

kordless 9y ago
I'm not trying to rationalize anyone's actions here, but if the captain told you to kill another passenger, that is not within his right of removal of choice for individual. i.e. The captain is only allowed to remove choice for an individual when the group is threatened, given they are in charge, by law, of making choices for group (perhaps for the reason of or related to in-flight matters). Edit: changed he to they.
- phil21 9y ago
  That's actually not true (afaik). Certainly the command to kill another passenger is unlawful, and you won't carry it out. But also just as certainly he can tell you to leave the aircraft for refusing. There literally is absolutely no legal right for you to stay on that vessel after the captain requests you leave. Plenty of incidents support this on a practical level - captains remove people rarely but not unheard of for silly and discriminatory reasons. They likely get disciplined after the fact by the company, but in the moment you have zero recourse as a passenger who was asked to leave. Your options are to grab your bag and walk off, or be removed and possibly go to jail. Either way you are pleading your case on the ground.
  - kordless 9y ago
    > That's actually not true What exactly did I say that wasn't true? If a captain removes people for discrimination, then they are removing choice from individual based on making choice for group. People don't want to hear a racist's rationalizations, so as a group decision it might be a good one, especially given it is related to in-flight matters (or the prediction it will be related to in-flight matters). Again, I state that the captain is only allowed (legally) to remove choice for individual when the group (all people in plane) are denied things related to in-flight matters. Laws are typically rational. I will note my response was directed to the claim that if they ask you to do something, you must do so. I'm stating that I do not believe, in all cases, the captain has the rational right, by law, to remove choice from an individual if they are not threatening choice for group. That's not to say the captain can't and won't do a removal, but it is irrational to remove choice from individual if they are not threatening group. That also implies it might not pass the muster of law, and a passenger would not be "guilty" of breaking a law by resisting removal. And besides, four people had to go, so the choice to remove that one individual's right to choice was removed by randomness or judgement, both of which are irrational actions.
    - phil21 9y ago
      I think at this point we'd need a lawyer to actually tell us the law here. I agree with you in that there should be a rational reason to remove someone. I simply disagree that there must be legally speaking. The captain (afaik) can remove you for wearing blue shoes, and you must leave. He will face zero legal consequences for that action, but of course is subject to company discipline. In the absurd case the captain somehow owns the airline itself, I think there would be zero recourse available to an arbitrarily removed passenger other than IDB compensation and a refund of the ticket. I also think the level of force in this case can certainly be argued - but I don't think the United crew will face any legal liability even if the officers do. Had they used a bit more discretion I'm quite certain this guy would have no case whatsoever even if physically removed against his will. Knocking him out of course is excessive, and I believe that is a separate argument. I didn't intend to call you wrong, that wasn't the greatest choice of words. I'm simply stating this has been my understanding of the legal implications for some time now, as explained to me by casual conversation with various lawyers over the years since it's a curious subject for me.
- defen 9y ago
  The captain has extremely broad latitude over who is allowed to be on the flight. He doesn't need to give a reason for kicking someone off.
  - kordless 9y ago
    I said absolutely nothing about removing anyone from a flight in my first comment.
ErikAugust 9y ago
Was the person doing the assaulting federal law enforcement? Was he arrested? I don't think either of these are true. So, I don't think this is how any of this actually works.
- dboreham 9y ago
  It turns out that airline crew have infinite powers on their own planes (well...nearly). They can actually thrown someone off a plane on a whim. Source: I saw this happen last year.
  - ErikAugust 9y ago
    Right, you can "throw" people off a plane. But if you do so in a manner that is totally illegal, you have still broken a law in doing so. That would be my point.
    - em3rgent0rdr 9y ago
      But the point is the pilots have legal authority to throw people off the plane. Therefore it is tautologically legal.
    - dboreham 9y ago
      If they were not allowed to use force then they would in fact only have the right to "request" people leave the plane. Throwing off implies at least the option to use force.
cmurf 9y ago
Are you referring to something other than FAR 91.3(a)? Because that pertains to the pilot in command being the final authority over aircraft operations. Removing a docile passenger who is merely violating the contract of carriage is not what that regulation has in mind. This sounds to be like strictly a contract of carriage violation by the passenger, it is a civil matter, not criminal. I think the airline can't physically coerce the passenger individually once they're in the plane. They can remove his luggage and just wait until that passenger, or some other passenger, complies. But physically removing someone not engaged in criminal activity itself becomes assault.

kordless 9y ago

I'm not trying to rationalize anyone's actions here, but if the captain told you to kill another passenger, that is not within his right of removal of choice for individual. i.e. The captain is only allowed to remove choice for an individual when the group is threatened, given they are in charge, by law, of making choices for group (perhaps for the reason of or related to in-flight matters). Edit: changed he to they.

phil21 9y ago
That's actually not true (afaik). Certainly the command to kill another passenger is unlawful, and you won't carry it out. But also just as certainly he can tell you to leave the aircraft for refusing. There literally is absolutely no legal right for you to stay on that vessel after the captain requests you leave. Plenty of incidents support this on a practical level - captains remove people rarely but not unheard of for silly and discriminatory reasons. They likely get disciplined after the fact by the company, but in the moment you have zero recourse as a passenger who was asked to leave. Your options are to grab your bag and walk off, or be removed and possibly go to jail. Either way you are pleading your case on the ground.
- kordless 9y ago
  > That's actually not true What exactly did I say that wasn't true? If a captain removes people for discrimination, then they are removing choice from individual based on making choice for group. People don't want to hear a racist's rationalizations, so as a group decision it might be a good one, especially given it is related to in-flight matters (or the prediction it will be related to in-flight matters). Again, I state that the captain is only allowed (legally) to remove choice for individual when the group (all people in plane) are denied things related to in-flight matters. Laws are typically rational. I will note my response was directed to the claim that if they ask you to do something, you must do so. I'm stating that I do not believe, in all cases, the captain has the rational right, by law, to remove choice from an individual if they are not threatening choice for group. That's not to say the captain can't and won't do a removal, but it is irrational to remove choice from individual if they are not threatening group. That also implies it might not pass the muster of law, and a passenger would not be "guilty" of breaking a law by resisting removal. And besides, four people had to go, so the choice to remove that one individual's right to choice was removed by randomness or judgement, both of which are irrational actions.
  - phil21 9y ago
    I think at this point we'd need a lawyer to actually tell us the law here. I agree with you in that there should be a rational reason to remove someone. I simply disagree that there must be legally speaking. The captain (afaik) can remove you for wearing blue shoes, and you must leave. He will face zero legal consequences for that action, but of course is subject to company discipline. In the absurd case the captain somehow owns the airline itself, I think there would be zero recourse available to an arbitrarily removed passenger other than IDB compensation and a refund of the ticket. I also think the level of force in this case can certainly be argued - but I don't think the United crew will face any legal liability even if the officers do. Had they used a bit more discretion I'm quite certain this guy would have no case whatsoever even if physically removed against his will. Knocking him out of course is excessive, and I believe that is a separate argument. I didn't intend to call you wrong, that wasn't the greatest choice of words. I'm simply stating this has been my understanding of the legal implications for some time now, as explained to me by casual conversation with various lawyers over the years since it's a curious subject for me.
defen 9y ago
The captain has extremely broad latitude over who is allowed to be on the flight. He doesn't need to give a reason for kicking someone off.
- kordless 9y ago
  I said absolutely nothing about removing anyone from a flight in my first comment.

ErikAugust 9y ago

Was the person doing the assaulting federal law enforcement? Was he arrested? I don't think either of these are true. So, I don't think this is how any of this actually works.

dboreham 9y ago
It turns out that airline crew have infinite powers on their own planes (well...nearly). They can actually thrown someone off a plane on a whim. Source: I saw this happen last year.
- ErikAugust 9y ago
  Right, you can "throw" people off a plane. But if you do so in a manner that is totally illegal, you have still broken a law in doing so. That would be my point.
  - em3rgent0rdr 9y ago
    But the point is the pilots have legal authority to throw people off the plane. Therefore it is tautologically legal.
  - dboreham 9y ago
    If they were not allowed to use force then they would in fact only have the right to "request" people leave the plane. Throwing off implies at least the option to use force.

cmurf 9y ago

Are you referring to something other than FAR 91.3(a)? Because that pertains to the pilot in command being the final authority over aircraft operations. Removing a docile passenger who is merely violating the contract of carriage is not what that regulation has in mind. This sounds to be like strictly a contract of carriage violation by the passenger, it is a civil matter, not criminal. I think the airline can't physically coerce the passenger individually once they're in the plane. They can remove his luggage and just wait until that passenger, or some other passenger, complies. But physically removing someone not engaged in criminal activity itself becomes assault.