5 ms·

I honestly don't understand the outrage. A person was legally required to do something he didn't want to do, he refused to relent and escalated the situation.

I honestly don't understand the outrage. A person was legally required to do something he didn't want to do, he refused to relent and escalated the situation. The passenger is the only person I see as having done anything wrong here. I don't claim that there aren't better ways to handle the situation, but I also don't see any wrongdoing in how this shook out.

Noseshine 10y ago
> A person was legally required to do something he didn't want to do That is your claim but it does not appear to be true. Read this comment on reddit from a lawyer (unless someone shows that to be wrong I'll assume it to be true): https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/64nluh/united_ceo_doubles_down_in_email_to_employees/dg3xvsy/ https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/64nluh/united_ceo_dou... (EDIT: The comment is actually just a quote of another comment here: https://thepointsguy.com/2017/04/your-rights-on-involuntary-bumps/ https://thepointsguy.com/2017/04/your-rights-on-involuntary-...) According to that guy's reasoning they violated the law and that's all. > and escalated the situation I don't understand the mental gymnastics unfortunately performed numerously by people like you which can be found all over the comments to somehow let United be in the right here. Apparently in your eyes customers have no rights, and anything the corporation demands must be done, period. Especially when I look at how you phrase it: It seems more than obvious that if anyone escalated the situation is was United. The other people on board apparently saw it that way too! Nor did they do what they were required by law to do, to the end the compensation they offered was below what they were legally required to offer. Who escalated, tell me again?
- benji-york 10y ago
  Let's set aside the legality issue for the moment and assume that United was not legally allowed to have the man removed from the flight. What then is the appropriate response of the passenger? Is non-cooperation (i.e., require people to physically remove you from your seat) the right thing to do? Is physically resisting (hitting, pushing, grappling with, etc.) those sent to remove you permissible?
  - IIIIIIIIIIII 10y ago
    You reverse the questions. Why? The man didn't do anything, he just sat there. Those who did do something where those who injured him. Who was bleeding, the police, a United airlines person - or the passenger? But it is interesting that you still try to reframe the problem, anything to twist the issue. Do you work for United? I'm not accusing you, just asking, there certainly are more than enough people who are even more obedient to authority than at any time in the Kaiserreich (19th century Germany) whose only way to read any such story is "how can I possibly read this situation so that the big guys are right". Your idea of law and order seems to be top => down, and one-way only, the top guys command, the bottom guys obey - immediately, no questions (again: the passenger did not do anything, reacting to aggression is not aggression!).
    - benji-york 10y ago
      > You reverse the questions. Why? I didn't intend on reversing a question. The only questions I see in this thread are ones I asked. I initially approached the situation from the perspective of the passenger, his decisions, and what would be right or wrong actions for him to take. Thinking about the same questions for the other actors in this situation — as you suggest — is also a good idea. > Do you work for United? Nope. > Your idea of law and order is top down - and one-way. If you knew me, you might reconsider that evaluation.
      - IIIIIIIIIIII 10y ago
        > I didn't intend on reversing a question. I didn't talk about "intent" but about what you did. > Nope. Ahh, somebody likes selective quoting. Care to read the entire section next time? > If you knew me, you might reconsider that evaluation. I know what you wrote and that's what I responded to. I don't care what you do with the rest of your life, I don't see it so there is nothing to comment. I commented on the visible part.
aluminussoma 10y ago
The legality of the request is in question. I assume you are referring to 49 U.S. Code § 46504 (link: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/46504 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/46504). There are many people who can argue both sides of that law. I personally think he did not violate that law and thus was not legally required to disembark.
danso 10y ago
People can be outraged by legal actions, especially since legal definitions leave a lot undefined in terms of how legal orders are actually carried out. The people who are outraged about this can apparently imagine other ways to alleviate the common situation of overbooking which don't require physically dragging a 69-year-old man unconscious and bleeding from a plane. Anecdotal evidence, obviously, but I've been on many overbooked flights. Have never seen anything arise to this level of authorized violence. YMMV of course.
josho 10y ago
> A person was legally required… The law is not always just. At one point it was illegal for women to vote, for minorities to work for free, for nations to invade others, etc. A man bought a ticket, was seated in his paid for ticket, then instructed that he didn't really purchase that seat and must leave. What makes this legal? Likely some sub-clause in the 4 point typeface on the back of the ticket? Are you ok with being forcibly evicted from your apartment because there is some sub-clause that allows the landlord to evict you if his kin/employee needs a room? That isn't allowed because that happened in our past and our laws correct that misbehaviour. Perhaps our laws need to be revised again?
- true_religion 10y ago
  > Are you ok with being forcibly evicted from your apartment because there is some sub-clause that allows the landlord to evict you if his kin/employee needs a room? Yes. Partly because my parents had that own sub-clause in their tenancy agreement and exercised it to allow me to move back home when I really needed it. It's a common sub-clause permissible in cases where the rental property is part of the primary residence. It was added because getting into a situation where your own family cannot live with you because of an existing lease is.... awkward. People who get married and need a tenant to move out, would instead have to move out of their own houses and rent an apartment.

Noseshine 10y ago

> A person was legally required to do something he didn't want to do That is your claim but it does not appear to be true. Read this comment on reddit from a lawyer (unless someone shows that to be wrong I'll assume it to be true): https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/64nluh/united_ceo_doubles_down_in_email_to_employees/dg3xvsy/ https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/64nluh/united_ceo_dou... (EDIT: The comment is actually just a quote of another comment here: https://thepointsguy.com/2017/04/your-rights-on-involuntary-bumps/ https://thepointsguy.com/2017/04/your-rights-on-involuntary-...) According to that guy's reasoning they violated the law and that's all. > and escalated the situation I don't understand the mental gymnastics unfortunately performed numerously by people like you which can be found all over the comments to somehow let United be in the right here. Apparently in your eyes customers have no rights, and anything the corporation demands must be done, period. Especially when I look at how you phrase it: It seems more than obvious that if anyone escalated the situation is was United. The other people on board apparently saw it that way too! Nor did they do what they were required by law to do, to the end the compensation they offered was below what they were legally required to offer. Who escalated, tell me again?

benji-york 10y ago
Let's set aside the legality issue for the moment and assume that United was not legally allowed to have the man removed from the flight. What then is the appropriate response of the passenger? Is non-cooperation (i.e., require people to physically remove you from your seat) the right thing to do? Is physically resisting (hitting, pushing, grappling with, etc.) those sent to remove you permissible?
- IIIIIIIIIIII 10y ago
  You reverse the questions. Why? The man didn't do anything, he just sat there. Those who did do something where those who injured him. Who was bleeding, the police, a United airlines person - or the passenger? But it is interesting that you still try to reframe the problem, anything to twist the issue. Do you work for United? I'm not accusing you, just asking, there certainly are more than enough people who are even more obedient to authority than at any time in the Kaiserreich (19th century Germany) whose only way to read any such story is "how can I possibly read this situation so that the big guys are right". Your idea of law and order seems to be top => down, and one-way only, the top guys command, the bottom guys obey - immediately, no questions (again: the passenger did not do anything, reacting to aggression is not aggression!).
  - benji-york 10y ago
    > You reverse the questions. Why? I didn't intend on reversing a question. The only questions I see in this thread are ones I asked. I initially approached the situation from the perspective of the passenger, his decisions, and what would be right or wrong actions for him to take. Thinking about the same questions for the other actors in this situation — as you suggest — is also a good idea. > Do you work for United? Nope. > Your idea of law and order is top down - and one-way. If you knew me, you might reconsider that evaluation.
    - IIIIIIIIIIII 10y ago
      > I didn't intend on reversing a question. I didn't talk about "intent" but about what you did. > Nope. Ahh, somebody likes selective quoting. Care to read the entire section next time? > If you knew me, you might reconsider that evaluation. I know what you wrote and that's what I responded to. I don't care what you do with the rest of your life, I don't see it so there is nothing to comment. I commented on the visible part.

aluminussoma 10y ago

The legality of the request is in question. I assume you are referring to 49 U.S. Code § 46504 (link: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/46504 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/46504). There are many people who can argue both sides of that law. I personally think he did not violate that law and thus was not legally required to disembark.

danso 10y ago

People can be outraged by legal actions, especially since legal definitions leave a lot undefined in terms of how legal orders are actually carried out. The people who are outraged about this can apparently imagine other ways to alleviate the common situation of overbooking which don't require physically dragging a 69-year-old man unconscious and bleeding from a plane. Anecdotal evidence, obviously, but I've been on many overbooked flights. Have never seen anything arise to this level of authorized violence. YMMV of course.

josho 10y ago

> A person was legally required… The law is not always just. At one point it was illegal for women to vote, for minorities to work for free, for nations to invade others, etc. A man bought a ticket, was seated in his paid for ticket, then instructed that he didn't really purchase that seat and must leave. What makes this legal? Likely some sub-clause in the 4 point typeface on the back of the ticket? Are you ok with being forcibly evicted from your apartment because there is some sub-clause that allows the landlord to evict you if his kin/employee needs a room? That isn't allowed because that happened in our past and our laws correct that misbehaviour. Perhaps our laws need to be revised again?

true_religion 10y ago
> Are you ok with being forcibly evicted from your apartment because there is some sub-clause that allows the landlord to evict you if his kin/employee needs a room? Yes. Partly because my parents had that own sub-clause in their tenancy agreement and exercised it to allow me to move back home when I really needed it. It's a common sub-clause permissible in cases where the rental property is part of the primary residence. It was added because getting into a situation where your own family cannot live with you because of an existing lease is.... awkward. People who get married and need a tenant to move out, would instead have to move out of their own houses and rent an apartment.