3 ms·

I believe this is correct. If there is a civil argument, it can be heard in an appropriate venue. But once the owner/operator of an FAA regulated aircraft has a

I believe this is correct. If there is a civil argument, it can be heard in an appropriate venue. But once the owner/operator of an FAA regulated aircraft has asked you to leave you no longer have any recourse and the word of the airplane crew carries quite a bit of weight. I'm seeing the suggestion that United broke the law which doesn't quite seem to be what this article is saying. The article is saying they breached their own contract of carriage. This would allow for damages afterwards in civil procedures but i can't imagine how it gives the man the right to ignore the order of crew and airport police to get off the plane.

dionidium 10y ago
I wouldn't even get too hung up on the "FAA regulated aircraft" portion of this, just in a general sense. You and I may have a contract that says you can use my property for a day, but then I might prevent you from doing so. This could be wildly inconvenient for you for various reasons. If I told you to leave, I wouldn't expect the cops to figure out who was right. I would expect the cops to err on the side of the property owner and make the obvious and expedient decision to evict you from my property. The contract wouldn't even enter into it. If there's a grievance, then it should be handled later. The police aren't there to litigate that issue. They're there to resolve the immediate conflict. Crucially, it doesn't matter that the contract is 100% in your favor. That's not what the police are there to discern. Everybody is trying to play amateur aviation attorney, but this is really about understanding the role of police in resolving disputes like this one.
- notacoward 10y ago
  > Everybody is trying to play amateur ... attorney Including you. You're right that it's not the responsibility of police to determine all details of who's right and who's wrong, especially considering contracts that can take days for a trained contract lawyer to understand. They do have a responsibility to ensure that the person requesting removal is the owner of the property, and the person being removed is not a co-owner, but that's about as far as it goes. However, that's not the only issue being discussed here. Just as we should get too hung up on the "FAA regulated aircraft" portion, we shouldn't get hung up on the "police role" portion either. The more important question is United/Republic's role. Were they in a position to require this passenger's removal, or was that breach of contract? What about the issues of crew logistics and voluntary-deboarding incentives? If you want to broaden the focus, let's broaden it all the way.
notacoward 10y ago
> i can't imagine how it gives the man the right to ignore the order of crew and airport police to get off the plane. Neither 49USC§46501 nor 14CFR§91 applied at the time in question, according to applicable definitions (e.g. "crewmember" and "flight time") which anyone who presumes to interpret law can and should look up near the rules themselves. Absent either of those, the passenger had all the rights he would have in any other time and place. He had a contract establishing his right to be where he was. United/Republic had already recognized that right by allowing him to board in the first place. He had done nothing since to waive or nullify his rights under that contract. Thus, at that moment and under those circumstances, he was under no obligation to comply with the order that was given. If they'd closed the doors, 49USC§46501 would apply. If they had left the gate, 14CFR§91 would. Those would have been different cases, but we're not here to discuss different cases. Anybody who wants to treat rules as sacrosanct should do so based on a full and accurate understanding of those rules.

dionidium 10y ago

I wouldn't even get too hung up on the "FAA regulated aircraft" portion of this, just in a general sense. You and I may have a contract that says you can use my property for a day, but then I might prevent you from doing so. This could be wildly inconvenient for you for various reasons. If I told you to leave, I wouldn't expect the cops to figure out who was right. I would expect the cops to err on the side of the property owner and make the obvious and expedient decision to evict you from my property. The contract wouldn't even enter into it. If there's a grievance, then it should be handled later. The police aren't there to litigate that issue. They're there to resolve the immediate conflict. Crucially, it doesn't matter that the contract is 100% in your favor. That's not what the police are there to discern. Everybody is trying to play amateur aviation attorney, but this is really about understanding the role of police in resolving disputes like this one.

notacoward 10y ago
> Everybody is trying to play amateur ... attorney Including you. You're right that it's not the responsibility of police to determine all details of who's right and who's wrong, especially considering contracts that can take days for a trained contract lawyer to understand. They do have a responsibility to ensure that the person requesting removal is the owner of the property, and the person being removed is not a co-owner, but that's about as far as it goes. However, that's not the only issue being discussed here. Just as we should get too hung up on the "FAA regulated aircraft" portion, we shouldn't get hung up on the "police role" portion either. The more important question is United/Republic's role. Were they in a position to require this passenger's removal, or was that breach of contract? What about the issues of crew logistics and voluntary-deboarding incentives? If you want to broaden the focus, let's broaden it all the way.

notacoward 10y ago

> i can't imagine how it gives the man the right to ignore the order of crew and airport police to get off the plane. Neither 49USC§46501 nor 14CFR§91 applied at the time in question, according to applicable definitions (e.g. "crewmember" and "flight time") which anyone who presumes to interpret law can and should look up near the rules themselves. Absent either of those, the passenger had all the rights he would have in any other time and place. He had a contract establishing his right to be where he was. United/Republic had already recognized that right by allowing him to board in the first place. He had done nothing since to waive or nullify his rights under that contract. Thus, at that moment and under those circumstances, he was under no obligation to comply with the order that was given. If they'd closed the doors, 49USC§46501 would apply. If they had left the gate, 14CFR§91 would. Those would have been different cases, but we're not here to discuss different cases. Anybody who wants to treat rules as sacrosanct should do so based on a full and accurate understanding of those rules.