3 ms·

> He should totally bring a multi-million dollar lawsuit, it's a total cake walk as it'd be hard to find a jury that wouldn't sympathize and he and his grandkid

> He should totally bring a multi-million dollar lawsuit, it's a total cake walk as it'd be hard to find a jury that wouldn't sympathize and he and his grandkids would be millions of dollars richer. Not to mention all the dirt you can drag United through during the lawsuit in the media. Love to see some testimony from the dick CEO as well who tried even character assignation of the poor doctor they needlessly assaulted. It'd be a cake walk alright ... for the airline. Pilots have similar powers to the captain of a civilian naval vessel, and can legally refuse to carry passengers or order them off the aircraft: https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-extra-ordinary-powers-that-an-airline-pilot-has-while-in-flight-and-how-are-they-different-from-those-of-a-captain-of-a-ship https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-extra-ordinary-powers-tha... Moreover, refusing to leave the premises when requested or to comply with the police when they arrived, is unquestionably against the law. Even a jury has to operates within the constraints of the law or be overturned on appeal. Remember, the airline would be the defendant and has the right to appeal. Sure, being bumped is lousy behavior by the airline but the doctor doesn't have a legal leg to stand on for his tantrum. If anything, the airline could probably sue him for delaying the flight and win.

mturmon 10y ago
"Moreover, refusing to leave the premises when requested or to comply with the police when they arrived, is unquestionably against the law." One might think that, but TFA points out that there are regulations covering when a passenger can be bumped. The demand that the passenger leave may have violated these rules. The police order in that case was mistaken, a point also raised in TFA.
- ThrowawayR2 10y ago
  > One might think that, but TFA points out that there are regulations covering when a passenger can be bumped. The demand that the passenger leave may have violated these rules. The police order in that case was mistaken, a point also raised in TFA. Those regulations do not trump the pilot's authority to directly order a passenger removed for disrupting a flight, even for trivial reasons. See this article that discusses various airlines' history of expelling passengers (warning: autoplaying video with sound), http://fortune.com/2016/05/11/airlines-kicked-off-passengers-rights/ http://fortune.com/2016/05/11/airlines-kicked-off-passengers..., or the FAA regulation directly, https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2011-title14-vol2/pdf/CFR-2011-title14-vol2-sec91-11.pdf https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2011-title14-vol2/pdf/CFR-... Moreover, the police order may have been mistaken but that in no way absolves the individual from complying with said order. He should have resolved the issue with litigation afterwards. (Again, to make my position clear, the airline behaved quite badly but so did the passenger.)
  - devoply 10y ago
    > order a passenger removed for disrupting a flight Passenger was not disrupting the flight in any way. Passenger was behaving properly and then was forced to leave for the convenience of the airlines at great inconvenience to himself, despite the fact that he was as entitled to remain on the flight as any other passenger -- as in this was unfair to him and him alone. It was also made clear to him that he was not responsible for being forced to leave as well as the fact that all the other passengers felt the exact same way as the passenger who was being forced to leave.
    - ThrowawayR2 10y ago
      I think linked article and regulation adequately address that. If the pilot asks an individual to debark, s/he is not, in fact, entitled to remain on the flight, other regulations notwithstanding.
      - devoply 10y ago
        Regardless of your opinions, United is now getting sued by the doctor. So it doesn't seem like reality actually agrees with your sentiments.
        ThrowawayR2 10y ago
        Doesn't mean a thing. One can initiate a lawsuit for the most frivolous of causes but it doesn't mean that they will win.
  - cmurf 10y ago
    FAR 91.3 and 91.11 exist for operational safety of the flight. The purpose of the FAR is the PIC can ignore company, customer, and even Air Traffic Control orders that compromise the safety of the flight. Company says you must land at this airport tonight, and the pilot says well it's socked in, it's not safe to land, so no. That's the purpose. It's to make him accountable to flight safety, not the company or anybody else. By making him an agent of his company's customer service to remove a passenger who is in compliance with the law, regulations, and the company's own contract of carriage, and then use FAR 91.3(a) as an excuse to say the pilot must be obeyed is poor logic. And I am a pilot (and a former CFII). I think it makes flights less safe to inject the company's demands into the cockpit. They do not matter, what matters is safety. That's what his FAR is about, not to enable the pilot to be an ass to passengers on behalf of his moronic company. And claiming otherwise damages the necessary trust that we're supposed to have, and should have, with pilots and crew. Their primary purpose is to save your life. It is not to pour sodas, or appease the company CEOs profit needs by being jerks to passengers, and throwing them off for business reasons. As for the police, I think that was an illegal assault on the part of the officer, and given the available information the passenger wasn't breaking any laws, so the police being there was inappropriate in the first place, they shouldn't have intervened and should know that. Edited a few times to remove foul language :-D
jack9 10y ago
> requested or to comply with the police when they arrived, is unquestionably against the law. Except that's not who dragged him off. Representatives of a customer safety federal aviation department physically dragged him. I don't think everyone fully understands the sequence or "players" involved (I had to look it up too). - http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/zorn/ct-united-passenger-chicago-police-statement-perspec-0412-20170411-column.html http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/zorn/ct-united-pa... Otherwise, you're absolutely correct about voluntary vs compulsory. A police officer would still be liable for not properly restraining and ensuring the safety of the "victim".
- ThrowawayR2 10y ago
  The article you linked says the individual was from the City of Chicago's Department of Aviation. While you do bring up an important clarifying point, I'd be surprised if the individual in question didn't have most or all of the same authority/powers as a police officer within his jurisdiction. Some additional information from the Wikipedia article on airport police that seems to be relevant: "The City of Chicago Department of Aviation Police perform safety, security and law enforcement functions at O'Hare International Airport & Midway Airport. The department was formerly called the Department of Aviation Special Police. The Chicago Police Department Airport Unit also performs many of the law enforcement duties in and around Chicago area airports." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airport_police https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airport_police) However, that information may or may not be current.
thedudemabry 10y ago
Even a pilot has to operate within the constraints of the law or be sanctioned. They have operational authority to do pretty much anything while a plane is in flight, but that doesn't shield their airline from the legal consequences of forcefully pulling a man from a seat in order to shuttle airline employees to their next destination.
consciouskernel 10y ago
You are wrong. Pilot in command[1] only qualifies when the plane is in flight, which is even mentioned in the quora question you linked. In flight definition requires plane to be moving under its own power. Additionally, the pilot did not tell the passenger anything. An on the ground manager did. You have no idea what you're talking about. Please throw away your throwaway account. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_in_command https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_in_command
- dang 10y ago
  You've been posting uncivilly to HN. We ban accounts that do that, so would you please (re-)read the site rules and comment civilly and substantively from now on? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html
  - consciouskernel 10y ago
    > read the site rules and comment civilly and substantively Civilly I can give you, but substantively? > The test for substance is a lot like it is for links. Does your comment teach us anything? I don't understand how you can claim I'm not commenting "substantively" when I'm correcting blatantly wrong info with citations.
    - dang 10y ago
      If you edit the uncivil parts out of your comments and leave only the substantive parts, that would be just fine.

mturmon 10y ago

"Moreover, refusing to leave the premises when requested or to comply with the police when they arrived, is unquestionably against the law." One might think that, but TFA points out that there are regulations covering when a passenger can be bumped. The demand that the passenger leave may have violated these rules. The police order in that case was mistaken, a point also raised in TFA.

ThrowawayR2 10y ago
> One might think that, but TFA points out that there are regulations covering when a passenger can be bumped. The demand that the passenger leave may have violated these rules. The police order in that case was mistaken, a point also raised in TFA. Those regulations do not trump the pilot's authority to directly order a passenger removed for disrupting a flight, even for trivial reasons. See this article that discusses various airlines' history of expelling passengers (warning: autoplaying video with sound), http://fortune.com/2016/05/11/airlines-kicked-off-passengers-rights/ http://fortune.com/2016/05/11/airlines-kicked-off-passengers..., or the FAA regulation directly, https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2011-title14-vol2/pdf/CFR-2011-title14-vol2-sec91-11.pdf https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2011-title14-vol2/pdf/CFR-... Moreover, the police order may have been mistaken but that in no way absolves the individual from complying with said order. He should have resolved the issue with litigation afterwards. (Again, to make my position clear, the airline behaved quite badly but so did the passenger.)
- devoply 10y ago
  > order a passenger removed for disrupting a flight Passenger was not disrupting the flight in any way. Passenger was behaving properly and then was forced to leave for the convenience of the airlines at great inconvenience to himself, despite the fact that he was as entitled to remain on the flight as any other passenger -- as in this was unfair to him and him alone. It was also made clear to him that he was not responsible for being forced to leave as well as the fact that all the other passengers felt the exact same way as the passenger who was being forced to leave.
  - ThrowawayR2 10y ago
    I think linked article and regulation adequately address that. If the pilot asks an individual to debark, s/he is not, in fact, entitled to remain on the flight, other regulations notwithstanding.
    - devoply 10y ago
      Regardless of your opinions, United is now getting sued by the doctor. So it doesn't seem like reality actually agrees with your sentiments.
      - ThrowawayR2 10y ago
        Doesn't mean a thing. One can initiate a lawsuit for the most frivolous of causes but it doesn't mean that they will win.
- cmurf 10y ago
  FAR 91.3 and 91.11 exist for operational safety of the flight. The purpose of the FAR is the PIC can ignore company, customer, and even Air Traffic Control orders that compromise the safety of the flight. Company says you must land at this airport tonight, and the pilot says well it's socked in, it's not safe to land, so no. That's the purpose. It's to make him accountable to flight safety, not the company or anybody else. By making him an agent of his company's customer service to remove a passenger who is in compliance with the law, regulations, and the company's own contract of carriage, and then use FAR 91.3(a) as an excuse to say the pilot must be obeyed is poor logic. And I am a pilot (and a former CFII). I think it makes flights less safe to inject the company's demands into the cockpit. They do not matter, what matters is safety. That's what his FAR is about, not to enable the pilot to be an ass to passengers on behalf of his moronic company. And claiming otherwise damages the necessary trust that we're supposed to have, and should have, with pilots and crew. Their primary purpose is to save your life. It is not to pour sodas, or appease the company CEOs profit needs by being jerks to passengers, and throwing them off for business reasons. As for the police, I think that was an illegal assault on the part of the officer, and given the available information the passenger wasn't breaking any laws, so the police being there was inappropriate in the first place, they shouldn't have intervened and should know that. Edited a few times to remove foul language :-D

jack9 10y ago

> requested or to comply with the police when they arrived, is unquestionably against the law. Except that's not who dragged him off. Representatives of a customer safety federal aviation department physically dragged him. I don't think everyone fully understands the sequence or "players" involved (I had to look it up too). - http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/zorn/ct-united-passenger-chicago-police-statement-perspec-0412-20170411-column.html http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/zorn/ct-united-pa... Otherwise, you're absolutely correct about voluntary vs compulsory. A police officer would still be liable for not properly restraining and ensuring the safety of the "victim".

ThrowawayR2 10y ago
The article you linked says the individual was from the City of Chicago's Department of Aviation. While you do bring up an important clarifying point, I'd be surprised if the individual in question didn't have most or all of the same authority/powers as a police officer within his jurisdiction. Some additional information from the Wikipedia article on airport police that seems to be relevant: "The City of Chicago Department of Aviation Police perform safety, security and law enforcement functions at O'Hare International Airport & Midway Airport. The department was formerly called the Department of Aviation Special Police. The Chicago Police Department Airport Unit also performs many of the law enforcement duties in and around Chicago area airports." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airport_police https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airport_police) However, that information may or may not be current.

thedudemabry 10y ago

Even a pilot has to operate within the constraints of the law or be sanctioned. They have operational authority to do pretty much anything while a plane is in flight, but that doesn't shield their airline from the legal consequences of forcefully pulling a man from a seat in order to shuttle airline employees to their next destination.

consciouskernel 10y ago

You are wrong. Pilot in command[1] only qualifies when the plane is in flight, which is even mentioned in the quora question you linked. In flight definition requires plane to be moving under its own power. Additionally, the pilot did not tell the passenger anything. An on the ground manager did. You have no idea what you're talking about. Please throw away your throwaway account. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_in_command https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_in_command

dang 10y ago
You've been posting uncivilly to HN. We ban accounts that do that, so would you please (re-)read the site rules and comment civilly and substantively from now on? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html
- consciouskernel 10y ago
  > read the site rules and comment civilly and substantively Civilly I can give you, but substantively? > The test for substance is a lot like it is for links. Does your comment teach us anything? I don't understand how you can claim I'm not commenting "substantively" when I'm correcting blatantly wrong info with citations.
  - dang 10y ago
    If you edit the uncivil parts out of your comments and leave only the substantive parts, that would be just fine.