5 ms·

The general policy makes sense for United, they just got unlucky this time. A law requiring all bumping to be voluntary would fix this, and require United to co

The general policy makes sense for United, they just got unlucky this time. A law requiring all bumping to be voluntary would fix this, and require United to come up with a system that wasn't just "meh, call security".

terrestrial 10y ago
A law would not "fix" this. It's a workaround. Which law was this guy breaking to begin with? The problem is lack of scrutiny by the officers handling this. The process should have gone something like this: United: "Hey, we have this guy refusing the leave the airplane. Can you help us remove him?" Chicago PD: "Why won't he leave the airplane?" United: "He says he needs to catch this flight for something work-related." Chicago PD: "Is he threatening other passengers? Why do you need to remove him?" United: "We need to fill the seat for some last-minute flight crew. Look, this is really important, can't you just come and take this guy for us? It's already becoming something of a scene." Chicago PD: "So what you are saying is, you are asking a paying passenger who is already seated in a departing plane to leave. And he won't do so voluntarily. Can't you ask someone else to go instead?" United: "We tried, but no one is willing to take less than $1600 worth of our $50 flight coupons. Ridiculous! We do no more than $1200 per FAA guidelines." Chicago PD: "But did he break any laws?" United: "Not sure, maybe there's something in the ToS." Chicago PD: Click
- Turing_Machine 10y ago
  It wasn't the Chicago PD in this case.
  - selectodude 10y ago
    Somehow the CPD is a sympathetic character in this story for the first time in human history.
- diminoten 10y ago
  What actually happened: United: "This man is trespassing on private property." Chicago PD: "We'll be right over." United breaking their agreement isn't illegal, but remaining on private property after you've been asked to leave by the people in charge is illegal.
  - unscaled 10y ago
    Unless you paid to remain on said private property, and they are bound by contract to let you stay.
    - diminoten 10y ago
      That's literally not true. To elaborate just a bit, breaking a contract isn't against the law, being "contractually obligated to let you stay on the plane" doesn't mean they can't kick you off the plane, at all.
  - pookeh 10y ago
    Bad example because in this case United and passenger entered an agreement for the passenger to be on United's property. That's like saying you leased your house to a tenant for a year but then six months in you find another tenant that you want so you call the cops on the first tenant. Doesn't work like that (well at least where I live). A contract is a contract and nobody is tresassing here.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - diminoten 10y ago
      That's a civil matter, they're absolutely allowed to kick you off their plane if they want, regardless of what they told you before. Sure, they're breaching contract, but that's a civil matter. It's completely unlike residency, as well, because that's got special protections, and as many times as people say this has special protections too, it doesn't.
- jakelazaroff 10y ago
  Exactly. Law enforcement are supposed to do just that: enforce the law. Not provide muscle for multimillion dollar corporations.
learn_more 10y ago
We don't need another regulation to solve this. Seems like the free market is going to handle it just fine.
- peteretep 10y ago
  It'll be forgotten in a week if United fares are $5 cheaper.
  - Neliquat 10y ago
    Oh, they will be cheaper alright.
- jakelazaroff 10y ago
  Can we use the current regulations to punish United for breaking the law? No? Looks like we need another regulation.

terrestrial 10y ago

A law would not "fix" this. It's a workaround. Which law was this guy breaking to begin with? The problem is lack of scrutiny by the officers handling this. The process should have gone something like this: United: "Hey, we have this guy refusing the leave the airplane. Can you help us remove him?" Chicago PD: "Why won't he leave the airplane?" United: "He says he needs to catch this flight for something work-related." Chicago PD: "Is he threatening other passengers? Why do you need to remove him?" United: "We need to fill the seat for some last-minute flight crew. Look, this is really important, can't you just come and take this guy for us? It's already becoming something of a scene." Chicago PD: "So what you are saying is, you are asking a paying passenger who is already seated in a departing plane to leave. And he won't do so voluntarily. Can't you ask someone else to go instead?" United: "We tried, but no one is willing to take less than $1600 worth of our $50 flight coupons. Ridiculous! We do no more than $1200 per FAA guidelines." Chicago PD: "But did he break any laws?" United: "Not sure, maybe there's something in the ToS." Chicago PD: Click

Turing_Machine 10y ago
It wasn't the Chicago PD in this case.
- selectodude 10y ago
  Somehow the CPD is a sympathetic character in this story for the first time in human history.
diminoten 10y ago
What actually happened: United: "This man is trespassing on private property." Chicago PD: "We'll be right over." United breaking their agreement isn't illegal, but remaining on private property after you've been asked to leave by the people in charge is illegal.
- unscaled 10y ago
  Unless you paid to remain on said private property, and they are bound by contract to let you stay.
  - diminoten 10y ago
    That's literally not true. To elaborate just a bit, breaking a contract isn't against the law, being "contractually obligated to let you stay on the plane" doesn't mean they can't kick you off the plane, at all.
- pookeh 10y ago
  Bad example because in this case United and passenger entered an agreement for the passenger to be on United's property. That's like saying you leased your house to a tenant for a year but then six months in you find another tenant that you want so you call the cops on the first tenant. Doesn't work like that (well at least where I live). A contract is a contract and nobody is tresassing here.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - diminoten 10y ago
    That's a civil matter, they're absolutely allowed to kick you off their plane if they want, regardless of what they told you before. Sure, they're breaching contract, but that's a civil matter. It's completely unlike residency, as well, because that's got special protections, and as many times as people say this has special protections too, it doesn't.
jakelazaroff 10y ago
Exactly. Law enforcement are supposed to do just that: enforce the law. Not provide muscle for multimillion dollar corporations.

learn_more 10y ago

We don't need another regulation to solve this. Seems like the free market is going to handle it just fine.

peteretep 10y ago
It'll be forgotten in a week if United fares are $5 cheaper.
- Neliquat 10y ago
  Oh, they will be cheaper alright.
jakelazaroff 10y ago
Can we use the current regulations to punish United for breaking the law? No? Looks like we need another regulation.