3 ms·

Unfortunately, breaking the common carrier rules isn't a crime. The content industry managed to declare movie piracy a crime, wouldn't it be nice if we could br

Unfortunately, breaking the common carrier rules isn't a crime. The content industry managed to declare movie piracy a crime, wouldn't it be nice if we could bribe Congress into penalizing breaking the common carrier regulations?

tyingq 10y ago
It's not whether breaking common carrier rules are a crime. It's whether United had some legal standing to forcibly eject the passenger. If the regulation limits their ability to refuse service, that kills their legal standing to forcibly eject. Similar for their own "Rule 21" in their contract of carriage, if you view this as "refusal of transport": https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriage.aspx#sec21 https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriag... It doesn't meet their own rules. There are aviation lawyers questioning it: http://denver.cbslocal.com/2017/04/10/united-airlines-removed-flight/ http://denver.cbslocal.com/2017/04/10/united-airlines-remove...
- kelnos 10y ago
  Right, but when you say "it doesn't meet their own rules", we're talking about breach of contract, not whether they have legal standing to eject someone in the context of common carrier. If we're in agreement that United can break their contract (of course with civil liability), then the question is whether or not common carrier rules prohibit that an extra-contract ejection. And even if they do, what's the legal remedy if they try (and succeed) to do it? I mean, the bottom line is that they can of course physically do it.
  - tyingq 10y ago
    I would guess two things... Less potential defense for a civil case from the passenger if they can't claim trespass. They could, for example, be more liable for the injuries even though they did not inflict them directly. Then, if violating some common carrier requirement, also subject to fines. Like the multi million dollar ones doled out for leaving passengers on the tarmac for hours. It may also serve to educate airport police in the future as to how involved they want to get in a contractual dispute.

tyingq 10y ago

It's not whether breaking common carrier rules are a crime. It's whether United had some legal standing to forcibly eject the passenger. If the regulation limits their ability to refuse service, that kills their legal standing to forcibly eject. Similar for their own "Rule 21" in their contract of carriage, if you view this as "refusal of transport": https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriage.aspx#sec21 https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriag... It doesn't meet their own rules. There are aviation lawyers questioning it: http://denver.cbslocal.com/2017/04/10/united-airlines-removed-flight/ http://denver.cbslocal.com/2017/04/10/united-airlines-remove...

kelnos 10y ago
Right, but when you say "it doesn't meet their own rules", we're talking about breach of contract, not whether they have legal standing to eject someone in the context of common carrier. If we're in agreement that United can break their contract (of course with civil liability), then the question is whether or not common carrier rules prohibit that an extra-contract ejection. And even if they do, what's the legal remedy if they try (and succeed) to do it? I mean, the bottom line is that they can of course physically do it.
- tyingq 10y ago
  I would guess two things... Less potential defense for a civil case from the passenger if they can't claim trespass. They could, for example, be more liable for the injuries even though they did not inflict them directly. Then, if violating some common carrier requirement, also subject to fines. Like the multi million dollar ones doled out for leaving passengers on the tarmac for hours. It may also serve to educate airport police in the future as to how involved they want to get in a contractual dispute.