3 ms·

> But it only applies after the doors are closed Ding ding ding. Which means all the stupid pontification over whether or not the flight was "boarded" is bord

by phil21 10y ago

> But it only applies after the doors are closed Ding ding ding. Which means all the stupid pontification over whether or not the flight was "boarded" is borderline ridiculous and likely disingenuous at best. If this flight had closed the doors and then came back to the gate to remove the passenger? All these arguments would have weight. But it's quite clear to me that he was IDB'ed like any myriad other situations I've witnessed. Being IDB'ed makes no difference if you're at the gate or on the plane - shit happens after you board as well. Has no one here been on a flight that had to IDB someone prior to the door closing due to weight issues? Thus, it's simple trespass once he refused to leave. Either the flight was a flight and subject to all those rules, or it was just a piece of private property sitting on the ground. I can see no way for someone to make a successful argument that once your feet move past the threshold of the aircraft you have an inviolable right to be there regardless of the wishes of the aircraft owner.

tyingq 10y ago
There's potentially some argument about the trespass based on common carrier obligations. Airlines are subject to more regulation on refusal of service both in common carrier laws, as well as their own "Rule 21". Note that "Refusal of Transport" Rule 21 specifically talks about removing passengers from the aircraft. And it does not apply in this case. The list of valid reasons does not include "oversell", even though that didn't happen in this case anyway. The "Denied Boarding" Rule 25 makes no mention of removing passengers from the aircraft. I suspect that's not a mistake. I'm also not sure the rule around the door having to be closed before "interfering with a flight crew" applies has anything to do with "boarded or not" either. It's more about the legal venue where a flight crew is a flight crew. It's the "Special Aircraft Jurisdiction" https://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-1405-special-aircraft-jurisdiction-us https://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-1405-s... Like everyone else here, IANAL, so I may be completely wrong. However, I've read what aviation lawyers are saying about the Dr Dao case though. Most are saying it looks very grey.
ghaff 10y ago
>Has no one here been on a flight that had to IDB someone prior to the door closing due to weight issues? In fact, on a United flight just a few months ago the captain got on the intercom and said they had weight issues because of headwinds on the flight path and they might have to deplane some people. As it turned out, they were able to remove some cargo and otherwise get the numbers to work so everyone could stay. I have no idea about trespass etc. but flights have legitimate reasons why they have to deplane some people. Now it's much better if they can get people to agree to do so voluntarily with compensation. But one way or the other, they sometimes have to get some people to leave a plane and making a fuss vs. not making a fuss isn't a very good criterion.
- tyingq 10y ago
  They do have detailed criteria for when it's okay to deplane someone. It's their "Rule 21" https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriage.aspx#sec21 https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriag... This case doesn't meet that criteria. That, and the US "common carrier" laws that put more onus on their ability to refuse service is exactly why this is so grey. Hopefully some news organization will convene a panel of aviation attorneys so we can hear from experts. I suspect United will settle out of court, which would keep us from hearing what the real answer is.
  - ghaff 10y ago
    Yes, but that doesn't seem to cover "Oops. We don't have available seats." Surely no one is suggesting that an airline can't deplane a passenger because there's a broken seat or because some condition means the plane will be overweight if they fill all the seats. There are circumstances where an airline has to reduce the number of passengers one way or the other. (Of course, there are reasonable ways and decidedly less reasonable ways to do that.)
    - jeltz 10y ago
      I am pretty sure that would be covered by "Safety – Whenever refusal or removal of a Passenger may be necessary for the safety of such Passenger or other Passengers or members of the crew including, but not limited to:" since everyone is required to be seated during take-off and landing due to safety reasons.
xenadu02 10y ago
Weight issues fall under safe operation of the aircraft and are held to entirely different standard. I've never seen or heard of someone being asked to get off the plane to make room for a different passenger. Quite the opposite: I've seen airline employees asked to get off because a paying passenger showed up at the last minute.

by phil21 10y ago

tyingq 10y ago

There's potentially some argument about the trespass based on common carrier obligations. Airlines are subject to more regulation on refusal of service both in common carrier laws, as well as their own "Rule 21". Note that "Refusal of Transport" Rule 21 specifically talks about removing passengers from the aircraft. And it does not apply in this case. The list of valid reasons does not include "oversell", even though that didn't happen in this case anyway. The "Denied Boarding" Rule 25 makes no mention of removing passengers from the aircraft. I suspect that's not a mistake. I'm also not sure the rule around the door having to be closed before "interfering with a flight crew" applies has anything to do with "boarded or not" either. It's more about the legal venue where a flight crew is a flight crew. It's the "Special Aircraft Jurisdiction" https://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-1405-special-aircraft-jurisdiction-us https://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-1405-s... Like everyone else here, IANAL, so I may be completely wrong. However, I've read what aviation lawyers are saying about the Dr Dao case though. Most are saying it looks very grey.

ghaff 10y ago

>Has no one here been on a flight that had to IDB someone prior to the door closing due to weight issues? In fact, on a United flight just a few months ago the captain got on the intercom and said they had weight issues because of headwinds on the flight path and they might have to deplane some people. As it turned out, they were able to remove some cargo and otherwise get the numbers to work so everyone could stay. I have no idea about trespass etc. but flights have legitimate reasons why they have to deplane some people. Now it's much better if they can get people to agree to do so voluntarily with compensation. But one way or the other, they sometimes have to get some people to leave a plane and making a fuss vs. not making a fuss isn't a very good criterion.

tyingq 10y ago
They do have detailed criteria for when it's okay to deplane someone. It's their "Rule 21" https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriage.aspx#sec21 https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriag... This case doesn't meet that criteria. That, and the US "common carrier" laws that put more onus on their ability to refuse service is exactly why this is so grey. Hopefully some news organization will convene a panel of aviation attorneys so we can hear from experts. I suspect United will settle out of court, which would keep us from hearing what the real answer is.
- ghaff 10y ago
  Yes, but that doesn't seem to cover "Oops. We don't have available seats." Surely no one is suggesting that an airline can't deplane a passenger because there's a broken seat or because some condition means the plane will be overweight if they fill all the seats. There are circumstances where an airline has to reduce the number of passengers one way or the other. (Of course, there are reasonable ways and decidedly less reasonable ways to do that.)
  - jeltz 10y ago
    I am pretty sure that would be covered by "Safety – Whenever refusal or removal of a Passenger may be necessary for the safety of such Passenger or other Passengers or members of the crew including, but not limited to:" since everyone is required to be seated during take-off and landing due to safety reasons.

xenadu02 10y ago

Weight issues fall under safe operation of the aircraft and are held to entirely different standard. I've never seen or heard of someone being asked to get off the plane to make room for a different passenger. Quite the opposite: I've seen airline employees asked to get off because a paying passenger showed up at the last minute.