4 ms·
> If you have authority to ask someone to leave, and call the police to enforce that, you have no control or responsibility over how they go about doing that.
by onli 10y ago
> If you have authority to ask someone to leave, and call the police to enforce that, you have no control or responsibility over how they go about doing that.
It's actually highly questionable whether United had that authority. They are bound by contract, they are bound by regulations. They did not have the right to remove him or prevent boarding via overbooking regulations, as the passenger was already seated, and the plane was not overbooked. Also, they were not in the air, meaning the pilot does not have unlimited rights to control who is on the plane. Frankly, I see no legal means for United at all to remove him from the plane.
They certainly did not have the authority via their own contract, the article goes into that.
It's corporate propaganda to claim consumers have no rights. Consumers do have rights, there are contracts, laws and regulations. It is also not at all evident why the cops should follow the orders of United. Since United was in the wrong and did not have the authority, it was just wrong for the cops to follow their orders. They already got punished, and it is absolutely possible this will have more legal consequences for them. And for United.
- ufmace 10y ago> It's actually highly questionable whether United had that authority. I was thinking about this some more, and I would think that they do. Consider what would happen if, instead of the actual situation, the passenger was being removed for being highly obnoxious. Maybe if he was sexually harassing flight attendants or intentionally making a mess or something. In that case, the commander of the aircraft might also demand that he leave, without needing to cite an exact law that he broke and prove that he broke it. I'm not saying that the actual removal in this case was right. I am saying that the ability of bad actors to behave in ways that are obnoxious and interfere with normal operations yet technically do not break any specific laws is the reason why property owners, vehicle commanders, etc generally have broad authority, recognized and enforced by law, to demand that anyone leave at any time without needing a reason. The law only specifies a few minor exceptions to this based on certain very specific types of discrimination. I would consider United to have abused that right in this case, but that's why the system is that if the commander says that you're off, then you're off, and the police don't hold some mini-trial on board the plane to figure out what if any laws were broken. > It's corporate propaganda to claim consumers have no rights. I don't think anybody is arguing that. It's a matter of exactly what rights do they have, and how those rights are to be enforced. He does have the right to either be transported or refunded his fare, but that is to be enforced by a civil court of law at a later date, not by a snap decision by whatever cop happens to show up.
- tomsthumb 10y agothe authority to remove bad-actors and the authority to remove non-bad-actors is not the same thing.
- fredophile 10y agoThe case you're describing is specifically listed as a valid reason passengers can be kicked off of flights in the relevant regulations. There is no evidence that Dr Dao was being disruptive or causing a problem.