5 ms·
Not an expert, but my understanding after reading that article was that at an important level, whether or not Dr. Dao was obligate to exit depends on whether or
by kem 9y ago
Not an expert, but my understanding after reading that article was that at an important level, whether or not Dr. Dao was obligate to exit depends on whether or not he was appropriately told to exit. If he was, he was trespassing; if not he was not.
In this way, it does come back to the police action, because they should have treated it more as an investigation, asking all the parties involved about what was going on, and attempting to mediate, and then when that failed, taken him off the plane.
Overbooking policy in the US is heinous, but at some legalistic level this seems to me to be more about how Dr. Dao's removal occurred, rather than about the overbooking per se.
Honestly, I'm disturbed by the classism that's run rampant throughout the coverage of this and subsequent events. Airline overbooking practices, security unprofessionalism, etc. are all just part of the system until it happens to a physician (whose services for a day or so should not in fact be critical, even if they are inpatient or critical care--a hospital or clinic needs to be able to cover for illness, etc.), or as in the case of a subsequent LA Times story, a wealthy businessman. But for everyone else? The plumber whose livelihood depends on scheduled appointments? Who cares.
- fatbird 9y agoThe article raises the point about whether or not the police were acting under the controlling authority's (i.e., the pilot's) instructions, but that's not the only consideration. Other expert opinions have raised the point that the carriage of contract does not explicitly equate being denied boarding with being removed. In other words, the gate agents are acting like denying boarding allows them to remove Dr. Dao, when that seems to be a false but (until now) unchallenged assumption. Once you're seated, different rules apply. Your point about classism is very fair, but a plumber would have an equally valid claim to Dr. Dao, insofar as being forced to accept a voucher incurs a much more real cost in lost business.
- briandear 9y agoWhy do we use "plumber" as an example of a "non wealthy" person? Ironically, your argument itself is classist by suggesting plumbers are somehow lower class in terms of wealth or financial status. http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1851673,00.html http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1851673,0...
- Neliquat 9y agoMany plumbers make amazing money. Idk how people think someone who can charge you 100+/hr for a specilized and critical skill is somehow lower class. Most people use "wage slave" for that discriptor now, usually service or retail.
- Ensorceled 9y agoNot at all. They are saying that classism exists and people wouldn't care if it was a plumber, that doesn't mean they think that plumbers are lower status. If they had said this happened because racists chose Dr. Dao since he was Asian that wouldn't make them racist either.
- ubernostrum 9y agoThe trespassing argument is very shaky. There's good analysis out there of the regulations and contract of carriage suggesting the airline had no basis to order him off in the first place, and generally to claim trespass you first need to have the right to exclude the person. "I don't feel like performing my part of my contract with this person" doesn't get you there. And since the instruction to leave his seat may not have been a lawful/reasonable one, the other prong of the usual argument ("federal law requires compliance with crew member instructions") might not get there either.
- hammock 9y ago>to claim trespass you first need to have the right to exclude the person. "I don't feel like performing my part of my contract with this person" doesn't get you there. It doesn't? Trespass is criminal while a contract is civil. The police don't enforce contracts do they? Further, I should be able to break a contract at will (how could that ability even be taken away?) and accept the consequences.
- ubernostrum 9y agoWhat you're arguing for is the ability to manufacture a crime on someone else's part, at will. I don't think you would enjoy living in a society which allows that.