7 ms·

> (a) There was an unjust system and There was a legislated racist system. The bumping laws are not discriminatory and are good for everyone. Airlines can st

> (a) There was an unjust system and There was a legislated racist system. The bumping laws are not discriminatory and are good for everyone. Airlines can stay more competitive (offer passengers cheaper seats) by being able to bump passengers and fill as many seats as possible for every flight. The compensation is set at a price point to disincentivise bumping. Its a completely free market approach. (b) It took an individual to stick up for the just result, even though it was breaking the rules. What is the just result? The law is still the law. Next time this happens, the passenger won't act like a child, and it won't be a headline.

drakonandor 10y ago
You are wrong. The law permits denial of boarding in the event of oversold flights, however, the passenger was already boarded and the flight was not actually oversold.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- masondixon 10y ago
  If an airline says someone must leave the flight, the person must leave the flight. Simple as that. I can't imagine living in a society that does not allow the airline to do so. They can fight it out in court if they like afterwards.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - mikeash 10y ago
    Why is being able to remove paying customers such an important right, but not getting what you pay for? Kicking out a paying customer who has committed no wrongdoing is essentially theft. Airlines should be able to kick people off for actual good reasons, like if they're a safety threat. But "we want that seat more than you do" is not a good reason. For that, they should be required to secure the consent of the person in question by whatever means necessary, probably by paying them enough to make it worth their while.
    - masondixon 10y ago
      I see the difference between denied boarding and deplaned as legalistic. Its essentially the same thing. Overbooking is legislated. Don't like it, change the legislation. I have been in situations where I am offered $800 to be voluntarily bumped. This is okay with me. I would prefer not to be bumped off a flight, but the compensation is very generous, and I understand that it allows airlines to be more efficient and that they make really small margins and a lot are struggling. The free market is working and I pay a really low price for tickets. I don't think this is the argument though. Its about one passenger kicking and screaming instead of doing what every other passenger would have done, and then take it up with the courts if necessary which would create new precedent that could be used to justify modifying the legislation. I don't want to see people being dragged off planes, and the answer is not to "never drag people off planes". We live in a civil society where people are wronged, but they can pursue it in the courts.
      - mikeash 10y ago
        I agree that there's no fundamental difference between denying boarding and removing someone who has already boarded. If done involuntarily, both are effectively theft. When denying boarding or removing a passenger who has done nothing wrong, the airline should be required to secure their consent. Then the question of "drag people off planes" would never even come up. That, and the subsequent court case, can be reserved for people who actually do something wrong.
        masondixon 10y ago
        > If done involuntarily, both are effectively theft. You sign a contract when you buy a ticket. You willingly agree to the terms. Can you make a contract that someone can steal from you? No. > When denying boarding or removing a passenger who has done nothing wrong, the airline should be required to secure their consent. Then the question of "drag people off planes" would never even come up. That, and the subsequent court case, can be reserved for people who actually do something wrong. In a civil society, we resolve disputes with civility in the courts or through arbitration. Not kicking and screaming. Simple. If this goes through the courts, then we will have some new precedent, that could be made law. The kicking and screaming don't help no one.
  - _-__--____-- 10y ago
    >I can't imagine living in a society that does not allow the airline to do so. I can't imagine living in a society where the airline is allowed to fix their fuckups by using a force towards a paying customer. They should let the passenger to stay on the plane and fight it out in court if they like afterwards.
    - masondixon 10y ago
      Interesting point. But I see the after boarding vs. before boarding to be essentially the same. Say the passenger forced his way on the plane after being bumped. Is this any different?
awongh 10y ago
ianal but according to this analysis, this particular situation hinges on the fact that United's policy only applies to unboarded passengers, and Dr. Dao was correct to assert his right to stay on the plane: http://www.natlawreview.com/article/united-airlines-dr-dao-and-contract-carriage http://www.natlawreview.com/article/united-airlines-dr-dao-a...
- masondixon 10y ago
  I do not think Dr Dao was aware of his rights or asserting them. Yes, in court he can make this argument. But is it really acceptable for a grown adult to be dragged off a plane? I don't want to live in a society like this, and I don't think the correct solution is to "never drag people off planes". We have a court system to resolve disputes and I think it is far better that whatever injustice people feel, it is resolved in the courts, not kicking and screaming.
  - awongh 10y ago
    I think we agree on the basic principle of the case, but not the solution that follows it. I do agree that it is not acceptable for a grown adult to be dragged off a plane. I think it's a straw man to say that don't "never drag people off planes" is one of the possible solutions. if he turns out to be within his rights, even if he didn't have a full understanding of the legality of his decision at the time, then I think he was right to resist being removed from the flight. Saying that hypothetically he could have resolved it in court later, without being dragged off the plane is missing the point- I don't want to live in a society where it's acceptable to be dragged off a plane either, so let's not give united a pass on this situation just because it should be able to make similar actions in other (possibly legal) circumstances.
    - masondixon 10y ago
      > then I think he was right to resist being removed from the flight. See I don't agree with this. Its an argument for vigilantism. The courts are the appropriate place for this to be disputed. Private property and law enforcement should be respected, especially on airplanes. This is how we uphold a civil society. If a security guard is going to kick me out of somewhere because they think I am someone else, I am not going to physically resist even though they may be wrong. I will discuss it outside if there is a problem. Same applies to any situation. I can't see how it can ever benefit someone to physically resist something like this. It will always end up the same. > so let's not give united a pass on this situation I don't see what other option United had and don't see wrongdoing. The only thing this media firestorm does is set a precedent that if you are kicking and screaming you won't be bumped from a flight. Even if he was in the right, when you are told to get off a plane, or leave a store, it is the right thing to do regardless of whether you were legally in the right. Encouraging people into physical confrontation does not create a nice society to live in.
mikeash 10y ago
"A completely free market approach" would not allow airlines to involuntarily remove passengers who have already paid for and used a ticket. A free market approach would involve offering greater and greater compensation for voluntary removal until enough people took it.
- masondixon 10y ago
  Ok "completely free market approach" was a bad statement. A "generous free market approach" maybe is better, as the penalty for bumping is steep.
- TorKlingberg 10y ago
  No, it would involve whatever the contract between the passenger and the airline says. Which is very likely to favor the airline as they wrote it.
  - tarlinian 10y ago
    Exactly...I don't get the complaints about the existence of IDB legislation. If the airlines got to write the contracts themselves, they'd say you'd get no compensation at all outside of a refund of your ticket price if you can't be rebooked.
    - mikeash 10y ago
      I'm OK with its existence. I'm not really OK with its content. min(4 x fare, $1,350) is way too low. Make the minimum compensation for involuntary bumping $10,000 (cash, not stupid vouchers) or something, and then maybe we'd see some sense. I'm sure there needs to be some way to remove people against their will if something really crazy happens. But it should be the absolute last resort if all else fails, not a way to cap losses to a low amount.
- zhte415 10y ago
  A free market solution would include revevant laews and regulations. Compensation would come from means to achieve it. Pleaae tie free market solution as above to compensation

drakonandor 10y ago

You are wrong. The law permits denial of boarding in the event of oversold flights, however, the passenger was already boarded and the flight was not actually oversold.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
masondixon 10y ago
If an airline says someone must leave the flight, the person must leave the flight. Simple as that. I can't imagine living in a society that does not allow the airline to do so. They can fight it out in court if they like afterwards.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- mikeash 10y ago
  Why is being able to remove paying customers such an important right, but not getting what you pay for? Kicking out a paying customer who has committed no wrongdoing is essentially theft. Airlines should be able to kick people off for actual good reasons, like if they're a safety threat. But "we want that seat more than you do" is not a good reason. For that, they should be required to secure the consent of the person in question by whatever means necessary, probably by paying them enough to make it worth their while.
  - masondixon 10y ago
    I see the difference between denied boarding and deplaned as legalistic. Its essentially the same thing. Overbooking is legislated. Don't like it, change the legislation. I have been in situations where I am offered $800 to be voluntarily bumped. This is okay with me. I would prefer not to be bumped off a flight, but the compensation is very generous, and I understand that it allows airlines to be more efficient and that they make really small margins and a lot are struggling. The free market is working and I pay a really low price for tickets. I don't think this is the argument though. Its about one passenger kicking and screaming instead of doing what every other passenger would have done, and then take it up with the courts if necessary which would create new precedent that could be used to justify modifying the legislation. I don't want to see people being dragged off planes, and the answer is not to "never drag people off planes". We live in a civil society where people are wronged, but they can pursue it in the courts.
    - mikeash 10y ago
      I agree that there's no fundamental difference between denying boarding and removing someone who has already boarded. If done involuntarily, both are effectively theft. When denying boarding or removing a passenger who has done nothing wrong, the airline should be required to secure their consent. Then the question of "drag people off planes" would never even come up. That, and the subsequent court case, can be reserved for people who actually do something wrong.
      - masondixon 10y ago
        > If done involuntarily, both are effectively theft. You sign a contract when you buy a ticket. You willingly agree to the terms. Can you make a contract that someone can steal from you? No. > When denying boarding or removing a passenger who has done nothing wrong, the airline should be required to secure their consent. Then the question of "drag people off planes" would never even come up. That, and the subsequent court case, can be reserved for people who actually do something wrong. In a civil society, we resolve disputes with civility in the courts or through arbitration. Not kicking and screaming. Simple. If this goes through the courts, then we will have some new precedent, that could be made law. The kicking and screaming don't help no one.
- _-__--____-- 10y ago
  >I can't imagine living in a society that does not allow the airline to do so. I can't imagine living in a society where the airline is allowed to fix their fuckups by using a force towards a paying customer. They should let the passenger to stay on the plane and fight it out in court if they like afterwards.
  - masondixon 10y ago
    Interesting point. But I see the after boarding vs. before boarding to be essentially the same. Say the passenger forced his way on the plane after being bumped. Is this any different?

awongh 10y ago

ianal but according to this analysis, this particular situation hinges on the fact that United's policy only applies to unboarded passengers, and Dr. Dao was correct to assert his right to stay on the plane: http://www.natlawreview.com/article/united-airlines-dr-dao-and-contract-carriage http://www.natlawreview.com/article/united-airlines-dr-dao-a...

masondixon 10y ago
I do not think Dr Dao was aware of his rights or asserting them. Yes, in court he can make this argument. But is it really acceptable for a grown adult to be dragged off a plane? I don't want to live in a society like this, and I don't think the correct solution is to "never drag people off planes". We have a court system to resolve disputes and I think it is far better that whatever injustice people feel, it is resolved in the courts, not kicking and screaming.
- awongh 10y ago
  I think we agree on the basic principle of the case, but not the solution that follows it. I do agree that it is not acceptable for a grown adult to be dragged off a plane. I think it's a straw man to say that don't "never drag people off planes" is one of the possible solutions. if he turns out to be within his rights, even if he didn't have a full understanding of the legality of his decision at the time, then I think he was right to resist being removed from the flight. Saying that hypothetically he could have resolved it in court later, without being dragged off the plane is missing the point- I don't want to live in a society where it's acceptable to be dragged off a plane either, so let's not give united a pass on this situation just because it should be able to make similar actions in other (possibly legal) circumstances.
  - masondixon 10y ago
    > then I think he was right to resist being removed from the flight. See I don't agree with this. Its an argument for vigilantism. The courts are the appropriate place for this to be disputed. Private property and law enforcement should be respected, especially on airplanes. This is how we uphold a civil society. If a security guard is going to kick me out of somewhere because they think I am someone else, I am not going to physically resist even though they may be wrong. I will discuss it outside if there is a problem. Same applies to any situation. I can't see how it can ever benefit someone to physically resist something like this. It will always end up the same. > so let's not give united a pass on this situation I don't see what other option United had and don't see wrongdoing. The only thing this media firestorm does is set a precedent that if you are kicking and screaming you won't be bumped from a flight. Even if he was in the right, when you are told to get off a plane, or leave a store, it is the right thing to do regardless of whether you were legally in the right. Encouraging people into physical confrontation does not create a nice society to live in.

mikeash 10y ago

"A completely free market approach" would not allow airlines to involuntarily remove passengers who have already paid for and used a ticket. A free market approach would involve offering greater and greater compensation for voluntary removal until enough people took it.

masondixon 10y ago
Ok "completely free market approach" was a bad statement. A "generous free market approach" maybe is better, as the penalty for bumping is steep.
TorKlingberg 10y ago
No, it would involve whatever the contract between the passenger and the airline says. Which is very likely to favor the airline as they wrote it.
- tarlinian 10y ago
  Exactly...I don't get the complaints about the existence of IDB legislation. If the airlines got to write the contracts themselves, they'd say you'd get no compensation at all outside of a refund of your ticket price if you can't be rebooked.
  - mikeash 10y ago
    I'm OK with its existence. I'm not really OK with its content. min(4 x fare, $1,350) is way too low. Make the minimum compensation for involuntary bumping $10,000 (cash, not stupid vouchers) or something, and then maybe we'd see some sense. I'm sure there needs to be some way to remove people against their will if something really crazy happens. But it should be the absolute last resort if all else fails, not a way to cap losses to a low amount.
zhte415 10y ago
A free market solution would include revevant laews and regulations. Compensation would come from means to achieve it. Pleaae tie free market solution as above to compensation