7 ms·

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 l

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.
  - mikeash 10y ago
    Why does "we go through the courts" not also apply to removing passengers? Based on what you're advocating, it seems like the airlines should let him stay and then sue him, rather than having him forcibly removed. I think I understand the principles you're espousing, but you seem to be applying them only to one side.
    - masondixon 10y ago
      > but you seem to be applying them only to one side. I guess the principle I am arguing for is when one side is prepared to use physical force (which they believe is justified) to remove someone from their private property, then the "trespasser" should abide by that (for the time-being), and seek legal remedy. I see this as the only option to remaining civil. I don't see how society can function without violence without this being adhered to. Also, when someone is charge with private security or as law enforcement, they should be respected where they physically enforce something. Again, once they have made up their mind to enforce something physically, I don't see a way to maintain civility in any other way than respecting their wishes. In this case it was the airline's private property, and they felt justified to physically remove someone. Now whether or not this is justified, is a matter for the courts to decide.
      - mikeash 10y ago
        You focus entirely on what happened after the law arrived, and ignore the circumstances that led up to it. I completely agree that once they say, "get out or we'll take you out," you should get out peacefully, and pursue any remedy afterwards. However, I also contend that in a case like this, where the passenger was not any sort of threat, it never should have gotten to that point in the first place. The idea of preserving civility by preferring nonviolent responses says that the passenger should have left peacefully, and that United never should have tried to force him off. This is what I mean by "applying them only to one side." Both parties were in the wrong, but you're giving the one with all the power (and the one that started it) a free pass, and focusing all of your criticism on the customer.
chillwaves 10y ago
The difference is the physical logistics of denying a person passage to board vs physically removing them. The second scenario is an exponential escalation of the situation.
- masondixon 10y ago
  What if he runs on the plane? What is the difference?

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.
- mikeash 10y ago
  Why does "we go through the courts" not also apply to removing passengers? Based on what you're advocating, it seems like the airlines should let him stay and then sue him, rather than having him forcibly removed. I think I understand the principles you're espousing, but you seem to be applying them only to one side.
  - masondixon 10y ago
    > but you seem to be applying them only to one side. I guess the principle I am arguing for is when one side is prepared to use physical force (which they believe is justified) to remove someone from their private property, then the "trespasser" should abide by that (for the time-being), and seek legal remedy. I see this as the only option to remaining civil. I don't see how society can function without violence without this being adhered to. Also, when someone is charge with private security or as law enforcement, they should be respected where they physically enforce something. Again, once they have made up their mind to enforce something physically, I don't see a way to maintain civility in any other way than respecting their wishes. In this case it was the airline's private property, and they felt justified to physically remove someone. Now whether or not this is justified, is a matter for the courts to decide.
    - mikeash 10y ago
      You focus entirely on what happened after the law arrived, and ignore the circumstances that led up to it. I completely agree that once they say, "get out or we'll take you out," you should get out peacefully, and pursue any remedy afterwards. However, I also contend that in a case like this, where the passenger was not any sort of threat, it never should have gotten to that point in the first place. The idea of preserving civility by preferring nonviolent responses says that the passenger should have left peacefully, and that United never should have tried to force him off. This is what I mean by "applying them only to one side." Both parties were in the wrong, but you're giving the one with all the power (and the one that started it) a free pass, and focusing all of your criticism on the customer.

chillwaves 10y ago

The difference is the physical logistics of denying a person passage to board vs physically removing them. The second scenario is an exponential escalation of the situation.

masondixon 10y ago
What if he runs on the plane? What is the difference?