5 ms·

> 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

> 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.
    - masondixon 10y ago
      > 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. Cool :) > and that United never should have tried to force him off. But once you have decided someone needs to leave your private property, you must carry this out. There were three other passengers who left peacefully, and to ask another passenger to leave because someone refused would have set a precedent. I really don't see United with any other choice. Its their private property and they need to be able to do as they please. If they break the law, then they get punished. But its their private property. > 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. I don't see United in the wrong. Its their private property and they can do as they wish. I would have done exactly the same in the situation. I would never allow a passenger to stay on the plane when they are ordered off of it.
      - mikeash 10y ago
        Why do you begin the analysis with "once you have decided someone needs to leave your private property"? Where United went wrong was deciding that they must force someone off the plane, rather than coming to a mutual agreement with someone to leave the plane. Once they've decided to do this then, yes, they need to follow through. But they didn't have to make that decision, and they shouldn't have. By taking the decision as a given and only talking about what happened afterwards, you're ignoring the whole problem.
kwhitefoot 10y ago
> You sign a contract when you buy a ticket. You willingly agree to the terms. Perhaps you do, but the rest of us simply sigh and pretend we agree because in fact there is no alternative besides walking to our destination. The principles of contracts assume that both parties are of similar power and that both have alternatives; in the case of air travel neither of these are true.
_-__--____-- 10y ago
> In a civil society, we resolve disputes with civility Exactly, this is why the airline should not apply force towards him. You're setting double standards here - airline applied force = good, passenger kicking = bad.
- masondixon 10y ago
  And obey authority.

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.
  - masondixon 10y ago
    > 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. Cool :) > and that United never should have tried to force him off. But once you have decided someone needs to leave your private property, you must carry this out. There were three other passengers who left peacefully, and to ask another passenger to leave because someone refused would have set a precedent. I really don't see United with any other choice. Its their private property and they need to be able to do as they please. If they break the law, then they get punished. But its their private property. > 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. I don't see United in the wrong. Its their private property and they can do as they wish. I would have done exactly the same in the situation. I would never allow a passenger to stay on the plane when they are ordered off of it.
    - mikeash 10y ago
      Why do you begin the analysis with "once you have decided someone needs to leave your private property"? Where United went wrong was deciding that they must force someone off the plane, rather than coming to a mutual agreement with someone to leave the plane. Once they've decided to do this then, yes, they need to follow through. But they didn't have to make that decision, and they shouldn't have. By taking the decision as a given and only talking about what happened afterwards, you're ignoring the whole problem.

kwhitefoot 10y ago

> You sign a contract when you buy a ticket. You willingly agree to the terms. Perhaps you do, but the rest of us simply sigh and pretend we agree because in fact there is no alternative besides walking to our destination. The principles of contracts assume that both parties are of similar power and that both have alternatives; in the case of air travel neither of these are true.

_-__--____-- 10y ago

> In a civil society, we resolve disputes with civility Exactly, this is why the airline should not apply force towards him. You're setting double standards here - airline applied force = good, passenger kicking = bad.

masondixon 10y ago
And obey authority.