4 ms·

United violated their own contract with the passenger. The passenger was attempting to escalate it within United themselves when they were violently assaulted a

United violated their own contract with the passenger. The passenger was attempting to escalate it within United themselves when they were violently assaulted at United's request. Law enforcement got involved in a civil dispute between a customer and company and then battered that customer on behalf of that company. There was no safety or security justification for law enforcement to be involved at all. The flight was delayed due to United's actions (kicking passengers off to board crew, after the flight had already been seated). The passenger was asserting their contractual and legal rights, the company and law enforcement violated those rights and the other passengers were negatively impacted due to the company's wish to save a small amount of money.

rl3 9y ago
>United violated their own contract with the passenger. The passenger was attempting to escalate it within United themselves when they were violently assaulted at United's request. Sorry, but that's hyperbole. I'm fairly confident the interaction didn't go down as: "Hello, we have an uncompliant passenger refusing to leave the aircraft at gate XYZ. Please come down and beat the shit out of him for us, thanks!" >Law enforcement got involved in a civil dispute between a customer and company and then battered that customer on behalf of that company. Ignoring the continued hyperbole, the dispute became more than a civil dispute once he refused flight crew instructions to leave the aircraft. >There was no safety or security justification for law enforcement to be involved at all. There was once a passenger demonstrated they're not willing to comply with the flight crew. Contrary to popular belief, commercial aircraft are not glorified busses. >The flight was delayed due to United's actions (kicking passengers off to board crew, after the flight had already been seated). Yes, but his actions then delayed the flight much more than it otherwise would have been. A minor delay due to crew positioning is a small price to pay if it means not having to cancel an entire flight of passengers down line. >The passenger was asserting their contractual and legal rights, ... Then argue that to your heart's content after deplaning. The aircraft you're being told to leave isn't the proper forum for legal and contractual disputes.
- EliRivers 9y ago
  "The aircraft you're being told to leave isn't the proper forum for legal and contractual disputes." That's the only time they really count. It's exactly the place for it. If you can't assert your rights when you need them, they're worthless.
  - rl3 9y ago
    >That's the only time they really count. They also tend to count in context of litigation and social media, all of which can be pursued after leaving the aircraft. >It's exactly the place for it. I'm honestly baffled here. It's basically the "I want to speak to the manager!" behavior that so many decry, and yet, it's somehow OK in context of holding up a commercial aircraft to insist you settle your individual dispute right then and there. >If you can't assert your rights when you need them, they're worthless. There is no right to be on an aircraft, just as drivers have no explicit right to be on the road. Despite the fact one pays for their car, pays insurance, pays the state all manner of fees, driving remains a revocable privilege should that person not follow the rules. A flight is no different in this respect. It's like failing to pull over on the shoulder for emergency vehicles, insisting you have a right to remain in your lane. While that might sound proposterous on the face of it, what if the crew that's positioning is operating a flight that's transporting organs? Suddenly the person refusing to give up their seat for crew isn't so righteously justified.
    - ingenuous2 9y ago
      You confuse inalienable rights with contractual rights. The passenger had a contractual right to be on the plane.
      - rl3 9y ago
        On the contrary, I was saying exactly that: since the rights aren't inalienable but contractual in nature, that holding up a flight to the point of refusing to comply with law enforcement is not the way to go about a contractual dispute.

rl3 9y ago

>United violated their own contract with the passenger. The passenger was attempting to escalate it within United themselves when they were violently assaulted at United's request. Sorry, but that's hyperbole. I'm fairly confident the interaction didn't go down as: "Hello, we have an uncompliant passenger refusing to leave the aircraft at gate XYZ. Please come down and beat the shit out of him for us, thanks!" >Law enforcement got involved in a civil dispute between a customer and company and then battered that customer on behalf of that company. Ignoring the continued hyperbole, the dispute became more than a civil dispute once he refused flight crew instructions to leave the aircraft. >There was no safety or security justification for law enforcement to be involved at all. There was once a passenger demonstrated they're not willing to comply with the flight crew. Contrary to popular belief, commercial aircraft are not glorified busses. >The flight was delayed due to United's actions (kicking passengers off to board crew, after the flight had already been seated). Yes, but his actions then delayed the flight much more than it otherwise would have been. A minor delay due to crew positioning is a small price to pay if it means not having to cancel an entire flight of passengers down line. >The passenger was asserting their contractual and legal rights, ... Then argue that to your heart's content after deplaning. The aircraft you're being told to leave isn't the proper forum for legal and contractual disputes.

EliRivers 9y ago
"The aircraft you're being told to leave isn't the proper forum for legal and contractual disputes." That's the only time they really count. It's exactly the place for it. If you can't assert your rights when you need them, they're worthless.
- rl3 9y ago
  >That's the only time they really count. They also tend to count in context of litigation and social media, all of which can be pursued after leaving the aircraft. >It's exactly the place for it. I'm honestly baffled here. It's basically the "I want to speak to the manager!" behavior that so many decry, and yet, it's somehow OK in context of holding up a commercial aircraft to insist you settle your individual dispute right then and there. >If you can't assert your rights when you need them, they're worthless. There is no right to be on an aircraft, just as drivers have no explicit right to be on the road. Despite the fact one pays for their car, pays insurance, pays the state all manner of fees, driving remains a revocable privilege should that person not follow the rules. A flight is no different in this respect. It's like failing to pull over on the shoulder for emergency vehicles, insisting you have a right to remain in your lane. While that might sound proposterous on the face of it, what if the crew that's positioning is operating a flight that's transporting organs? Suddenly the person refusing to give up their seat for crew isn't so righteously justified.
  - ingenuous2 9y ago
    You confuse inalienable rights with contractual rights. The passenger had a contractual right to be on the plane.
    - rl3 9y ago
      On the contrary, I was saying exactly that: since the rights aren't inalienable but contractual in nature, that holding up a flight to the point of refusing to comply with law enforcement is not the way to go about a contractual dispute.