5 ms·

Fine, however that does not entitle you to remain on the aircraft against all orders. Get off and deal with the issue separately without creating a new incident

Fine, however that does not entitle you to remain on the aircraft against all orders. Get off and deal with the issue separately without creating a new incident. Being in the right (if that is the case) does not mean you can behave however you want. If a hotel denies your booking for whatever reason, would you just stay in the lobby anyway?

FredPret 5y ago
Who the hell has the authority to issue “orders” to a civilian? What is this, medieval Europe? To make it worse, he paid to be there. If they didn’t want him in the seat, they shouldn’t have sold him a ticket. He already paid, already received the ticket, and already had his ass in the seat.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- manigandham 5y ago
  Airport security and the police are explicitly granted with that authority and can issue those orders. Why would you call this medieval?
- Bud 5y ago
  You seem deeply confused. A lot of people have the right to issue orders to a civilian under various circumstances.
  - hattori_hanzo 5y ago
    I'm deeply confused aswell. Do you mind elaborating on who that is?
  - FredPret 5y ago
    But not under these circumstances. Was that not clear? If you’re a model of clarity, I’d rather be confused.
    - Bud 5y ago
      You're still wrong. Go check federal law on airline passengers. Don't worry, I'll wait. And no, btw, pretending to be confused isn't convincing.
- nightski 5y ago
  At least in the U.S. anyone is allowed to order others off their own property...
  - sk5t 5y ago
    Do contracts mean nothing to you?
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - midasuni 5y ago
      The contract says they can order you off. The entire argument revolves around invalidating the contract due to other laws.
  - ttybird2 5y ago
    This is not technically correct. I am pretty sure that you are not allowed to immediately order someone off your property if they have been living there for a while.
- kube-system 5y ago
  - Ansil849 5y ago
    > The terms of purchasing the ticket includes your agreement that you might get bumped. 'Bumping' is the colloquial term for 'involuntary denied boarding'. Bumping does not apply in this case, because the passenger in question was already boarded, and therefore could not be denied his seat, as he was not acting abusively. But don't take my word for it, this is directly from the US Department of Transportation: > Can airlines involuntarily bump me after I have boarded the flight? > Generally, no. If you have met the following conditions, airlines are not allowed to deny you permission to board, or remove you from the flight if you have already boarded the flight: > You have checked-in for your flight before the check-in deadline set by the airlines; and > A gate agent has accepted your paper boarding pass or electronically scanned your boarding pass and let you know that you may proceed to board. > However, airlines may deny boarding or remove you from a flight even after accepting your boarding pass and informing you that you may proceed to board if the denial or removal is due to a safety, security, or health risk, or due to a behavior that is considered obscene, disruptive, or otherwise unlawful. https://www.transportation.gov/individuals/aviation-consumer-protection/bumping-oversales https://www.transportation.gov/individuals/aviation-consumer...
    - kube-system 5y ago
      My mistake, I forgot that detail. My other two points, however, are still valid, even if the airlines request broke regulations.
      - Ansil849 5y ago
        > My other two points, however, are still valid. No, if you read the DOT website I linked to, you'll see your second point is not valid either. The DOT explicitly states airlines are not allowed to deny you permission to board, or remove you from the flight if.... If you have already boarded the plan, or had your ticket scanned, and are not being unruly, airlines are literally not allowed to deplane you.
- kortilla 5y ago
  He paid for a seat reservation, not the plane. You have no right to disobey orders in the same way you don’t have a right to fly the plane. There is no ambiguity here.
  - ratww 5y ago
    > He paid for a seat reservation, not the plane. He paid for the flight, was checked in, allowed into the plane and didn't provide any reason himself for being thrown out. The people who escalated the situation were the airline staff and airport staff. Huge difference.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > Who the hell has the authority to issue “orders” to a civilian? The property owner of the property he is occupying against the owner’s wishes. > What is this, medieval Europe? Capitalism isn't the same thing as feudalism, though both give preeminence to property rights (in capitalism, the important ones are more likely to be marketable rather than fixed to predefined systems of inheritance.)
- midasuni 5y ago
  Jurisdictions can issue evacuation orders and curfews. Police can in many cases remove you for trespassing. The United incident was a total disaster for United, they were incompetent and doubled down on that incompetence because of policies driven by their bottom line. The “police” that removed the trespasser were no trained and were also incompetent. None of that changes the fact that if the captain of the airline thinks it’s a safety problem he can remove the passenger.
4oh9do 5y ago
> If a hotel denies your booking for whatever reason, would you just stay in the lobby anyway? The equivalent analogy would be: you paid for and were situated in your hotel room, when you receive notice from the hotel that they have overbooked their hotel and that hotel staff from another hotel need to stay in your room and you must evacuate your room immediately. When you refuse to do so, they have security slam your head into the bedframe, resulting in you breaking your teeth, and then leave you outside on the curb.
- manigandham 5y ago
  Is your problem with the degree of force used? If so then I agree with you. And the case itself was decided that way by people qualified and informed of all the facts.
  - ratww 5y ago
    In the case of the hotel example there is also another issue: a hotel is a lodging. Throwing someone out in the street with a proper reason is not entirely legal in most jurisdictions, at least not in mine. Proper reasons include disruption, property damage, violating the rules, committing crimes, being intoxicated, not having paid, being past the leave date, etc. In this case, the reason is "hotel staff from another hotel need to stay in your room", which is not grounds for expelling anyone. Even when hotels make mistakes and overbook they can't throw out guests that are already accepted and accommodated. Hotels even go the extra mile of directing the additional guests to other hotels and foot the bill.
- wyldfire 5y ago
  [flagged]
  - ttybird2 5y ago
    "If the hotel tells you to leave, you have to leave" Morally? Legally? In order to not get beaten up? For the first two, I disagree. For the last one, perhaps but it might be worth the bad publicity for them and the lawsuit money. "It's bullshit if they hurt you while forcing you to leave, but it seems like you've contributed somewhat to the situation you find yourself in when you leave them no choice but to physically remove you." I don't want to be rude but one could use the same argument to justify horrible acts such as violence during sexual assault.
soraminazuki 5y ago
Airlines aren't entitled to beat unconscious passengers who refuse to be defrauded.
- kelnos 5y ago
  - soraminazuki 5y ago
    I know perfectly well that legality is different from ethics. But in common sense terms, charging money for what you don't intend to offer is fraud.
    - kortilla 5y ago
      They did intend to offer it when it was sold. Even in this scenario it was well understood that the added United employees were last minute. This is even more cut and dry not fraud than regular overbooking that results in a shortage purely from customer sales.
      - Lev1a 5y ago
        Then that's still United's own fault for not planning their employee shuttling properly. They're an airline, get another plane, maybe even a charter if their employees' travel is important enough for them to justify brutalizing their paying customers.
- dylan604 5y ago
  Oh man, here's the impetus for a new low price air carrier, Squid Games Airlines.
bfdm 5y ago
Well maybe it should? Perhaps we should prevent airlines from overselling and forcing people off? You've sold the seat. Thats a dine deal. You can negotiate to buy it back sure but I can decline any or all offers. It's not unreasonable to expect them to plan ahead better. Perhaps they need to have more jumpseats, or force them to displace the highest paying customer first to discourage that kind of planning. There are many more humane options available when we realize we should be in control of the rules governing their operations, if only this whole shitstorm wasnt massively corrupt.
- thegrimmest 5y ago
  No. Any business should be able to refuse service for any reason. Refusing to leave private property is trespassing. The right thing to do is leave and resolve your dispute over airfare in court.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
p49k 5y ago
United is the one who created the issue and got violent. They are the ones that should have let him fly and dealt with the issue separately without creating a new incident if they felt he was in the wrong.

FredPret 5y ago

Who the hell has the authority to issue “orders” to a civilian? What is this, medieval Europe? To make it worse, he paid to be there. If they didn’t want him in the seat, they shouldn’t have sold him a ticket. He already paid, already received the ticket, and already had his ass in the seat.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
manigandham 5y ago
Airport security and the police are explicitly granted with that authority and can issue those orders. Why would you call this medieval?
Bud 5y ago
You seem deeply confused. A lot of people have the right to issue orders to a civilian under various circumstances.
- hattori_hanzo 5y ago
  I'm deeply confused aswell. Do you mind elaborating on who that is?
- FredPret 5y ago
  But not under these circumstances. Was that not clear? If you’re a model of clarity, I’d rather be confused.
  - Bud 5y ago
    You're still wrong. Go check federal law on airline passengers. Don't worry, I'll wait. And no, btw, pretending to be confused isn't convincing.
nightski 5y ago
At least in the U.S. anyone is allowed to order others off their own property...
- sk5t 5y ago
  Do contracts mean nothing to you?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - midasuni 5y ago
    The contract says they can order you off. The entire argument revolves around invalidating the contract due to other laws.
- ttybird2 5y ago
  This is not technically correct. I am pretty sure that you are not allowed to immediately order someone off your property if they have been living there for a while.
kube-system 5y ago
- Ansil849 5y ago
  > The terms of purchasing the ticket includes your agreement that you might get bumped. 'Bumping' is the colloquial term for 'involuntary denied boarding'. Bumping does not apply in this case, because the passenger in question was already boarded, and therefore could not be denied his seat, as he was not acting abusively. But don't take my word for it, this is directly from the US Department of Transportation: > Can airlines involuntarily bump me after I have boarded the flight? > Generally, no. If you have met the following conditions, airlines are not allowed to deny you permission to board, or remove you from the flight if you have already boarded the flight: > You have checked-in for your flight before the check-in deadline set by the airlines; and > A gate agent has accepted your paper boarding pass or electronically scanned your boarding pass and let you know that you may proceed to board. > However, airlines may deny boarding or remove you from a flight even after accepting your boarding pass and informing you that you may proceed to board if the denial or removal is due to a safety, security, or health risk, or due to a behavior that is considered obscene, disruptive, or otherwise unlawful. https://www.transportation.gov/individuals/aviation-consumer-protection/bumping-oversales https://www.transportation.gov/individuals/aviation-consumer...
  - kube-system 5y ago
    My mistake, I forgot that detail. My other two points, however, are still valid, even if the airlines request broke regulations.
    - Ansil849 5y ago
      > My other two points, however, are still valid. No, if you read the DOT website I linked to, you'll see your second point is not valid either. The DOT explicitly states airlines are not allowed to deny you permission to board, or remove you from the flight if.... If you have already boarded the plan, or had your ticket scanned, and are not being unruly, airlines are literally not allowed to deplane you.
kortilla 5y ago
He paid for a seat reservation, not the plane. You have no right to disobey orders in the same way you don’t have a right to fly the plane. There is no ambiguity here.
- ratww 5y ago
  > He paid for a seat reservation, not the plane. He paid for the flight, was checked in, allowed into the plane and didn't provide any reason himself for being thrown out. The people who escalated the situation were the airline staff and airport staff. Huge difference.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> Who the hell has the authority to issue “orders” to a civilian? The property owner of the property he is occupying against the owner’s wishes. > What is this, medieval Europe? Capitalism isn't the same thing as feudalism, though both give preeminence to property rights (in capitalism, the important ones are more likely to be marketable rather than fixed to predefined systems of inheritance.)
midasuni 5y ago
Jurisdictions can issue evacuation orders and curfews. Police can in many cases remove you for trespassing. The United incident was a total disaster for United, they were incompetent and doubled down on that incompetence because of policies driven by their bottom line. The “police” that removed the trespasser were no trained and were also incompetent. None of that changes the fact that if the captain of the airline thinks it’s a safety problem he can remove the passenger.

4oh9do 5y ago

> If a hotel denies your booking for whatever reason, would you just stay in the lobby anyway? The equivalent analogy would be: you paid for and were situated in your hotel room, when you receive notice from the hotel that they have overbooked their hotel and that hotel staff from another hotel need to stay in your room and you must evacuate your room immediately. When you refuse to do so, they have security slam your head into the bedframe, resulting in you breaking your teeth, and then leave you outside on the curb.

manigandham 5y ago
Is your problem with the degree of force used? If so then I agree with you. And the case itself was decided that way by people qualified and informed of all the facts.
- ratww 5y ago
  In the case of the hotel example there is also another issue: a hotel is a lodging. Throwing someone out in the street with a proper reason is not entirely legal in most jurisdictions, at least not in mine. Proper reasons include disruption, property damage, violating the rules, committing crimes, being intoxicated, not having paid, being past the leave date, etc. In this case, the reason is "hotel staff from another hotel need to stay in your room", which is not grounds for expelling anyone. Even when hotels make mistakes and overbook they can't throw out guests that are already accepted and accommodated. Hotels even go the extra mile of directing the additional guests to other hotels and foot the bill.
wyldfire 5y ago
[flagged]
- ttybird2 5y ago
  "If the hotel tells you to leave, you have to leave" Morally? Legally? In order to not get beaten up? For the first two, I disagree. For the last one, perhaps but it might be worth the bad publicity for them and the lawsuit money. "It's bullshit if they hurt you while forcing you to leave, but it seems like you've contributed somewhat to the situation you find yourself in when you leave them no choice but to physically remove you." I don't want to be rude but one could use the same argument to justify horrible acts such as violence during sexual assault.

soraminazuki 5y ago

Airlines aren't entitled to beat unconscious passengers who refuse to be defrauded.

kelnos 5y ago
- soraminazuki 5y ago
  I know perfectly well that legality is different from ethics. But in common sense terms, charging money for what you don't intend to offer is fraud.
  - kortilla 5y ago
    They did intend to offer it when it was sold. Even in this scenario it was well understood that the added United employees were last minute. This is even more cut and dry not fraud than regular overbooking that results in a shortage purely from customer sales.
    - Lev1a 5y ago
      Then that's still United's own fault for not planning their employee shuttling properly. They're an airline, get another plane, maybe even a charter if their employees' travel is important enough for them to justify brutalizing their paying customers.
dylan604 5y ago
Oh man, here's the impetus for a new low price air carrier, Squid Games Airlines.

bfdm 5y ago

Well maybe it should? Perhaps we should prevent airlines from overselling and forcing people off? You've sold the seat. Thats a dine deal. You can negotiate to buy it back sure but I can decline any or all offers. It's not unreasonable to expect them to plan ahead better. Perhaps they need to have more jumpseats, or force them to displace the highest paying customer first to discourage that kind of planning. There are many more humane options available when we realize we should be in control of the rules governing their operations, if only this whole shitstorm wasnt massively corrupt.

thegrimmest 5y ago
No. Any business should be able to refuse service for any reason. Refusing to leave private property is trespassing. The right thing to do is leave and resolve your dispute over airfare in court.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

p49k 5y ago

United is the one who created the issue and got violent. They are the ones that should have let him fly and dealt with the issue separately without creating a new incident if they felt he was in the wrong.