United Air forcibly removes passenger on overbooked flight

[Fargo]

Wait. Do you ever watch someone do something and think, "Wow - they shouldn't have done that." This is not a competency issue (well, to the extent all of us probably spend too much time here, maybe it is). This isn't a legal question; it is a human one.

We all have personal frameworks of right and wrong. Based on your personal framework, did he do the "right" thing?


You don't know if you think he did the right thing? Ok.


Me?

Dude - how long have you been reading my posts? When have I *ever* considered things from only one perspective? That's not how I'm wired. (And, in full disclosure, that's not always a good thing. My teenage kids remind me of that often.)


Well, given your words to me then, perhaps it would be reversion back to form.

While I do not fly often, it is a fact of modern professional life. While I've never been bumped (knock on wood), I've been tempted by the offers. A couple times, if the bidding had gone up a bit more, I probably would've. Regardless, anyone who has seen that process can sympathize with the doctor's predicament. The next natural step is, "What would I do in that situation?"

I'm not sure what I WOULD do. The good doctor's answer to that question is exhibit A in the compendium of things I would NOT do.

I was adding a couple things I thought helped clarify my thoughts in my last post at the same time you were responding. FWIW.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

If I was going to ad hominem you, I wouldn't do half measures. Probably something about the first case we argued about on here. I didn't do that because in spite of our disagreements I like and respect you.

 

[T.Lex]

I was adding a couple things I thought helped clarify my thoughts in my last post at the same time you were responding. FWIW.

Meh. Because of my respect for you, I'm WAY more interested in your personal views on whether he did the right thing. The legal bit is much less interesting, in the sense that it wouldn't be truly resolved after lengthy litigation, likely involving administrative proceedings and barely conflict-free admin appeals. Plus, it'll get settled long before the legal issue is resolved, because neither side probably wants to risk knowing the answer.

What would you have done if they asked you to get off the plane?

 

[jamil]

Argumentation for 400, Alex.

"The point signaling a conclusion of an often testy argument where both parties express mutual praise and admiration."

What is a lovefest?

Ding!

 

[Fargo]

Meh. Because of my respect for you, I'm WAY more interested in your personal views on whether he did the right thing. The legal bit is much less interesting, in the sense that it wouldn't be truly resolved after lengthy litigation, likely involving administrative proceedings and barely conflict-free admin appeals. Plus, it'll get settled long before the legal issue is resolved, because neither side probably wants to risk knowing the answer.

What would you have done if they asked you to get off the plane?

Ah, You don't want the morally right or legally right answer, you want to know my prudential decision? You were confusing me by referring to it as right, because I don't normally think of prudential decision in those terms since they are by definition individual and variable.

Me? I guarantee you 800 bucks is a hell of a lot more money to me then to you or the doctor. They probably had me at 400 unless there was some critical things with my family, like heart surgery or birth etc, that I had to be back for. I certainly am not raising a fuss about being to work. The only way I would see myself being unwilling to deplane would be if there was a critical event like that going on and I was familiar enough with my contractual terms that I believed myself to have a solid argument.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

So, to summarize:

The lawyers have no idea which way the law will shake out.
Everyone was morally wrong. Or right. Depending.
The market doesn't care much in the short term. Neither do passengers.
The market doesn't care at all long term. Neither do passengers.
The CEO is sorry. Probably because he wants to stay CEO and not be a sacrificial lamb. If he can ride out the 15 minutes of disgust until the next viral video, he's golden.

Yoga pants.

 

[T.Lex]

Ah, You don't want the morally right or legally right answer, you want to know my prudential decision? You were confusing me by referring to it as right, because I don't normally think of prudential decision in those terms since they are by definition individual and variable.

Me? I guarantee you 800 bucks is a hell of a lot more money to me then to you or the doctor. They probably had me at 400 unless there was some critical things with my family, like heart surgery or birth etc, that I had to be back for. I certainly am not raising a fuss about being to work. The only way I would see myself being unwilling to deplane would be if there was a critical event like that going on and I was familiar enough with my contractual terms that I believed myself to have a solid argument.

Progress.

The doctor did a great deal of talking. While not an established "fact," I think it reasonable that he pulled out all those stops: am a doctor, have to be at work, sick people need me (to trade Rxs with them), my ryeets, etc.

They still wanted him off the plane.

So, did he behave properly?

 

[T.Lex]

So, to summarize:

The lawyers have no idea which way the law will shake out.
Everyone was morally wrong. Or right. Depending.
The market doesn't care much in the short term. Neither do passengers.
The market doesn't care at all long term. Neither do passengers.
The CEO is sorry. Probably because he wants to stay CEO and not be a sacrificial lamb. If he can ride out the 15 minutes of disgust until the next viral video, he's golden.

Yoga pants.

You left out jamil playing Jeopardy with himself and referring to a non-existent "Alex."

 

[ArcadiaGP]

You left out jamil playing Jeopardy with himself and referring to a non-existent "Alex."

 

[Fargo]

Progress.

The doctor did a great deal of talking. While not an established "fact," I think it reasonable that he pulled out all those stops: am a doctor, have to be at work, sick people need me (to trade Rxs with them), my ryeets, etc.

They still wanted him off the plane.

So, did he behave properly?

What does properly mean? Are we invoking Robert's rules, Hoyle, the Bluebook, and a manners and etiquette manual? Is it a "what would I do"? Which contractual party are we presuming to be correct?

To me, if he has a contractual right, there is nothing improper in him exercising it. There is also nothing wrong with stating why he is exercising it. It is actually legally advantageous to put them on notice of potential damages as foreseeability is part of that calculus.

If he doesn't have a contractual right, then he is behaving improperly in breach. He also opens himself up to great liability.

Regardless of who is contractually right, there is a clear contract and the cops are not supposed to be involving themselves absent court order. The agency itself says that. IMO things get really improper when state authority is illicitly brought to bear for the benefit of a party in a civil dispute.

 

[T.Lex]

What does properly mean? Are we invoking Robert's rules, Hoyle, the Bluebook, and a manners and etiquette manual? Is it a "what would I do"? Which contractual party are we presuming to be correct?

To me, if he has a contractual right, there is nothing improper in him exercising it. There is also nothing wrong with stating why he is exercising it. It is actually legally advantageous to put them on notice of potential damages as foreseeability is part of that calculus.

If he doesn't have a contractual right, then he is behaving improperly in breach. He also opens himself up to great liability.

Regardless of who is contractually right, there is a clear contract and the cops are not supposed to be involving themselves absent court order. The agency itself says that. IMO things get really improper when state authority is illicitly brought to bear for the benefit of a party in a civil dispute.

Cool. More progress.

First, still not interested in legally/procedurally/etiquette right. (Although, if he was asked to leave a tea party and tried to stick around, I think his actions would violate those rules.) Just what you think about his actions as a normal person.

Second, I easily could have missed it, were these mall cops/hired security or real cops? Or some federales that are somewhere in between (like the daytime federal marshals that guard the US Courthouse in Indy)? I mean, it kinda doesn't matter, but I'm trying to sort through what we can agree are facts and not.

Seems to me either a senior on-site airline security person or the pilot has ultimate authority to remove a passenger. Regardless of security-dude's employer (public or private) the security dude is just doing his job in that moment. He doesn't care if there's a contractual/moral/etiquette right or not. Authority figure tells him to get dude off the plane, dude is coming off the plane. We (and I include you) tell those kinds of people that they really don't need to think too deeply about the bigger problem. Focus on the problem in front of them.

 

[indiucky]

The CEO is sorry. Probably because he wants to stay CEO and not be a sacrificial lamb. If he can ride out the 15 minutes of disgust until the next viral video, he's golden.

Yoga pants.

I think his video apology will do a lot to heal the wounds......

[video=youtube;8f2YeOsXETA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8f2YeOsXETA[/video]

 

[Fargo]

Cool. More progress.

First, still not interested in legally/procedurally/etiquette right. (Although, if he was asked to leave a tea party and tried to stick around, I think his actions would violate those rules.) Just what you think about his actions as a normal person.

Second, I easily could have missed it, were these mall cops/hired security or real cops? Or some federales that are somewhere in between (like the daytime federal marshals that guard the US Courthouse in Indy)? I mean, it kinda doesn't matter, but I'm trying to sort through what we can agree are facts and not.

Seems to me either a senior on-site airline security person or the pilot has ultimate authority to remove a passenger. Regardless of security-dude's employer (public or private) the security dude is just doing his job in that moment. He doesn't care if there's a contractual/moral/etiquette right or not. Authority figure tells him to get dude off the plane, dude is coming off the plane. We (and I include you) tell those kinds of people that they really don't need to think too deeply about the bigger problem. Focus on the problem in front of them.

They are some form of municipal security, but not part of the Police Department. Not allowed to carry guns and not supposed to be on airplanes unless there is an imminent security breach. Apparently they are members of the SEIU which to me says something.

Removal of United passenger shines light on airport police - ABC News

I am unclear why you think there is some person who has automatic ultimate authority to remove passengers regardless of the contract? Rule 21 kinda addresses this. You are going to have to bear with me for a moment because this is one of those areas where my professional perspective is probably very very different from yours.

Day in and day out tons and tons of people try to get the police and prosecutors office to enforce their civil remedies. They want their disputes with their contractors to be treated as home-improvement fraud, they want cars in foreclosure to be listed in NCIC/IDACS as stolen, they want the police to evict people without a court order and they want criminal trespass on people who have contract interests in the property.

Police get trained to not involve themselves in civil disputes because they are in no legal position to determine who is in the right. That is the job of a judge and so the police don't enforce civil disputes without a court order. When they do, they open themselves up to all sorts of liability and generally do not receive the immunity that they otherwise would.

Most importantly, when the police start involving themselves in civil disputes, generally comes down to a question of who knows or has the better relationship with the police. Several local officers have gotten themselves in deep Doo Doo for playing this game. Anytime criminal law enforcement starts using its power to detain/arrest/use force etc for the benefit of civil parties it is a situation so ripe for abuse that it should never be tolerated.

Now, there are a few statues making violation of a civil order a crime, such as interference with custody or invasion of privacy. However I know of no such statute at play here.

 

[T.Lex]

Ok. Legalistic we go.

From a family of pilots there is a tradition that the pilot is like the captain of the ship and the ultimate authority. This is embodied in 14 CFR 91.5. Basically applies in-flight. That's why the pilot can decide to divert to a different airport if a passenger is being an asshat without it breaching any contracts (adhesion or otherwise).

Along those same lines, and this goes back to when flight crews were stewards and stewardesses and .gov regulation of airlines was the norm. The crews were given authority to tell passengers what to do. 14 CFR 91.11.

If a flight crewmember's duties include telling a passenger to get off the plane, and the passenger doesn't do it, that passenger is interfering with the crewmember's duties. It basically converts to a trespass situation.

Which, BTW, is an instance where LE does get involved in private civil issues. Property owner wants someone off their property, the officer gets them off the property. The trigger is different (the contract right would be a defense in Indiana to the trespass), but the effect is the same.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

ugh UAL overbooked again.

 

[Fargo]

Ok. Legalistic we go.

From a family of pilots there is a tradition that the pilot is like the captain of the ship and the ultimate authority. This is embodied in 14 CFR 91.5. Basically applies in-flight. That's why the pilot can decide to divert to a different airport if a passenger is being an asshat without it breaching any contracts (adhesion or otherwise).

Along those same lines, and this goes back to when flight crews were stewards and stewardesses and .gov regulation of airlines was the norm. The crews were given authority to tell passengers what to do. 14 CFR 91.11.

If a flight crewmember's duties include telling a passenger to get off the plane, and the passenger doesn't do it, that passenger is interfering with the crewmember's duties. It basically converts to a trespass situation.

Which, BTW, is an instance where LE does get involved in private civil issues. Property owner wants someone off their property, the officer gets them off the property. The trigger is different (the contract right would be a defense in Indiana to the trespass), but the effect is the same.

So the crewmembers duties can include unlawful breach of contract? You are really stretching here. By your reading, the passenger has zero contractual rights if any crewmember decides he feels differently.

§ 91.11 Prohibition on interference with crewmembers.
No person may assault, threaten, intimidate, or interfere with a crewmember in the performance of the crewmember's duties aboard an aircraft being operated.

There is nothing in 91.11 that says anything about crew members being able to blanketly order people around. So if I am ordered to deplane at 20,000 feet, I'm supposed to have to do that?

 

[ghuns]

So the crewmembers duties can include unlawful breach of contract? You are really stretching here. By your reading, the passenger has zero contractual rights if any crewmember decides he feels differently.

§ 91.11 Prohibition on interference with crewmembers.
No person may assault, threaten, intimidate, or interfere with a crewmember in the performance of the crewmember's duties aboard an aircraft being operated.

So if a crewmember attempts to unlawfully breach a contract with a passenger, the passenger can do whatever he/she wants while on a plane?

How about if both just behave like adults?

 

[Fargo]

So if a crewmember attempts to unlawfully breach a contract with a passenger, the passenger can do whatever he/she wants while on a plane?

How about if both just behave like adults?

No, but he can sit in the seat has a legal right to.

 

[T.Lex]

So the crewmembers duties can include unlawful breach of contract? You are really stretching here. By your reading, the passenger has zero contractual rights if any crewmember decides he feels differently.

I'm not saying it, the CFR is saying it.

Well, your hyperbole aside, it is a matter of priority. In that moment, the crewmember is king (or queen). If what is being done to the passenger is a breach of contract, on the plane is not the place for it.

You don't have to like it, now or in that moment. But, federal law says what it says.

There is nothing in 91.11 that says anything about crew members being able to blanketly order people around. So if I am ordered to deplane at 20,000 feet, I'm supposed to have to do that?

In the air, the pilot makes the call. Well, not to deplane you, but to subdue you and divert.

What is a better approach? Allow the passengers to call the shots? Instead of an undercover TSA agent/air marshal, have a traveling ALJ on every flight?

 

[ghuns]

No, but he can sit in the seat has a legal right to.

So does your friendly stewardess need to attend law school before or after flight attendant school? Or is a day of basic contract law, sandwiched in between classes on how to read safety instructions over an intercom and how to push a beverage cart during turbulence enough?

Not everybody is an expert on everything. People make mistakes. I have no idea in this case if the airlines employees made mistakes or they were by the book. I don't care. The passenger compartment of that plane was not the place to litigate the matter.

On an airplane, the flight crew is in charge. They are in a position of authority over the passengers. They might abuse that authority. They might violate a passenger's rights. But their authority is backed up by force. You can stand up to that force on principle and be in the right, but it won't hurt any less.