Officer on leave after dragging United Airlines passenger off plane

[rockingrobin]

1 hour ago, Dipterocarp said:

The man was asked to deplane under command authority inherent to the crew, the moment he failed to comply he was in breech of Uniteds own policy as outlined in their contract of carriage, and Federal Law. This police were called to ask him to deplane again. Again he refused and what happened after that is horrible but no reponsibility of United Airlines.

 

Another poster linked to a relevant statute, then via a plain language reading of wording incorrectly stated, the crew, have no authority to issue commands unless "in flight" meaning doors closed.  I say I can smoke a ciggy in the lavatory. The plain language reading of the relative statute reads air carriers must prohibit smoking "on scheduled flights".  Flight is defined as doors closed right? Anyway, they can't tell me no as they have no authority to ask me not to smoke, to put my seatbelt on, to open the windowshade, or any other of the mundane commands that are given thousands of times a day with the door open. They close the door I've already stubbed it out. I bought a ticket I have rights!  Rubbish!

 

See how easy is is to be a poor solicitor when one has no knowledge of how law is actually interpreted in actual operations

Here is the post again

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/46504

'An individual on an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States who, by assaulting or intimidating a flight crew member or flight attendant of the aircraft, interferes with the performance of the duties of the member or attendant or lessens the ability of the member or attendant to perform those duties, or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both. However, if a dangerous weapon is used in assaulting or intimidating the member or attendant, the individual shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life. '

  

Definition of special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States

'An aircraft is in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States only while the aircraft is "in flight'

An aircraft is "in flight" from the moment when all external doors are closed following embarkation until the moment when one such door is opened for disembarkation, or in the case of a forced landing, until competent authorities take responsibility for the aircraft. 49 U.S.C. § 46501(1).

 

https://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-1405-special-aircraft-jurisdiction-us

 

As you can  see the federal rule with regard interfering with duties of crew is only applicable when aircraft is 'in flight', all external doors closed etc

 

Smoking on aircraft is governed by separate rules and not dependent on the aircraft being  in flight' 

[ChiangMaiLightning2143]

I read and linked to the contract of carriage, I read and posted the blog post of an Air Transport Pilot rated (whatever that is) Attorney, and other links that have come from pilots and the United Pilot Union on Facebook links. I travel constantly, know the score, and made up my own mind. It is going to take more than unsupported personal opinion to get me to join the chorus of plebian outrage unfairly levied againt United and its partners.

[thaihome]

2 hours ago, ChiangMaiLightning2143 said:

I read and linked to the contract of carriage, I read and posted the blog post of an Air Transport Pilot rated (whatever that is) Attorney, and other links that have come from pilots and the United Pilot Union on Facebook links. I travel constantly, know the score, and made up my own mind. It is going to take more than unsupported personal opinion to get me to join the chorus of plebian outrage unfairly levied againt United and its partners.

So you agree with the amount of force used to enforce what you think is a legal order to get a 69 year passive old man to comply?

TH 

[mommysboy]

3 hours ago, Panda13 said:

And now somebody has been stung by a scorpion on a United flight, the news has just reported. They will stop at nothing to free up seats on their planes apparently. Their stock will go thru the floor.

I read that.  I think it was a million to one event, where no one was at fault. 

 

You have to commend the passenger for his fair and mature handling of the matter.

 

But it does stand in stark contrast to the main event, where just about every mistake possible seems to have been made and magnified (and I do include the good doctor in this because I think he should have walked.)

[55Jay]

6 hours ago, mommysboy said:

I think it likely UA would be held vicariously liable for what security did, even if the captain did not order the customer to be removed.

I think you're right.  I have a theory about that.  Do you want to hear it?  I offered it to Dipto what's his name but he didn't respond.  I don't think he can handle it.  Probably make his head explode.

 

It's a kick ass, totally plausible theory involving United's misrepresentation of the facts to CDA in order to get them on that aircraft acting as their (United's) private security agent, but under government Color of Authority / Color of Law.   Trust me, it's good.  A real page turner. 

[mommysboy]

2 minutes ago, 55Jay said:

I think you're right.  I have a theory about that.  Do you want to hear it?  I offered it to Dipto what's his name but he didn't respond.  I don't think he can handle it.  Probably make his head explode.

 

It's a kick ass, totally plausible theory involving United's misrepresentation of the facts to CDA in order to get them on that aircraft acting as their (United's) private security agent, but under government Color of Authority / Color of Law.   Trust me, it's good.  A real page turner. 

 

Go on then!  I may not be able to comment until tomorrow though.

[55Jay]

2 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

 

Go on then!  I may not be able to comment until tomorrow though.

Erf, ok, never mind, I'll do it tomorrow.  Have a good night.  Cheers, J.

[Rhys]

... a nice paid break... not transfer to an inactive post...sounds good

[Dipterocarp]

Ralph Nader Explains Why United Airlines Has "Total Unbridled Discretion to Throw You Off a Plane"

 

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/40233

[CaptHaddock]

The letter of the law hardly matters.  If this case were to go to trial it would be decided by jury of passengers, not airlines.  Since United knows that they will pay whatever is necessary to settle which will be a lot more than whatever they would have had to pay to get someone to volunteer to give up his seat in the first place.  United chose to use violence to get the seat just to avoid having to pay the market rate for the seat, which at that point was somewhere north of $800.

 

The airlines get away with ignoring the wishes of their clientele, because they are in a monopoly position with the top four airlines owning 80% of the US domestic market.  This situation arose because the Department of Justice permitted mergers that resulted in that monopoly position.  The corrective is to open the US domestic market to foreign airlines.  Let Cathay Pacific or EVA Air do runs like Chicago to Louisville and the behavior of the US carriers will change overnight. 

 

Not only won't that happen, but it won't even be discussed.  So much for capitalist rhetoric of market competition.

[thaihome]

19 minutes ago, Dipterocarp said:

Ralph Nader Explains Why United Airlines Has "Total Unbridled Discretion to Throw You Off a Plane"

 

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/40233

It appears, dispite Nader's assertion the airline can throw you off the plane, that there is some differences in opinion among  the legal community that the airline is indeed contractually entitled to do so once you are seated and not violating any other rule that allows them to do so. Refusing to leave is not listed as reason in the contract.  Unfortunately,  I doubt that the Doctor's case will ever get to court and recieve a court opinion on the legality of the question. 

 

I suspect there will be a congressional inquiry into this case and the airline industry's practices in overbooking, refusal of services, and the use of law enforcement in imposing their perceived civil contractual rights.   Out of that will likely come either new clarifying law or new regulations under existing laws.

 

It will not be the industry's interest to overtly oppose this, even if it ends up costing them a relatively small amount. But you can never underestimate corporate greed.

 

Munoz's statement the doctor had every right to the seat and should not have been removed probably made every airline gate agent, cabin crew, scheduling dept, and CEO cringe in anticipation of further passengers assertions of their new "Munoz Rights".

TH 

[55Jay]

5 minutes ago, thaihome said:

It appears, dispite Nader's assertion the airline can throw you off the plane, that there is some differences in opinion among  the legal community that the airline is indeed contractually entitled to do so once you are seated and not violating any other rule that allows them to do so. Refusing to leave is not listed as reason in the contract.  Unfortunately,  I doubt that the Doctor's case will ever get to court and recieve a court opinion on the legality of the question. 

 

I suspect there will be a congressional inquiry into this case and the airline industry's practices in overbooking, refusal of services, and the use of law enforcement in imposing their perceived civil contractual rights.   Out of that will likely come either new clarifying law or new regulations under existing laws.

 

It will not be the industry's interest to overtly oppose this, even if it ends up costing them a relatively small amount. But you can never underestimate corporate greed.

 

Munoz's statement the doctor had every right to the seat and should not have been removed probably made every airline gate agent, cabin crew, scheduling dept, and CEO cringe in anticipation of further passengers assertions of their new "Munoz Rights".

TH 

Indeed.  If Dao/his lawyer resist offers to settle, and this goes all the way, it has every chance at accomplishing an industry-wide sanity check.  For some reason, I just got this mental picture of Clinton on stage with the Russians, holding her big red 'Reset Button'. 

[CaptHaddock]

21 minutes ago, thaihome said:

I suspect there will be a congressional inquiry into this case and the airline industry's practices in overbooking, refusal of services, and the use of law enforcement in imposing their perceived civil contractual rights.   Out of that will likely come either new clarifying law or new regulations under existing laws.

 

Not going to happen in a Republican Congress or a Republican FAA.  This is going to be an Airlines "Newtown Massacre," shocking, but nothing changes because the vested interests have too much financial and therefore political clout.  The airlines will change their internal procedures to try to avoid more beatings on video, but their ability to take back their seats at their own whim will not be substantially impaired.

[thaihome]

10 minutes ago, CaptHaddock said:

Not going to happen in a Republican Congress or a Republican FAA.  This is going to be an Airlines "Newtown Massacre," shocking, but nothing changes because the vested interests have too much financial and therefore political clout.  The airlines will change their internal procedures to try to avoid more beatings on video, but their ability to take back their seats at their own whim will not be substantially impaired.

You could be right as all statements calling for inquiry so far have come from Democrats.  We shall see. The DOT is supposedly investigating.  Maybe they can trade a couple of senseless rules on using electronic devices in flight for one about involuntary denial ?.

TH  

[Andrew Dwyer]

It's getting totally out of control now !

http://thedailystooge.com/airline-straps-man-to-roof/