Passenger forcible removed from flight

[txwhitetail]

Okay, you want to talk about the second part?

Airline didn't even follow the law they were basing "enforcement" action upon. They are required to provide written reasons for a passenger being denied a place on a flight. Furthermore, that should have happened BEFORE the passenger was even ON the plane. Since, we want to discuss the more general concept of compliance with authority, consider whether unjust actions require compliance. American Founders didn't think so. Were they in compliance with the Law of the Land as proclaimed by the British Monarch? No. Did they suffer. You bet. An unjust law does not have Authority and, therefore, does not require compliance. (This was the Founders' thinking) Doesn't mean there won't be immediate "pain." Still doesn't make improper enforcement of unjust policy right. And the enforcement was admittedly improper -- as corroborated by the suspension of those officers.

I will be very surprised if there are not sweeping regulatory changes made to airline passenger-rights policies.

So you think the passenger acted like he did because he didn't get the info in writing???

[Hydestik]

Nope.
The Volunteer Enforcement Police chose to use violence to extract the paid passenger.
You know, the guy currently suspended, and most likely fired ...
If he had not chosen to physically try to remove a paid boarded and seated passenger with force:
a) no hurt doc
b) no video
c) no public outcry
d) no billion dollar loss
e) no CEO retraction of previous statements
f) no CEO apology
g) no massive potential lawsuit/settlement against airline and Volunteer Enforcement Police and/or individual VEP officer.
h) Chuck Norris wouldn't be on this thread

It's that simple.

I think most reasonable passengers would have complied with the request to leave the plane. That's at least what they were hoping would happen. If that had happened, then none of the above would be required. I think they learned a valuable lesson at the end of the day.

[qWuARk556]

Which one is it Chuck Norris? Are you goin bring the pain or are you going to leave because Paul Blart told you to?

Cool! Something tells me you meant comparing me to Chuck Norris as an insult and not the compliment Im choosing to receive. Thanks!

Btw... you dont know how you will react until you do. So, instead of engaging in pointless insult driven rediculousness, how about using that *approximately* 3 pound organ in your cranium (your brain)(in case you didnt understand).

Hows that for the pot calling the kettle black?

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

[Dugie]

Many missing point: At the root of the issue is whether dead-head United crew heading to Louisville gets to bump paid, boarded, seated passenger. Answer is absolutely not.

It is not industry standard for seated passengers to be involuntarily removed in favor of airline employees. Two ways to get airline employees to Louisville: buy them tickets on another airline or drive. Also, very easy to have raised voucher offer until someone raised their hand to voluntarily give up their seat. Info above provided by a retired career American Airlines employee.

this x1000

Yes the guy pitched a fit and caught a beat down, but this will cost United hundreds of millions in stock value, millions in advertising to claim we don't normally beat the hell out of passengers, millions to change and to adhere to a new policy on bumping passengers and likely a million or 2 for the guy who took the beat down plus paying the lawyers.

Dumb move by United, whether in the "RIGHT" or not.

[qWuARk556]

You obviously have a problem with security guards. They are guys just doing their job dealing with a**holes giving them a hard time. If you were in a bar and the big a** bouncer comes up and says you gotta go, would you comply or tell him to go get someone in a uniform with a gun. Violence happens a lot of times because people feel they have the right to do anything,anytime.

This guy new that he was wrong for resisting. He just didn't care.

Wrong. And, thanks for reinforcing my point.

This guy was just a guy, trying to get home and back to work. He was being an @$$hole, as you so colorfully mentioned. The "security guys" were the jerks.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

[tradtiger]

So you think the passenger acted like he did because he didn't get the info in writing???

No, I'm saying the enforcement action was uncalled for and not even within the airline's own guidelines to start with, and that the improper way it was handled produced the bad result that ensued. The passenger knew he had done nothing wrong; he didn't lash out, he just didn't comply with an unreasonable and, in fact, unlawful request to leave.

[Ironman]

Cool! Something tells me you meant comparing me to Chuck Norris as an insult and not the compliment Im choosing to receive. Thanks!

Btw... you dont know how you will react until you do. So, instead of engaging in pointless insult driven rediculousness, how about using that *approximately* 3 pound organ in your cranium (your brain)(in case you didnt understand).

Hows that for the pot calling the kettle black?

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

Ironic post of the year right here!!

[systemnt]

I think most reasonable passengers would have complied with the request to leave the plane. That's at least what they were hoping would happen. If that had happened, then none of the above would be required. I think they learned a valuable lesson at the end of the day.

Being asked to leave a plane because you simply refused to be volunteered to make space after paying for your ticket, reserving your seat, being boarded on the plane is not a reasonable request.
Being forced to be leave a plane for the same reasons listed above is even less reasonable.
The airline was a fault on all accounts so says the FAA and Federal laws required for them to remove a boarded passenger.--oh and the CEO of the airline.
The VEP acted inappropriately to the situation.

as far as comparing this to a LEO removing someone from their vehicle.. there is still a requirement of some sort of probably cause to do so... this doesn't even come close to being apples to apples.

[bwssr]

just an FYI on the Sweet doc...

http://abc13.com/news/who-is-the-man-dragged-from-the-united-plane/1864716/

[BULL21]

Wrong. And, thanks for reinforcing my point.

This guy was just a guy, trying to get home and back to work. He was being an @$$hole, as you so colorfully mentioned. The "security guys" were the jerks.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

where was I wrong

[Ironman]

Being asked to leave a plane because you simply refused to be volunteered to make space after paying for your ticket, reserving your seat, being boarded on the plane is not a reasonable request.
Being forced to be leave a plane for the same reasons listed above is even less reasonable.
The airline was a fault on all accounts so says the FAA and Federal laws required for them to remove a boarded passenger.--oh and the CEO of the airline.
The VEP acted inappropriately to the situation.

as far as comparing this to a LEO removing someone from their vehicle.. there is still a requirement of some sort of probably cause to do so... this doesn't even come close to being apples to apples.

There may be a requirement of probable cause, but when there is none, are you still going to refuse the order? It is very much apples to apples.

[qWuARk556]

where was I wrong

By insinuating this guy was acting similar to a drunk ahole instead of recognizing him as a normal dude trying to get home whose behavior didnt warrant forced removal.

He wasnt violent or verbally abusive. He refused to volunteer. Not exactly a jerk.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

[qWuARk556]

Ironic post of the year right here!!

Exactly. [emoji2]

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

[qWuARk556]

Your thinker and definitions are all jacked up!

Not really. Read the stories. The system is designed to be a volunteer system.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

[Ironman]

Not really. Read the stories. The system is designed to be a volunteer system.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

I'm talking about knowing the definitions of "violence" and "orders". You may want to look them up.