Passenger Dragged Off Of U.S. Airlines Flight!!

[Tomt37]

Did you read that united had a policy of bumping passengers for staff with no prior booking .. that might sound fair to you but it definitely doesn't to me .. it was also shown he was not belligerent and it turns out he acted within his rights according to the situation .. were not talking about drunken louts here being thrown off a plane for security .. were talking about passenger rights

 

[Tomt37]

This recent case has no bearing and if you can't tell the difference you probably shouldn't compare them

 

[skjl47]

were talking about passenger rights

hello; Now I see where you are coming from more clearly. You are focused on passenger rights while I was making comments on how the doctor did not follow a lawful order. I am pretty sure I stated that the way the existing rules at the time are questionable. If I did not make it clear enough then I will say now that I can see why seated passengers are not happy about being bumped.

I do see that the two situations are in many ways different. Perhaps only the airline being common. The latest " couple" broke a different rule. A more important point being that when the marshal showed up they followed his lawful order and left peaceably.

I get that you and others do not like bumping. I have never used a commercial plane so have no worries personally. There seems to be a bit of a movement toward the notion that we ought to be able to refuse lawful orders by the police.

 

[Tomt37]

The reason that united are in this position is that this was not a justifiable cause for deboarding a seated passenger by the air Marshall - it was misuse of authority and it should never have resulted in physical violence - law and order's function is not to protect the profits of an airline that doesn't follow correct policy or federal law when dealing with passengers ... air planes must run smoothly but they must also follow a set of rules regarding passenger rights and the use of air marshalls

 

[Tomt37]

Sorry rant over :-/ I just think we have to be careful when setting the balance with corporate use of law enforcement

 

[skjl47]

it was misuse of authority and it should never have resulted in physical violence

Hello; Again the point is that the physical part was a direct function that the doctor refused a lawful order. As I now understand it the doctor was asked to leave and did go out of the plane. He then apparently ran back into the plane.

Say you get pulled over at a traffic stop. The officer may be incorrect in some way about why he/she pulled you over. Regardless you follow the lawful orders at that time. You can explain it to a judge later. When the police show up the smart play is to do what they ask. The doctor may or may not have thrown punches but passive resistance is still resistance.

law and order's function is not to protect the profits of an airline

hello; That may be some sort of idealized notion but my take is that law enforcement is indeed charged with protection of persons and private property.

 

[Tomt37]

The premise behind the request to leave was incorrect - in which case law enforcement are as bound to the law as everyone else .. for the reason they stated 'denial of boarding due to overbooking' marshals did not have cause to remove a seated passenger - certainly not to use physical force - hence the Marshall been put on leave .. since then it has been discovered it wasn't an overbooking of prebooked passengers but staff without reserved seats bumping booked passengers - the passenger was with in his rights to decline legally

 

[Tomt37]

you say protection of persons and private property ... neither of these purposes was served by an airline abusing the use of the us marshalls to remove the passenger for an invalid reason - you are entitled to your rights when a law officer pulls you over and a reason or charge must be made .. this was not the case in this situation and the passenger was within his rights

 

[FMA4ME]

Hm.. I still say, like many other businesses, the airline has the authority to decide whether a passenger is breaking the rules and can remove passengers at the COMPANY'S discretion, even against a passengers will. United's contract of carriage specifically states, the airline, "shall have the right to refuse to transport or shall have the right to remove from the aircraft at any point any passenger."

 

[Tomt37]

When the airline states the reason for deboarding.. is 'denial of boarding due to overbooking' the federal laws on that principle apply you can't say I'm removing you for overbooking in contravention of those rules and now I'm removing you for refusing - hence they will pay out massively or lose in court ..the rules on reasons to remove passengers do not mention overbooking so if that reason is used federal laws apply