Posted on 04/14/2017 10:48:36 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Ditto.
Like high schools that require xxx hours of “volunteer” service to graduate. They are so stupid that they can’t see the paradox of “mandatory volunteering”
The article you quote from a couple of days ago contains the flawed reasoning of the early reports on this incident.
“United was required, by law, to contact federal aviation security when Dr. Dao ran back into the plane after being escorted out....”
Huh? They contacted the local Chicago airport police (not federal aviation security) that tazed him, manhandled him causing a concussion, broken nose, and loss of two front teeth, then left him unconscious in the breezeway where he awoke alone and in a dazed state, then going back to the plane. No excuse for the illegal actions in the first place.
Regarding the “must fly... man a flight in order to avoid cancellation” didn’t require the already boarded passengers leave their seat. Tough luck, United, they had to get their people there. Lots of ways they could do that, increasing the incentive for a passenger to leave being the simplest, most obvious option. Bringing in untrained local “police” not trusted to even carry a firearm was not the wisest choice, which they now recognize in their announcement that they won’t do so again.
Yeah and I have 2nd amendment rights too, but they still take my guns whenever they want. The moron got exactly what he wanted, a law suit.
I'm betting that in discovery, it'll be found out that United Airlines in Chicago is instructed to use Chicago Airport Police to do their dirty work for this because the Chicago Police would tell them 'this is a civil dispute over an airplane seat, you work this out.'
This is just a story to change the weekly narrative.
Catchy. You should work for Hallmark.
“I could care less his rights didn’t supersede all those others on the plane or the airlines, who by the way did not manhandle the guy.”
With respect to others on the plane, they all had the same rights to remain on the plane as boarded passengers. The airline had no right to disembark any of them. They were just too cheap to offer enough for people to leave - when one couple suggested a number they laughed rather than negotiate.
The airline employees did not understand their own contract responsibilities. The local airport “police” did not understand their limitations on what authority they had. These “police” authorities were called onto the plane to provide a service to the airline and the airline will ultimately be responsible, while they will likely also bear responsibilities (and likely do the actual prison time for assault).
I didn’t know that libertarianism was now equivalent to fascism, or maybe highway robbery? A ticket is a contract. A contract is a contract. He paid for a service. What about the non-aggression principle? United stinks, as anyone who has flown them knows.
That is a non sequitur.
In what way should we support the right of United not to serve this passenger after they have taken his money and seated him on the plane when he has not broken any condition of carriage from their contract? They don’t have that right & no thinking person would suggest they do.
United has the right to cancel the flight for cause but not to deny a boarded passenger solely because they now want his seat for a higher value passenger or someone who will pay a premium for the seat.
Here's a better example ...
1. You go to a car dealership, sign a contract to purchase a car, put down a deposit on the vehicle with the VIN# ABC-123.
2. The dealer agrees that the car will be prepped and ready for you to pick it up a week later.
3. You show up a week later, only to find that the dealer has sold the car to someone else, and it's sitting out there in the parking lot waiting to be picked up. Maybe another buyer offered more money. Maybe the owner of the dealership sold it to a golfing buddy.
4. The dealer offers you a similar car with the VIN# XYZ-789. But you are adamant that this isn't good enough, and you have a binding contract in your hand.
If this were to happen you'd have plenty of recourse. You'd be entitled to your money back, either in cash or as a credit for another purchase. Maybe the contract contained a provision that said the dealer has to give you a full refund plus an extra $500 for your trouble. Whatever it is, you're either leaving the dealership made whole or you have plenty of legal avenues you can pursue.
One option you absolutely do not have is to climb behind the wheel of car #ABC-123 in the parking lot and tell the dealership staff that you're not leaving unless they give you the keys and let you drive the car away.
The management of the dealership will call the police to deal with you, and the police will deal with you as they see fit -- even if they have to drag your ass out of the car and injure you in the process.
Dr. Dao learned that he wasn't going to be driving the car off the lot that day.
I know the conditions of carry and the legal opinions all site those as well. The airline is limited to ejecting you for cause after you have been seated or getting you to volunteer. The CEO of United concurs with this assessment in his 2nd Statement.
I wouldn’t be shocked if the plaintiff’s attorney tries to get a change of venue out of Cook County. I suspect he’ll have a harder time getting a bunch of jurors sympathetic to a 69 year-old doctor from Vietnam in Cook County than almost anywhere else in the country.
This is garbage. The man ran back after being concussed. All the beat down action was taken before he ran back in. Do your homework don’t just buy into the blog of a “pilot’s wife”.
But if the passenger told the flight crew he wanted them to bake a cake for a gay wedding? Just asking....
hey stupider - they didnt throw him off because they felt like it
they needed to get a pilot and crew to another location.....
dughhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
No sale. What you don’t get is that unless the plane is on fire or he is threatening the safety of the flight, calling out the goon squad is way off limits. He is a paying customer merely insisting on the service he paid for.
No reasonable business goes about bloodying customers in that situation.
what is it you cannot understand? There are DOT regulations and actual LAWS that say they have to get pilots where they are needed. It does not say “unless a paying customer has that seat”
Do you not understand that HUNDREDS of people might be stranded if they don’t have a pilot at their destination? And it is not poor planning- they can’t control the weather.
It is against the law for them to screw up air traffic (oh wait’ it DOES say unless you have a paying customer ... then it’s OK to strand hundreds more...)
Do you chase ambulances in your spare time?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.