That wasn't the topic. I don't know or care enough about the reason for asking him to vacate his seat, but that is still a request that must be followed.
That's useless reasoning that can be used to justify any action as long as it's an authority acting on someone 'lesser'. Kind of exactly the issue being discussed here. An airline managed shared no-fly list would only reinforce this broken reasoning.
"I don't know or care enough about the reason for arresting him, but that is still a procedure that must be followed."
"I don't know or care enough about the reason for preventing him from flying, but that is still a procedure that must be followed."
and so on. The reason matters because it determines if the procedure/request is ethical. An unethical procedure shouldn't be allowed to keep existing just because it already exists.
It's like asking someone to leave your house - there doesn't have to be a good reason, an ethical reason, or any reason at all. Generally if someone asks you to leave their property, then you get up and leave. If this creates a breach of contract or other civil dispute, that's exactly what civil courts are for, go use them.
You say that, yet we all know that the change making what happened a violation of DoT rules wouldn't have happened if it weren't for this incident having caused worldwide outrage.
Refusing to leave is exactly what caused the problem to be fixed, taking it to courts would do little more than get the man a half-hearted apology and a bit of compensation.
I would hold that the change to DoT rules was fundamentally reactionary, unwarranted, and not rooted in any sort of reasoned argument. The rules change seems to be based in the idea that we simply can't expect people to contain their emotions when they are asked to leave a plane they have already been seated on. I think we should maintain this expectation, and more generally maintain the expectation that people control their emotions and remain calm and reasonable in day-to-day interactions. This would all have been avoided if the fellow just got up and left, as he was told, and as the airline staff were entitled to tell him.
Also, a half-hearted apology and a bit of compensation is all the fellow is entitled to in this situation.
It's nowhere like asking someone to leave your house. A plane is not a house.
This is someone that paid for a service, is following all the rules set in contract and is not causing any problem to you. You merely picked on this person at random.
This is like expelling a tenant that didn't do anything wrong and paid the rent because you want to let your cousin sleep for the night.
It's more like pulling over at the side of the road and asking a passenger to leave your car. You are indeed quite entitled to do this. I think landlords and tenants are a distinct situation that does not apply to the rest of the business world. There, services can be terminated, or goods not provided, and the the resulting disputes are fundamentally civil.
Also, evicting a tenant so you can occupy the space is pretty much the most legitimate reason there is for eviction.
But still the eviction has to follow due process in virtually every jurisdiction.
And planes are nothing like private cars. An analogy would be Taxis. Taxis accepting the fare but then leaving passengers "at the side of the road" without provocation or reason is also against consumer laws in lots of jurisdictions.
At that time, this was the due process: ask the passenger to leave, and if they refuse, apply force. I'm arguing that this is the appropriate process. And in general I'm arguing for less regulation of how people resolve private disputes over business arraignments.
Given that United wasn't the one who dragged him out of his seat and beat him (that was airport security), it's a bit of a stretch to suggest that United should have been liable for this. Most likely United just wanted the lawsuit out of the news, so millions of dollars was cheaper for them than the lost goodwill -- even if they would have ended up winning the suit.
Weird, I didn't know the airport security had any saying in bookings, it's almost like a United staff asked them to take care of an "unruly" passenger.
Airport security might have followed orders but those orders couldn't have come by anyone but United.
>...Two days after the incident, Munoz issued an additional statement, apologizing and promising that such an incident would never again occur on a United aircraft. He said, "No one should ever be mistreated this way." In an ABC television interview, Munoz was asked, "Do you think [Dao] was at fault in any way?" Munoz responded, "No. He can't be. He was a paying passenger sitting on our seat in our aircraft."
The reason for cancelling the ticket is separate from the request to leave the plane. I can talk about the latter without discussing the former, and I've responded civilly to every comment by talking about the fundamental rationale behind private property, public transport, contract rights and refusal to move resulting in an escalated response.
You seem to be creating the very "vile place" that you are complaining about.
> (The kind of arrogance you’ve displayed through this whole thread is why we have post like a few days ago about how HN has become such a vile place lacking civil discourse. Go read the fucking story and then see if you sit there so smugly behind your keyboard advocating violence against passengers)
An important element of civil discourse is in limiting conversation to the content of the argument rather than attacking the person making the argument.
The kind of arrogance you’ve displayed through this whole thread is why we have post like a few days ago about how HN has become such a vile place lacking civil discourse. Go read the fucking story and then see if you sit there so smugly behind your keyboard advocating violence against passengers
Yes I do - several posters attempted to offer new evidence to the gentleman and he doubled-down on his argument rather than acknowledge new information. His argument fundamentally advocated that violence was acceptable despite his acknowledgement that he didn’t actually have any background into the story.
I already said that the reason for the ticket cancellation and request to leave are separate issues. New information about the former doesn't change the latter. And none of this necessitated your extremely rude response.
> "fundamentally advocated that violence was acceptable"
Fundamentally all authority is based on violence. Actions create consequences and force is the last resolution available. It may be excessive, harmful, destructive, chaotic, and all manner of similar adjectives but it doesn't change the fact that violence is a core component of society and used to enforce all the civility you've come to expect.
My comment was not whether your rebuke was justified or not, but about your tone. Right after you lament that HN is becoming uncivil you swear and shout pejoratives.
