His injuries are unfortunate but it's bound to happen when force is applied. This is a highly regulated and security sensitive mode of transport so there's even less leeway in case of someone refusing to move.
Once he's off the plane, then the issue is resolved. Why would they lock him up after that? What's with the extremes and what does it have to do with any of this?
It's highly regulated because the airlines like it that way. For example, the whole "only the person named on the ticket may fly on it and you can't sell it to someone else yourself". That came in after 9/11 because the airlines loved that they could charge fees and not allow people to sell their tickets.
The stated "requirement" was so that they could know who was travelling, but for international travel, that's covered by your passport, and for local travel, by your local ID (driver license etc). Having your "name" on your ticket is just bullshit.
As for the "security sensitive" it's actually "security theatre" that has been in place since 9/11.
Excusing the behavior of the airline is ridiculous. They didn't need to drag this person off the plane, they needed to offer enough to the passengers until enough had accepted their offer so that they could deadhead their staff. That is what is supposed to happen when they need to offload passengers.
I'm not talking about how regulations happened; only that they increase the tension in the environment and procedures involved.
I'm not talking about how effective the security practices are; only that they exist and result in much faster and more forceful action.
I didn't excuse their behavior; I agree that it was poorly chosen and should be criticized.
What I'm explaining is that they can lawfully (at that time ) cancel a ticket and remove a passenger at their will; regardless of how they were chosen or whether it was a good idea. What happened after is a series of escalations that is standard procedure with countless other examples where force was proportional and effective without ending in a scandal.
> Why would they lock him up after that? What's with the extremes and what does that have to do with any of this?
The point is that you don't see beating and dragging a man as 'extreme', so I am postulating other extremes like indefinite incarceration or execution which it would then likewise stand to reason are warranted because what if this man, a known troublemaker now, ever tries to get on a plane again? Incarceration and execution would preempt that problem.
I disagree that he was outright "beaten" but yes, he was physically removed and the force required caused injuries.
If he left voluntarily then there would be no force. If he started attacking others then there would be more force and more injuries. The response was proportionate and even lax considering he was allowed to run back on to the aircraft.
How would you remove him? What is your actual issue here?
You must be joking if you think it takes knocking an unarmed passenger unconscious, giving them a concussion, and breaking their nose to get them off a plane.
This isn't just my hearsay. The Chicago City Inspector's Office ruled that the action violated the City's personnel rules, 2 of the officers were discharged, the other 2 disciplined.
When did I say I think that? I also disagree with the degree of force and overall strategy, but that's orthogonal to the issue that force was ultimately necessary and applied.
The airline staff shouldn't have removed him. They should have given up and made increasing large offers of travel vouchers until someone accepted, or they should have found an alternative way to get their staff to Louisville.
At no point should the airline ever have even considered forcibly removing someone so that their staff could fly instead. No matter what happened, the paying customer should have been the priority.
Defending the actions of the airline makes me think you should never run a business.
The staff didn't. They called the police. It doesn't matter how poorly the decision was made, but once decided to remove a passenger than that passenger needs to comply or be removed.
It's no different than you deciding that you no longer want a guest in your house (for whatever reason) and calling the police when they refuse to leave.
"but once decided to remove a passenger than that passenger needs to comply or be removed"
I do not get this type of argument at all. "once decided to take the victim's money then the victim needs to either comply or have the money physically removed from their possession" uses the same logic.
You seem to be assuming that what the airline did was lawful and what he did was unlawful. There is plenty of evidence that shows that this was not the case. Regardless though, something being lawful or unlawful does not imply that it is also moral or immoral. What is an authority for someone is a criminal for another (see certain regimes). Regardless, I am sure that we can agree that the airline is not an authority under the law.
Anyway, you have made 25 flamewar comments in this thread. Posters that do that are usually banned so I would advice you to stop. (just a friendly advice)
It was lawful. The case is already resolved and it was the degree of force and how it was used that became the problem. Morality was never part of this discussion.
> "What is an authority for someone is a criminal for another (see certain regimes)"
What does this have to do with air travel? This person isn't fighting tyranny, they're being asked to leave a plane. The authority is the same for everyone that participates in that state, airport and aircraft.
> "the airline is not an authority under the law"
No, but it can call authorities just like you can call the police when required. Also airports and aircraft do operate under different rules for security.
> "you have made 25 flamewar comments in this thread"
My comments are not "flamewar" because you disagree with them. I've always posted civilly in the face of very harsh and rude replies and will continue the discussion as long as I want. I advise you leave the moderation to the admins here.
Generally, I think a plane, bus, or hotel are private property, like your house. Regardless of existing business arrangements, you should be able to deny service and ask patrons to leave your property at any time for any reason. Failure to comply with such a request is trespassing, and justifies forced removal. This action may well be a breach of contract, and that matter should be resolved in civil court, but that doesn't mean a business shouldn't be entitled to take it.
> you should be able to deny service and ask patrons to leave your property at any time for any reason
Nope, not "at any time" or for "any reason". Air companies are subject to several regulations, and another person posted it here: after boarding there are pretty specific reasons for why you can expel someone, and "because I say so" is not one. Not to mention that planes fly so you obviously can't "surprise deny" service at "any time".
At hotels you also can't throw people out on the street in the middle of the night, unless they did something wrong. Which is clearly not the case.
You also cannot throw out tenants without reason and without proper proceedings, for example.
Airlines are granted licenses to use of public property (airport gates and airspace itself). Therefore their allowable actions should be limited to those in the public interest.
Again... People seem to be making their own rules for a stitation that the DOT already calls out
>Generally, no. If you have met the following conditions, airlines are not allowed to deny you permission to board, or remove you from the flight if you have already boarded the flight:
You have checked-in for your flight before the check-in deadline set by the airlines; and
A gate agent has accepted your paper boarding pass or electronically scanned your boarding pass and let you know that you may proceed to board
> "On January 13, 2021, the United States Department of Transportation amended its rules, forbidding involuntarily bumping from an overbooked flight after boarding starting on April 21."
I think the crux of the issue is that "force" isn't binary. People think you can "force" someone off your premises without injuring them to such an extent.
Is your position that it would not have been possible to remove him (even without his cooperation) without injuring him to this extent?
I don't know. It's easy to criticize after the fact on an online forum, especially by many who have never been in physical confrontations and seem to have an expectation that they'll never be harmed no matter how they behave.
The security staff is charged with removing someone from an aircraft, without knowing their intentions, who's already acting strange by refusing to leave in the first place, and acting in limited space with lots of other people around. They could've done a better job, but it also could've been much worse.
It's easy to criticize, because it was a bullshit response by both the airline staff and the security staff.
They needed the seats to move their staff operationally. To do that, they needed some passengers to volunteer to not fly. To do so, they needed to offer incentives, not demands.
The airline's problem is that they didn't want to pay enough. So they used force, not only that, they used public security (police) to enforce a private contractual matter (not providing travel, even though the passenger was in complete contractual compliance).
The security staff were briefed, and if not, should have waited until they were. He wasn't "acting strange", he was upset at not travelling as he had paid for, and wasn't been offered a reasonable alternative.
Excusing this behavior is allowing it to continue.
The airline should be able to ask any passenger to vacate its property at any time for any reason, just like any other business. Passengers should not have to volunteer. Refusing to comply with this request is trespassing and justifies removal by force. This may well be a breach of contract, and that should be resolved post factum, in civil court, like every other business dispute.
You don't have to guess or use your imagination. You can find videos of even more unruly people getting forcibly removed from premises without such severe injuries. Here's one of a passenger getting forcibly removed (and I'm not even claiming it was all that great): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2CR_zuzNwg
I would also suggest considering that e.g. bus drivers face noncompliant passengers (non-paying, even!) far more frequently, and they have pretty good peaceful means of dealing with them.
Sure, like I said sometimes it goes better, and sometimes it's worse.
Clearly it was adjudicated that it was excessive in this United instance by people qualified and knowledgeable of all the factors but that doesn't override that fundamental point that when force is used then injuries are possible and probable.
> but that doesn't override that fundamental point that when force is used then injuries are possible and probable.
Sure it does. Because force isn't binary, which circles us back directly to where I made this point above. Your logic only makes sense if you treat "force" as binary.
I already answered your question about the degree of force in that I don't know, and that "people qualified and knowledgeable of all the factors" have already decided for this particular instance that it was excessive.
> It's easy to criticize after the fact on an online forum, especially by many who have never been in physical confrontations and seem to have an expectation that they'll never be harmed no matter how they behave.
Now you're just using ad hominem to make your point.
> "On January 13, 2021, the United States Department of Transportation amended its rules, forbidding involuntarily bumping from an overbooked flight after boarding starting on April 21."
Reconsider whether your mindless deference to authority has any limiting principle. If someone sells lemonade on the street without a license, should force be applied and injuries sustained? What is this strange refusal to accept consequences?
It's called proportionate response. Leave voluntarily without issue, or create more havoc and a bigger force will be applied. The limiting principle is your own resistance to authority.
I mean, the dude created more havoc and United’s disproportionate response netted him a few million dollars instead of a $250 voucher, so I think I’d say it worked out ok.
Yes it is, he paid for the seat and has every right to be there. If he was unruly, sure. But he wasn’t - he held up his end of the bargain, and had every right to expect the airline to hold up their end.
Except that paying for a seat doesn't actually give you the right to be there. I'm sure none of us have fully read the contract of carriage. But you can certainly pay for a seat but be denied that seat. It's not great, and I wish customers had more power in this situation to be able to negotiate a better contract, but... that's where we are.
I don’t disagree, but if the flight crew tells you to get off the plane, you get off the plane. You can argue about it with the airline’s corporate team. You’re not going to win a fight with the flight crew, nor should you expect to. Make a best effort attempt to make your case (politely and with decorum), and if they still boot you, you’ll have to seek recourse post event.
Funny thing that public. Everyone thinks everyone else sees it their way. You can always pick out the authoritarians in the room, because they are usually the only ones without doubt "the public" will be on their side.
I’m an extremely laissez-faire person, but we’re talking about publicly-bailed out airlines operating out of publicly-funded airports begging for publicly-maintained law enforcement. I think you might misunderstand who’s trying and failing to invoke “the public” here.
Last I checked, TSA was nearly universally despised, airlines in particular are dubiously popular, and aside from the ATF and FCC, I see more griping about the tyrannical tendencies of the FAA by those subject to it's capriciousness, no matter how well justified one may think it to be.
Point being, I'd refrain from making assimptions on the "Public's" behalf, when it's more "a bunch of bureaucrats" dictating things.
They’re just begging the government for power they won’t be granted. If they were actually independent like Greyhound or Uber, this wouldn’t be a story, the passengers would already be banned.
Is the airline staff that caused this in the first place due to their lack of professionalism required to accept consequences?
Are they responsible for their actions that caused an innocent person to suffer both the physical and other injuries for something that he was not responsible?
Stop excusing this nonsense. The force applied was unnecessary, excessive, and unjustified.
Just like the German soldiers running concentration camps during WW2 right? Rules are rules, doesn’t matter if the majority of people disagree with them.
You keep posting this, but the rules were changed after this incident:
> "On January 13, 2021, the United States Department of Transportation amended its rules, forbidding involuntarily bumping from an overbooked flight after boarding starting on April 21."
Once he's off the plane, then the issue is resolved. Why would they lock him up after that? What's with the extremes and what does it have to do with any of this?