Fine, however that does not entitle you to remain on the aircraft against all orders. Get off and deal with the issue separately without creating a new incident.
Being in the right (if that is the case) does not mean you can behave however you want. If a hotel denies your booking for whatever reason, would you just stay in the lobby anyway?
Jurisdictions can issue evacuation orders and curfews. Police can in many cases remove you for trespassing.
The United incident was a total disaster for United, they were incompetent and doubled down on that incompetence because of policies driven by their bottom line. The “police” that removed the trespasser were no trained and were also incompetent.
None of that changes the fact that if the captain of the airline thinks it’s a safety problem he can remove the passenger.
This is not technically correct. I am pretty sure that you are not allowed to immediately order someone off your property if they have been living there for a while.
> Who the hell has the authority to issue “orders” to a civilian?
The property owner of the property he is occupying against the owner’s wishes.
> What is this, medieval Europe?
Capitalism isn't the same thing as feudalism, though both give preeminence to property rights (in capitalism, the important ones are more likely to be marketable rather than fixed to predefined systems of inheritance.)
> The terms of purchasing the ticket includes your agreement that you might get bumped.
'Bumping' is the colloquial term for 'involuntary denied boarding'. Bumping does not apply in this case, because the passenger in question was already boarded, and therefore could not be denied his seat, as he was not acting abusively.
But don't take my word for it, this is directly from the US Department of Transportation:
> Can airlines involuntarily bump me after I have boarded the flight?
> 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.
> However, airlines may deny boarding or remove you from a flight even after accepting your boarding pass and informing you that you may proceed to board if the denial or removal is due to a safety, security, or health risk, or due to a behavior that is considered obscene, disruptive, or otherwise unlawful.
No, if you read the DOT website I linked to, you'll see your second point is not valid either.
The DOT explicitly states airlines are not allowed to deny you permission to board, or remove you from the flight if.... If you have already boarded the plan, or had your ticket scanned, and are not being unruly, airlines are literally not allowed to deplane you.
Trespass law is not within DOTs regulatory purview. It is possible for a request from an airline to be legal under one set of laws but illegal under another. Airports are both under federal and state law. Which may conflict at times.
By that logic a stranger could get into my car if it is parked in the street, since it is a private vehicle parked on the governments property. This seems counterintuitive.
But the vehicle is not parked in a public space it's parked on private property that is owned by the government. If someone is in a vehicle on someones property then it's the property owner not the vehicle owner were trespassing laws apply to.
The Airline is as much a guest in an airport as the passenger is.
He paid for a seat reservation, not the plane. You have no right to disobey orders in the same way you don’t have a right to fly the plane. There is no ambiguity here.
He paid for the flight, was checked in, allowed into the plane and didn't provide any reason himself for being thrown out. The people who escalated the situation were the airline staff and airport staff. Huge difference.
> If a hotel denies your booking for whatever reason, would you just stay in the lobby anyway?
The equivalent analogy would be: you paid for and were situated in your hotel room, when you receive notice from the hotel that they have overbooked their hotel and that hotel staff from another hotel need to stay in your room and you must evacuate your room immediately. When you refuse to do so, they have security slam your head into the bedframe, resulting in you breaking your teeth, and then leave you outside on the curb.
Is your problem with the degree of force used? If so then I agree with you. And the case itself was decided that way by people qualified and informed of all the facts.
In the case of the hotel example there is also another issue: a hotel is a lodging.
Throwing someone out in the street with a proper reason is not entirely legal in most jurisdictions, at least not in mine. Proper reasons include disruption, property damage, violating the rules, committing crimes, being intoxicated, not having paid, being past the leave date, etc.
In this case, the reason is "hotel staff from another hotel need to stay in your room", which is not grounds for expelling anyone.
Even when hotels make mistakes and overbook they can't throw out guests that are already accepted and accommodated. Hotels even go the extra mile of directing the additional guests to other hotels and foot the bill.
That's not the law. When someone "asks" you to leave a place you have a legal right to be, and you refuse their request, you do not automatically become guilty of trespassing or fair game for violence. Lots of confusion in this thread between a civil request and a lawful order.
When someone asks you to leave their property, that means you no longer have a legal right to be there. The correct thing to do is leave and resolve your dispute with the airline in court.
I think you should in fact be allowed to physically throw someone out of your house/business that refuses to leave, without having to wait for the police. Avoiding this is easy, just get up and go.
"If the hotel tells you to leave, you have to leave"
Morally? Legally? In order to not get beaten up? For the first two, I disagree. For the last one, perhaps but it might be worth the bad publicity for them and the lawsuit money.
"It's bullshit if they hurt you while forcing you to leave, but it seems like you've contributed somewhat to the situation you find yourself in when you leave them no choice but to physically remove you."
I don't want to be rude but one could use the same argument to justify horrible acts such as violence during sexual assault.
Well maybe it should? Perhaps we should prevent airlines from overselling and forcing people off? You've sold the seat. Thats a dine deal. You can negotiate to buy it back sure but I can decline any or all offers.
It's not unreasonable to expect them to plan ahead better. Perhaps they need to have more jumpseats, or force them to displace the highest paying customer first to discourage that kind of planning.
There are many more humane options available when we realize we should be in control of the rules governing their operations, if only this whole shitstorm wasnt massively corrupt.
No. Any business should be able to refuse service for any reason. Refusing to leave private property is trespassing. The right thing to do is leave and resolve your dispute over airfare in court.
They did intend to offer it when it was sold. Even in this scenario it was well understood that the added United employees were last minute. This is even more cut and dry not fraud than regular overbooking that results in a shortage purely from customer sales.
Then that's still United's own fault for not planning their employee shuttling properly.
They're an airline, get another plane, maybe even a charter if their employees' travel is important enough for them to justify brutalizing their paying customers.
Being in the right (if that is the case) does not mean you can behave however you want. If a hotel denies your booking for whatever reason, would you just stay in the lobby anyway?