So because someone doesn't comply with an extremely unfair and arbitrary FAA guideline he deserves to be splashed all over the media for alleged past transgressions?

 

Didn't say that. But, he willingly put himself in the situation. That really can't be debated logically.

Whether it's right or wrong. The only party not honoring their end of the contract was Dr. Dao. United is fully within their rights to take that seat.

 

Whether they did it in the correct manner is a different debate.

Didn't say that. But, he willingly put himself in the situation. That really can't be debated logically.

 

Maybe it is semantics at this point but you are playing both ends against the middle based on what you bolded and quoted.

Didn't say that. But, he willingly put himself in the situation. That really can't be debated logically.

 

He didn't willingly put himself in that situation. At all. He willingly bought a plane ticket and just tried to get home.

Whether it's right or wrong. The only party not honoring their end of the contract was Dr. Dao. United is fully within their rights to take that seat.

 

Whether they did it in the correct manner is a different debate.

 

There you go.

 

If the rules say you will be removed by force and drug out of plane for non-compliance that should be stated in a Universal Passenger Bill of Rights.

 

When anyone talks about the manner remember United's position is the passenger will leave the plane end of story which means United sanctions force to achieve that goal.

 

What manner does everyone want? Pretty please with sugar on top and a cherry? Two cherries? A thousand cherries?

So because someone doesn't comply with an extremely unfair and arbitrary FAA guideline he deserves to be splashed all over the media for alleged past transgressions?

 

This happens all the time with people who don't comply with cops, so why not?

He didn't willingly put himself in that situation. At all. He willingly bought a plane ticket and just tried to get home.

 

Right, and though some alleged random process (and we all know this process isn't random, it is designed to make United the most money in the long run) they picked this guy to boot off the plane and they used force to do it.

This happens all the time with people who don't comply with cops, so why not?

 

Because this is a civil/contractual disagreement. This NEVER happens with the Police in the real world. The Police are not allowed to intervene with force in civil/contractual disagreements.

 

And the fact that the Police didn't arrest him should lead to several negative consequences for all the authorities involved too.

Because this is a civil/contractual disagreement. This NEVER happens with the Police in the real world. The Police are not allowed to intervene with force in civil/contractual disagreements.

 

And the fact that the Police didn't arrest him should lead to several negative consequences for all the authorities involved too.

Speaking of semantics. Was it actually a police officer? I'm honestly not sure.

Because this is a civil/contractual disagreement. This NEVER happens with the Police in the real world. The Police are not allowed to intervene with force in civil/contractual disagreements.

 

And the fact that the Police didn't arrest him should lead to several negative consequences for all the authorities involved too.

 

If someone asks you to leave their property (United and their plane) and you don't, is that trespassing?

So because someone doesn't comply with an extremely unfair and arbitrary FAA guideline he deserves to be splashed all over the media for alleged past transgressions?

 

Which apparently might not even be his past transgressions.

The issue was a flight from Louisville wasn't going to have a crew, right?

 

I'm still not understanding why someone in Chicago should be screwed over because United made a mistake in Louisville.

 

When a company makes a mistake, they should be the one's biting the bullet and losing out. Not innocent paying customers.

If someone asks you to leave their property (United and their plane) and you don't, is that trespassing?

 

The proper analogy would be a landlord renting to a tenant. In that case, no the landlord cannot make the tenant leave his property, the landlord has to follow an eviction process.

Which apparently might not even be his past transgressions.

 

Which if true - the mistake that is - means United will pay even more damages before this is all said and done.

There you go.

 

If the rules say you will be removed by force and drug out of plane for non-compliance that should be stated in a Universal Passenger Bill of Rights.

 

When anyone talks about the manner remember United's position is the passenger will leave the plane end of story which means United sanctions force to achieve that goal.

 

What manner does everyone want? Pretty please with sugar on top and a cherry? Two cherries? A thousand cherries?

 

Actually, no. I'm just saying that's a different debate. There seems to be multiple ones here but there is a distinction that you are missing.

 

As stated, United had the right to do that and Dr. Dao did in fact agree to that when he bought a ticket.

 

It's no different than if someone becomes a member and is suspended from this site. You have the right to do that. We agree that you have the right to do that when we sign up. Whether it's done correctly or not is a different discussion.