If you don't like the fact that the captain has the final word, drive.

 

Wow, what a disappointment. You have no idea who I am.

Someone has to have control of the plane. If you can trust a guy to fly people around in the sky you can trust him to make decisions regarding passengers imo

 

Agree.

Guru - I suggest you, and others read this - it explains how the airline industry got to where it is today. In a word - Oligopoly

gizmodo-default

 

That article is short on facts but this part is decent:

 

There is actually a pretty simple answer. Why is an armed agent of the state using violence to enforce a contract freely entered into by two private parties? Because that is more or less how you define “classical liberalism.” You may have thought that buying a ticket and boarding a plane and even sitting in your assigned seat meant you had some “right” to “fly on the plane.” Legally and contractually, you do not. (Welcome, Tweeps, to your first reckoning with the inherent contradictions in the philosophical underpinnings of laissez-faire capitalism and its conception of “coercion.”)

 

Of course, this isn’t how capitalism is supposed to work. This isn’t how it’s sold to us. Goons dragging bloodied passengers off of airplanes shouldn’t happen in a world where people “vote with their wallets” and corporations compete with one another to attract consumers. This is the disconnect that has puzzled so many. The first hint to the answer comes in noting that this was not an isolated incident, and that this sort of corporate mistreatment of paying customers is not limited to United.

I think this is a nice little summary:

 

For example, many people have pointed out that United might have avoided the entire fiasco by simply offering the passengers more money to leave the plane. By law, airlines are required to offer compensation—up to four times the value of the ticket, or $1,350—before booting customers from the flight. But a free-market solution would require the airlines to raise the compensation offer indefinitely until somebody accepted the offer. It’s a simple matter of fairness: If airlines are legally permitted to make false promises—and to overbook a flight is, essentially, to promise a service that cannot be fulfilled—they ought to pay market price to compensate people for the unfulfilled promise. Instead, airlines are permitted to practice a kind of bizarro capitalism, in which they can overbook with impunity and throw people off the plane after they reject an arbitrary fee.

 

The Real Scandal of That Brutal United Video - The Atlantic

@WDRBNews

ATTORNEY: United Airlines CEO "hesitated" when asked if Dr. Dao did anything wrong. Then admitted he did nothing wrong.

That admission from CEO will probably result in huge payout to Dr. Dao.

One thing I haven't heard mentioned, and I'm assuming the answer is no or else it would've been brought up, but.....Could Dr. Dao press charges for assault? I know they have the right to remove him from the plane, but I can't imagine that right gives them free reign to put people in the hospital.

That admission from CEO will probably result in huge payout to Dr. Dao.

Isn't the liability with the Chicago Aviation Police Department? They are the ones that knocked him around. How is this really any different than any business owner asking someone to leave then calling police when they refuse. Just curious.

One thing I haven't heard mentioned, and I'm assuming the answer is no or else it would've been brought up, but.....Could Dr. Dao press charges for assault? I know they have the right to remove him from the plane, but I can't imagine that right gives them free reign to put people in the hospital.

Could question. I guess it all depends whether or not the Aviation Police are actual police or just glorified bouncers.

Isn't the liability with the Chicago Aviation Police Department? They are the ones that knocked him around. How is this really any different than any business owner asking someone to leave then calling police when they refuse. Just curious.

 

Because United and the Doctor entered into a contract with each other and I am not aware of any legal authority that grants United the ability to use FORCE against a non-violent customer.

Because United and the Doctor entered into a contract with each other and I am not aware of any legal authority that grants United the ability to use FORCE against a non-violent customer.

United didn't use force. Chicago Aviation Police used forced. But since you keep throwing out the "contract", a term of that contract is United can bump you if they need to.

United didn't use force. Chicago Aviation Police used forced. But since you keep throwing out the "contract", a term of that contract is United can bump you if they need to.

 

The Aviation Police (or anyone else for that matter) are a Proxy for United. Or put another way, in this case the Aviation Police acted as the Enforcers for United Airlines.

 

The question isn't if United can bump you if they need to, the question is can United (or any of their Proxies) use force to bump you?

The Aviation Police (or anyone else for that matter) are a Proxy for United. Or put another way, in this case the Aviation Police acted as the Enforcers for United Airlines.

 

The question isn't if United can bump you if they need to, the question is can United (or any of their Proxies) use force to bump you?

If a business asks you to leave and you don't and they call the police, are the police a Proxy for the business?

If a business asks you to leave and you don't and they call the police, are the police a Proxy for the business?

 

Not if it is contractual.

Isn't the liability with the Chicago Aviation Police Department? They are the ones that knocked him around. How is this really any different than any business owner asking someone to leave then calling police when they refuse. Just curious.

I agree with you. But, in the end I think United will pay a settlement if some sort.

Not if it is contractual.

Then why are they are a proxy for the airline?