I'm not American, so I guess it's a bit out of place for me to comment . That said, my reading of this incident is naked corporatism.

Laws, industry regulations, corporate policies and police enforcement are jumbled together, collaborating in a corporatist manner.

(A) The airline has policies and business practices such as overbooking & "must fly." These save money, get staff to their required destinations, whatever.

(B) Police enforcement is a required for these business practices to actually be practiced.

The only reason they can practically have this involuntary removal by lottery policy is police are willing to enforce it. If police of any city/airport refused to execute these corporate polices, the policies would have to change.

That's ultimately who outrage should be directed at, the police. Why did they come in the first place? Had a crime been committed? Passenger safety endangered? Police were summoned by a "private" company. They were informed that corporate policy required them to drag a passenger of the plane. They said OK, I guess that's our job.

I'm not as concerned about United or anyone else having nasty policies. Many companies do. I care more about police enforcing those policies. There is no consumer protection against police action.

> That's ultimately who outrage should be directed at, the police. Why did they come in the first place? Had a crime been committed? Passenger safety endangered? Police were summoned by a "private" company. They were informed that corporate policy required them to drag a passenger of the plane. They said OK, I guess that's our job.

If you frame it that way, then it does sound outrageous. This:

> They were informed that corporate policy required them to drag a passenger of the plane. They said OK, I guess that's our job.

makes it sound like the police think it is their job to enforce corporate policy.

But is that accurate? The airline owns the plane. They have the legal right to decided who is and who is not allowed on the plane. They allowed that particular passenger onto the plane, and then later they revoked that permission. When he refuses to leave at that point, doesn't he become a trespasser?

From the police point of view how is this any different from any other situation where someone is on private property without permission and refuses to leave? In most countries, I believe, removing trespassers is one of the normal functions of the police. Generally, in civilized countries, we want the police to do that rather than having the owner try to force the trespasser out themselves.

I think you make a fair point, and I concede that my accusation is not airtight abstracted from this incident and industry. I don't know what the absolute dividing line to corporatism is. This is murky water.

I would say that calling Dr Dao a trespasser is stretching either the term or the truth. The actions of police vis-a-vis passengers are not dictated by just general laws (like trespassing) that govern everything. They a dictated by industry specific regulations & policies about what is & isn't OK for the passenger and/or airline to do. These regulations are implicitly and explicitly written around the business models of the airlines, in collaboration with them.

We could probably litigate the details of this incident incident at length along the lines you suggest, but I don't think you can ever find the smoking gun of corporatism in individual details. Corporatism is about the systemic.

Corporatism exists where corporate and state power are merged.

In this case, a tell tale sign is how confused commenters on this thread (and journalists) get about about what is airline policy and what is industry regulation.

For example, it turns out (I think) that the regulator sets maximum compensation for involuntary deboarding while airlines set their own max for voluntary deboarding. I imagine that most passengers, crew & airport police have as much trouble demarcating these as journalists do.

When the regulator sits down to try and prevent future incidents like this (maybe right now), they'll ask to see United's policies on involuntary deboarding. They might get United to revise the lottery policy. They might issue new guidelines. They might standardise deboarding policies banning lotteries. Or United might, it's hard to tell.

>...The airline owns the plane. They have the legal right to decided who is and who is not allowed on the plane. They allowed that particular passenger onto the plane, and then later they revoked that permission. When he refuses to leave at that point, doesn't he become a trespasser?

I think an argument can be made against treating this as trespass. There is a (rather long) contract between the passenger and the airline. There are many reasons they list on the contract why they can deny transport, but wanting that seat for their own use is not one of the reasons. If a landlord rents you an apartment, there are reasons they can have the police evict you, but wanting to kick you out because the landlord wants to use the apartment for the use of his family is not one of them.

I will change a few words in your question to make some senses. >>...A convenience store owns the place. They have the legal right to decided who is and who is not allowed to buy (candy, alcohol, cigarettes...). They sold to that particular client, the client paid it, and then later the store revoked the sell. When the client refuses to return the item at that point, doesn't he become a theft? <<.

I am sorry to say the client is not trespassing since he already paid, he got this seat number and is already seated in the plane. The trespassers were the 4 employers that the crew has decided to kick the 4 others clients. That is called favoritism.

I feel it's important to detangle overbooking and involuntary debaording, here.

With overbooking itself, up until the point that someone is bumped against their will, the practice is purely a win-win for all; airlines save costs -- a boon for competition and prices -- and passengers volunteering for a later flight get compensation that they view as valuable enough for the inconvenience.

For involuntary deboarding, there are scenarios -- albeit presumably unlikely -- that can occur, regardless of overbooking, that necessitate its use. For example, as mentioned in the article, sudden weather changes forcing a reduction in weight, or simply a broken seat. Point being, there are possibly entirely legitimate issues of safety, generally outside the immediate control of the airline, that easily trump any one person's right to their seat, even after boarding.

While much blame should be placed on the police here in terms of how they handled the situation, I don't see why this isn't something to be handled, ultimately, by the DoT in further dictating passenger rights. For this specific case, if involuntary deboarding was only allowed, say, for cases affecting passenger safety, the airline would be left with the choice of either, one, living with the repercussions of not being able to transport their crew immediately, or two, upping the voluntary compensation until there was a taker (and there would be at some point).

That is to say, I don't see why this issue couldn't be handled more elegantly by creating a market where the airline gets forced to up the compensation until it is approximately equal to the expected costs of not being able to deboard someone. And if that creates too many scenarios where they simply don't get a taker for the deboarding, then clearly their actuaries need to be fired.

We disagree then, I guess.

One of the big dangers of industry regulating is eroding the border between the public and corporate domains. The line between state regulation and public policy is blurred.

Did United Airlines beat up Dr Dao or was it The State? Who should be prosecutted? Who needs to review their practices to make sure no one else gets ausulted.

In the current system, we need to do as ou suggest. Treat the complex of regulators, corporations & law enforcers as a sigle unit. Tweak the regulations (in collaboration with a half dozen corporations and police agencies) and the practices of all involved.

This is corporatism and it's dangerous.

There's plenty of naked corporatism at play in this incident, and police forces acting as de-facto corporate goons is a big problem in America. But I think in this case the individual cops who said "OK, I guess that's our job" were probably not at all supported by the law or even their own departmental policy - I think this is part of the reason the incident made such waves, because the police actions were so beyond the pale in enforcing a trespassing claim.

There's also the x-factor of societal attitudes towards air travel post 9/11 (with additional post Trump anxieties added in). For all we know, the police might not have been told that Dao had been randomly selected for removal - they might have just been told that he was a disruptive passenger that needed to be removed. In either case, just by being on an airplane, the police will be primed to think of all the bad things bad people can and have done on airplanes. Laws and public attitudes have changed and it's gotten a lot easier to prevent people from flying since 9/11, so the police probably didn't think much of it from a consumer/civil rights standpoint (not that they necessarily do in any context), and just went into autopilot mode of applying force to resolve the problem in front of them. None of which is to excuse them, just to explicate that I don't think the incident was strictly caused by naked corporatism.

theres also the fact that the person in question clearly posed no threat to anyone whatsoever. So even if he was a terrorist, theres no reason to potentially break his back, which is clearly a potential outcome when you yank someone out of a seat, past an armrest, as depicted in the video.

police in a lot of other countries achieve a lot more by just convincing uncooperative individuals with words than they do with blunt, pointless force, in murica.

there seems to be the strongly held opinion that "if they do something wrong, we have the right to treat them like shit and whatever that gets them is well deserved".

the idea that this was actually police, and not some random "security grunt" went completely over my head because this is not how police acts where I live.

for the overarching problem, theres a really simple solution: make it legislation that an airline may not book more seats than they have available. if you overbooked trains or busses or cruise ships or any other mode of transportation where you require a seat, people would call bullshit. airlines, however, somehow obtained the right to sell "the idea of a seat".

With regards to your proposed solution... I've often wondered how it is not considered fraudulent to overbook a flight already.

Isn't the act of overbooking akin to writing a check for an amount of money that you do not have in your account balance? If this can be considered fraud, why do the airlines get a break?

because a ticket is not really a ticket. it is more like an agreement that if you show up at the airport and the airlins is down to transporting you, they could go through with that plan.

when you book a ticket, it says in the fineprint that you acquiring that ticket doesnt mean that you get to fly.

it is more like a bank pretending to have your exact balance available at all times. in fact, they do not. they kinda bet on the fact that not all customers want to cash out at the same time, which works almost all the time except when the banking sector melts down and all customers try to cash out at once and then banks have to admit that they cant really pay you out even if they wanted to.

A small correction: these weren't city police. They were Chicago Department of Aviation Security personnel, who are allowed to wear jackets that say "police" on them but are essentially airport mall cops. Their leadership answers to people who depend on the airlines, which makes it hard for them to change their policies if the airlines don't want them to. So if the impression you are getting is "naked corporatism", you're absolutely right.

I'm completely with you that they should not be involved in deplaning people who don't pose a safety risk.

Fortunately, the airlines hate PR / liability incidents like this. Delta is trying to take advantage of United's bad involuntary-bump policy by looking very good in comparison.

From what I've understood, the problem is the United policy to never go above $800. Not ever, even if it means calling the cops. To me, such a policy appears to be in direct violation of the DoT rules.

Until United staff say "Your ticket is revoked", you are still a volunteer. You are in the negotiation phase for volunteering until they actually come tell you that your ticket has specifically been revoked for the flight, at which point the DoT minimum compensation rules take over.

This particular policy does appear to be in line with DoT's requirements - you can get volunteers for any price you're willing to negotiate. Even if United has set a maximum price of $800 in some evil combination of travel vouchers that you'll never use, that is expressly legal. The required compensation only kicks in if you refuse that offer AND they still revoke your ticket for the flight.

Yeah, there's also a plausible argument that you're not really a volunteer, especially when United has released a statement saying "Police were called after the passenger refused to voluntarily deplane".

"You can volunteer or be arrested" is an interpretation of "volunteer" that is neither the letter nor spirit of the definition.

It appears you're confused by the use of variations on volunteer in different

The facts of the situation were this:

1. United offered vouchers up to $800 - this is the volunteer phase.

2. They received no volunteers.

3. Moving on from the volunteer phase, they selected 4 passengers to be removed from the flight.

4. They informed those passengers they needed to get off the flight (so now they're covered by the DoT minimum compensation, which is unrelated to #1).

5. Mr. Dao refused to VOLUNTARILY leave his seat, but 3 other passengers did.

6. Police were called, video was taken, lawsuits were started.

"Voluntarily" in the sentence you're quoting doesn't refer to #1 above, it refers to the fact that Mr. Dao, after being told by a gate agent to leave the plane, did not do so. It does not have any relationship to the DoT "volunteer" rules, it has to do with whether he was willing to leave the plane after being told to do so by a person who was empowered by their employer to get people to leave the plane (although their exact legal right to do so remains somewhat grey).

edit: your -> you're

In your point 5, the word "voluntarily" is a misnomer, is the point.

"5. Mr Dao refused to leave his seat."

Refusing to voluntarily leave implies he ever had an option to reject the request, which he did not.

I think that question is likely to be the basis of much of the litigation here, and from everything I read it's not exactly a settled matter.

I would argue that Dr. Dao continued to have a legal right to be on the plane until at least after the purchase price of his ticket had been refunded in cash. At that time, he could possibly be trespassed off the aircraft. But until then, he remained boarded and seated, with a valid lease on that seat, with the default rights of all humans, plus any additional rights granted to airline passengers by US law. He didn't voluntarily leave, because he had no reasonable expectation that he wouldn't actually have a choice in the matter. You can't voluntarily do anything if not doing that thing is attached to the threat of force. He refused to be coerced out of his seat, and had to be forced. Voluntarism doesn't enter into it, if there is no meaningful choice.

And then, the instant he's off the plane, they can either hand over another 4x multiple of his fare in cash, and tell the guy to sod off, or they can make a best effort to get the guy to his destination and possibly still pay him something when the alternate transportation arrives, according to how many hours of delay the passenger experienced.

While the media have been quoting $1350 as a maximum, 14CFR250.5(e) mandated reviews in 2012 and every 2 years thereafter, that use the CPI-U index to adjust the maximums. The CPI-U of August 2011 was 226545, and the CPI-U of July 2016 was 240647. So the 1-to-2-hour-delay compensation cap should be $675 * 240647/226545, rounded to the nearest $25, which is $725, and the over-2-hour-delay compensation cap is twice that, or $1450. Inflation.

Furthermore, the airline may offer vouchers and discounts only if their value equals or exceeds the cash value they would otherwise be required to pay, and the passenger is not required to accept them in lieu of cash. I would argue that an $800 travel voucher that expires in one year is worth much less than $800 in cash, especially when the average American travels by air only once per year. I would personally value $800 in expiring vouchers at around $200 cash.

In general, that's not how selling things works. If you sell something, you don't have the right to change your mind later by refunding the money and taking the thing back. I'd argue that, even if the flight attendant had the cash in hand, Dr Dao would have been be under no obligation to accept it.

Right. This was a similar situation to StubHub (I believe). Buyer buys tickets to a Lakers game for $950 for 4 tickets. Two weeks later, Kobe announces retirement. This game, which was to be a fairly low interest affair (two bottom dwelling teams, not play off bound), suddenly skyrockets. Now you could pay $1500 PER ticket for those seats.

Guy is pretty happy.

Until _six weeks_ later when he gets an email from StubHub saying "Sorry, the seller told us he sold those tickets in error, so we are refunding you."

Imagine I sell you a car. We sign a contract, you pay me, titles are transferred.

A while later I come back and say "No, I don't want to sell the car any more/ I made a mistake/ I got a higher/better offer" (like, say, the need to deadhead flight crew to a city?). You say "No. Sorry. It's my car now."

I take the car anyway, and leave you an envelope with the money you paid me, saying "Oh, we're good now."

Except in almost any situation, we're not, even with that envelope. It's theft.

I realize this is a service, not a product, and as a result, there are slight differences to the analog, but nonetheless, there are some very similar principles in play.

I was arguing that at minimum, he would have to be refunded on the spot. That is the absolute, ground-zero starting point for even beginning to reneg on a ticket sale.

Some contracts include explicit rescission terms. No doubt United's adhesion contract contains some that are overwhelmingly tilted in their favor. But no matter what sleazy terms United puts in for itself, it absolutely cannot get away with keeping the money and refusing the service. That would be beyond the pale. But considering the way airlines operate, I would not be surprised if that is the bare minimum they would do on their own initiative. It takes a government pointing a gun at their heads for them to grudgingly give more.

On a matter of a car, it might be enough to refund the buyer before delivery of the vehicle and before titles were exchanged. After title is transferred, the deal is done. That's like demanding your money back after getting kicked off the plane at your final destination. You got what you bought. That's why if you don't trust your counterparty, it's always safest to pay only when you take delivery.

If you go to a movie theater, the management could refund you to kick you out before the end of the show. At an amusement park, kicking you out would requires nothing more than a refund. In those cases, people are not relying upon provision of those services to make money or avoid additional expenses.

For an airline ticket, there may be a tangible cost to not getting to your destination on time. And the compensation regulations may be designed to account for reasonable consideration. The airline can't know ahead of time that if passenger X is not in city Y by time Z, they will not be able to work at that time and will therefore lose $W as a direct result of their breach. But they should have a pretty good idea that disrupting people's travel plans can cost them, because travel insurance exists.

But that refund is the minimum necessary to revoke one's legal right to be on someone else's restricted-access private property. You have to at least take care of that before calling on the cops to remove someone. It doesn't absolve you of any other obligations resulting from your breach, but would be a gesture that recognized the paying customer's right to be present.

On the matter of a car (or, anything else), delivery and titles are irrelevant - if you've accepted payment ("consideration"), the deal is done (and enforceable in court), and the delivery, titles, etc are things that must be done to avoid defaulting on the deal.

Your assertion that the purchase price is the "minimum necessary" is completely baseless in law. I guess it's the minimum necessary for the offer to not be a joke, but beyond that it carries no weight.

If you can't deliver the car with its title, you will have to give all the money back, just to keep yourself in civil court for breach of contract, and not also be charged criminally for fraud. You're correct that it won't do you any good in the civil court. But you won't necessarily be able to recover damages from a car scammer in civil court, either. Yes, you win, but how do you convert a judgment in your hand into a car you can drive?

Perhaps it would be best not to reason this one out with a car analogy. It's distracting from the main issue.

Some people are claiming that Dr. No-I-won't-go was trespassing after being told to leave. That is not the case. That would be equivalent to a landlord evicting a tenant with a valid, paid lease. While the landlord also could not force someone out just by refunding their prepaid rents, there is no circumstance that would allow the landlord to evict a lease-holding tenant (if any even exist) without also refunding that prepaid rent. So as long as that hasn't been paid, there can be no trespass.

Furthermore, the tenant would be ethically justified to refuse to vacate the property until the refund had been paid, because holding possession of the property is the only leverage he really has over the landlord. He could go to civil court and petition for it, but if the landlord is judgment-proof or employs a good lawyer, that money may be out of reach for years.

Even if there were a law or rescission clause that allowed United to refuse service, without a cash refund, there is no possibility for criminal trespass. Without a crime, there is only a civil dispute. And there is no reason for the cops to be involved in any way in a civil dispute, especially not to be choosing sides in it and beating someone up.

Once you are seated it is too late for your ticket to be revoked.

A lot of people are saying that, but it's based on a tenuous interpretation of the law. Even if revoking the ticket would be a breach of contract at that point, there doesn't appear to be a law against it.

You really should read the analyses people are posting about that. I don't know of any credible people saying it's flat-out always illegal to remove someone after allowing them onboard, but I do know of credible people saying the legally and contractually permitted reasons for it are few in number and the reason given in this situation (to make room for deadheading crew) is not one of those permitted reasons.

That's not a "tenuous interpretation of the law". That is the right interpretation of the law. Once you have been accepted as a passenger and boarded the plan and been seated, there's no legal reason for the airline to eject you without cause.

a bit more complicated. I believe what I read was

United knows the cheapest tickets on the flight are $200. They know DOT mandated compensation for involuntary bumping is 4x cost of ticket. Hence, its not worth it to them to offer more than $800 in compensation as they can just bump people involuntarily for the same value.

Demonstrating why the DOTs rules for involuntary bumping create perverse market incentives re overbooking.

>Demonstrating why the DOTs rules for involuntary bumping create perverse market incentives re overbooking.

Without the law, United wouldn't even have to pay 4x. The remedies for regular breach of contract aren't very good.

the law can be that overbooking is allowed but airlines also cant involuntary boot anyone. They have to incentivize someone to get off. I'm sure if they went up to $2k in cash someone would have taken them up on the offer and just ubered to ($400ish if I remember what my check showed me) to their destination. For me, $800 (even cash) wouldn't have been sufficient for me to convince me to uber to my destination, even if I wouldn't have lost money on the transaction.

i.e. airlines are only allowed to purposefully overbook due to DOT rules, the same rules provide what I perceive as a perverse incentive when it comes to encouraging involuntary bumping.

The part you are missing is that airlines don't need a law that lets them overbook. They absolutely can involuntary boot anyone for any reason (other than discriminatory reasons that are otherwise illegal). Booting a person would be a breach of contract, but breaches of contracts aren't illegal.

Hell, they could update their contact and then it wouldn't even be a breach of a contract.

The law was written to reign in their behavior. Without it, they have a lot more freedom.

> Carriers can negotiate with their passengers for mutually acceptable compensation."

How do you negotiate with an entity that has the ability to call in the goons on you but you cannot?

If you fly with any frequency, you witness this very often. Any time you hear them asking for volunteers at the gate and offering money. It's an auction system used hundreds of times a day by airlines all over the US.

This incident occurred when the paying customer was already seated on the plane. Normal overbooking negotiations happen at the gate. There are no goons dragging you out of the airport in a normal overbooking situation.

It's trivial. Announce over the PA that you need X volunteers and you're offering $Y for it, and anyone who's interested should push the flight attendant call button. If you don't get enough people, keep increasing $Y until you do.

this is the big mistake that united/republic made. if you deny boarding before the gate the passenger has very little recourse. if they try and run the gate they are going to get very little sympathy. however, once the passenger is seated they suddenly have the option of not moving which is going to cause lots of problems.

i don't travel much and i've been on a flight where they have deboarded people after people had seated so i don't think this is that uncommon. we also thought it was a really good deal. like ~200 EUR + accommodation for the night + ticket for the next day but none of us could take it because we had luggage in the hold.

Yes, because European airlines are a lot nicer in that regard. "200 EUR" (or whatever amount).

In the US you hear "offered $800 compensation". It's not cash. It's a voucher for use only on that airline, only within 12 months, and only on select full-fare ticket classes. So an $800 ticket may only get you another round flight from Chicago to Louisville (around 500km/300mi).

Yeah, the compensation offered by American airlines is a joke. There have been many times where I could have easily volunteered to be bumped, but I've never bothered to volunteer because I'm effectively being asked to do so for free. I don't fly frequently enough on the same airline for those vouchers to be worth anything to me.

Offer me some cold, hard cash, and that would completely change the game. I have, very rarely, seen airlines resort to that if the vouchers don't do the trick. I'd be utterly shocked if an offer of $800 cash couldn't produce four volunteers on a fully loaded plane.

> In the US you hear "offered $800 compensation". It's not cash. It's a voucher for use only on that airline, only within 12 months, and only on select full-fare ticket classes. So an $800 ticket may only get you another round flight from Chicago to Louisville (around 500km/300mi).

This is wrong. By Department of Transportation rules, the airlines is required to pay up to 400% (max of $1,300) for an involuntary rebooking that results in a two-hour delay or more. Airlines might try to get you to accept less by offering voluntary rebooking for less, but if they bump you involuntarily, that's what they're required to pay, and it's not sufficient to offer only a voucher with restrictions.

European airlines pull the same sorts of tricks to try to reduce the amount that they pay out, or to get travelers to accept vouchers instead. It's not limited to the US.

I don't really get the complaints about the vouchers. Every airline offers are good for any ticket directly sold by them...(there are specific ticket classes that cannot be booked directly with the airline that will not be allowed, but a normal person cannot get those except through vacation packages). This only comes up as a problem if you buy a vacation package through the airline and want to use the voucher to pay for the tickets. Usually you'll end up having to pay more in order to bump the ticket class up in that case, but not $800 for a short haul flight.

Because an $800 voucher is not the same as $800? I'm sure you understand the difference.

$800 for Chicago to Louisville is a bad example. I can get a round-trip flight tonight between the two for $200...

$800 round trip is like Boston to Hawai'i next week.($822 from next monday to the 1st of May). That's 8,081km/5,021 miles. It honestly wouldn't be that bad.

No you can't - at least not with a voucher.

I found the flight you're looking at:

" Chicago to Louisville O'Hare Intl. (ORD) to Louisville Intl. (SDF) American Airlines 3520 operated by Envoy Air As American Eagle Economy / Coach (V) Canadian Regional Jet 700 "

V class is "Discount Coach". (http://www.cwsi.net/united.htm)

Only full-fare refundable ticket classes are eligible for voucher use. In essence, "Y" class: "1st Tier Economy. Full Fare unrestricted coach class".

In fact you couldn't fly ORD to SDF at all on a voucher because every seat on the "dba Express" carrier flights are "Discount Coach" or "Deep Discount Coach".

If anything, this proves my point. Because an $800 voucher sounds great, until you realize this.

Your other example?

https://www.expedia.com/Flights-Search?trip=roundtrip&leg1=f...

No, you're looking at $2,600+ for BOS-KOA return that's eligible for voucher use (not sure if you can use a voucher as part payment).

I've been on delta flights where flight attendants came onto the plane and started the bidding process in this same exact scenario (last minute crew). I picked up a $600 voucher to arrive at my destination at the same time (different layover).

> Any time you hear them asking for volunteers at the gate and offering money.

I can't believe people keep bringing this up. THIS WAS NOT "AT THE GATE". The passenger had already boarded and been seated. The "volunteer at the gate" and "overbooking" situations do NOT apply anymore.

They don't have this ability. It violates FAA regulations. And in this case also violated the cited trespassing rule.

Edit:

I didn't explain the Rosa Parks analogy fully, so here's my thought process:

1. Sometimes there are unjust laws or company policies

2. People have busy lives, and in general just go with the flow.

3. Putting a face and a concrete story to a policy is what really makes the general population realize the unjustness of a policy. Public uproar leads to market and political policy changes. Rosa Parks' story led to uproar and changes in a similar way that Dr. Dao's story has. United has already changed their law enforcement policy and crew booking policy. Delta upped their max amount for compensation. The situation was talked about in a presidential press conference, and by countless politicians. This wouldn't have happened without the public uproar, which wouldn't have happened if Dr Dao went peacefully. Future airline consumers now have more rights because of Dr Dao, and they should be thankful for his actions (I know I am).

I will clarify again, all analogies break down, and I am not comparing the magnitude of the injustices or the societal importance of the policy changes... just the general process. They do seem similar to me.

> (a) There was an unjust system and

There was a legislated racist system.

The bumping laws are not discriminatory and are good for everyone. Airlines can stay more competitive (offer passengers cheaper seats) by being able to bump passengers and fill as many seats as possible for every flight. The compensation is set at a price point to disincentivise bumping. Its a completely free market approach.

(b) It took an individual to stick up for the just result, even though it was breaking the rules.

What is the just result? The law is still the law. Next time this happens, the passenger won't act like a child, and it won't be a headline.

You are wrong. The law permits denial of boarding in the event of oversold flights, however, the passenger was already boarded and the flight was not actually oversold.

If an airline says someone must leave the flight, the person must leave the flight. Simple as that. I can't imagine living in a society that does not allow the airline to do so.

They can fight it out in court if they like afterwards.

Why is being able to remove paying customers such an important right, but not getting what you pay for? Kicking out a paying customer who has committed no wrongdoing is essentially theft.

Airlines should be able to kick people off for actual good reasons, like if they're a safety threat. But "we want that seat more than you do" is not a good reason. For that, they should be required to secure the consent of the person in question by whatever means necessary, probably by paying them enough to make it worth their while.

>Why is being able to remove paying customers such an important right, but not getting what you pay for? Kicking out a paying customer who has committed no wrongdoing is essentially theft.

No it isn't. The customer would have to be compensated for the damages.

But you should have the right to break contracts.

>Airlines should be able to kick people off for actual good reasons, like if they're a safety threat. But "we want that seat more than you do" is not a good reason.

My guess is that the reason here was "If we dont kick you off, we have to cancel/delay another flight"

That's probably what they thought, but that reason is BS. All they had to do to avoid canceling or delaying the flight was to increase their offered compensation until someone accepted it voluntarily.

I see the difference between denied boarding and deplaned as legalistic. Its essentially the same thing.

Overbooking is legislated. Don't like it, change the legislation.

I have been in situations where I am offered $800 to be voluntarily bumped. This is okay with me.

I would prefer not to be bumped off a flight, but the compensation is very generous, and I understand that it allows airlines to be more efficient and that they make really small margins and a lot are struggling. The free market is working and I pay a really low price for tickets.

I don't think this is the argument though. Its about one passenger kicking and screaming instead of doing what every other passenger would have done, and then take it up with the courts if necessary which would create new precedent that could be used to justify modifying the legislation.

I don't want to see people being dragged off planes, and the answer is not to "never drag people off planes". We live in a civil society where people are wronged, but they can pursue it in the courts.

I agree that there's no fundamental difference between denying boarding and removing someone who has already boarded. If done involuntarily, both are effectively theft.

When denying boarding or removing a passenger who has done nothing wrong, the airline should be required to secure their consent. Then the question of "drag people off planes" would never even come up. That, and the subsequent court case, can be reserved for people who actually do something wrong.

> If done involuntarily, both are effectively theft.

You sign a contract when you buy a ticket. You willingly agree to the terms. Can you make a contract that someone can steal from you? No.

> When denying boarding or removing a passenger who has done nothing wrong, the airline should be required to secure their consent. Then the question of "drag people off planes" would never even come up. That, and the subsequent court case, can be reserved for people who actually do something wrong.

In a civil society, we resolve disputes with civility in the courts or through arbitration. Not kicking and screaming. Simple. If this goes through the courts, then we will have some new precedent, that could be made law. The kicking and screaming don't help no one.

Why does "we go through the courts" not also apply to removing passengers? Based on what you're advocating, it seems like the airlines should let him stay and then sue him, rather than having him forcibly removed.

I think I understand the principles you're espousing, but you seem to be applying them only to one side.

> but you seem to be applying them only to one side.

I guess the principle I am arguing for is when one side is prepared to use physical force (which they believe is justified) to remove someone from their private property, then the "trespasser" should abide by that (for the time-being), and seek legal remedy.

I see this as the only option to remaining civil. I don't see how society can function without violence without this being adhered to.

Also, when someone is charge with private security or as law enforcement, they should be respected where they physically enforce something. Again, once they have made up their mind to enforce something physically, I don't see a way to maintain civility in any other way than respecting their wishes.

In this case it was the airline's private property, and they felt justified to physically remove someone.

Now whether or not this is justified, is a matter for the courts to decide.

You focus entirely on what happened after the law arrived, and ignore the circumstances that led up to it.

I completely agree that once they say, "get out or we'll take you out," you should get out peacefully, and pursue any remedy afterwards.

However, I also contend that in a case like this, where the passenger was not any sort of threat, it never should have gotten to that point in the first place. The idea of preserving civility by preferring nonviolent responses says that the passenger should have left peacefully, and that United never should have tried to force him off.

This is what I mean by "applying them only to one side." Both parties were in the wrong, but you're giving the one with all the power (and the one that started it) a free pass, and focusing all of your criticism on the customer.

> I completely agree that once they say, "get out or we'll take you out," you should get out peacefully, and pursue any remedy afterwards.

Cool :)

> and that United never should have tried to force him off.

But once you have decided someone needs to leave your private property, you must carry this out. There were three other passengers who left peacefully, and to ask another passenger to leave because someone refused would have set a precedent.

I really don't see United with any other choice. Its their private property and they need to be able to do as they please. If they break the law, then they get punished. But its their private property.

> Both parties were in the wrong, but you're giving the one with all the power (and the one that started it) a free pass, and focusing all of your criticism on the customer.

I don't see United in the wrong. Its their private property and they can do as they wish. I would have done exactly the same in the situation. I would never allow a passenger to stay on the plane when they are ordered off of it.

Why do you begin the analysis with "once you have decided someone needs to leave your private property"? Where United went wrong was deciding that they must force someone off the plane, rather than coming to a mutual agreement with someone to leave the plane.

Once they've decided to do this then, yes, they need to follow through. But they didn't have to make that decision, and they shouldn't have.

By taking the decision as a given and only talking about what happened afterwards, you're ignoring the whole problem.

We can both say what we think both parties should have done, but this is entirely subjective and would come down to ideological differences and feelings.

> Where United went wrong

This is where we can find some truth to the matter. What does wrong mean here.

Each side could have averted this event. And each side lost something from this event.

Dr - Lost his dignity, became a celebrity with his face plastered around the world (good and bad - i.e. some people like myself think he is an idiot), physical injury, mental anguish, etc.

United - Share price, reputation, had to apologise, may lose customers, etc.

For both sides there are lots of negatives. United clearly had more to lose (tangible shareholder value and reputation) so they should have not created the situation.

I wish more people would look at this for what it is, which is childish behaviour from a professional adult, and just move on, but alas in today's world it seems that every event is being filmed and ready to go viral, so perhaps the next video we see will be me sitting on a plane that is being delayed hours while someone is being coddled and sweet talked to get off a plane they are being bumped from. This Dr may miss his appointments with his patients, but what about all the other hundred passengers who will be late or miss their connections.

Wrong in this case means using violence when it was not necessary.

This seems to be the standard that you're using to condemn the passenger. Why are you not applying that standard to United as well?

Note that, if we accept that violence is acceptable to remove a noncompliant passenger, then violence was chosen (at least as a potential outcome) the moment that United decided to remove people involuntarily.

Why do you insist that "it is" childish behavior from a professional adult, exclusively and ignore the behavior of the airline, which brought violence into a situation that did not call for it?

This is why I don't say that you're wrong, but that you are being extremely one-sided. You continue to attack the passenger's behavior while ignoring or outright justifying the airline's behavior.

The passenger should have complied, and the airline should never have put themselves in a position where they might have needed to threaten force. Do you not agree?

If you do agree, then understand that people focus more on the airline for some really good reasons, namely that they started it, and they wield all of the power. We place more responsibility on entities which start something than those who merely respond, and more responsibility on entities with power than those without.

Its comes down to inconveniencing all the passengers because one person doesn't comply. As a passenger I would appreciate someone being removed like they were. Otherwise what if I am the next person chosen to get off the plane. If I were chosen I would get off the plane.

So from my perspective, they did the right thing, if I evaluate the outcome selfishly.

I think its all about personal feelings anyway. I feel angry that someone thinks they are to be held to a different set of rules than anyone else (as other passengers got off), and that they think its okay to inconvenience all the other passengers.

Other people look at the outcome, and feel sorry for the guy because of his injuries, and are angry at law enforcement because they are anti-authoritarian - maybe something to do with their upbringing or their status in society I don't know.

And I understand that on a human level that people feel differently. But one is more rationale than the other. And this is what I believe separates the political spectrum in the US too - but that is a debate for another day.

You once again ignore the possibility of not removing anybody involuntarily, and instead increasing the compensation until someone chooses to take it and leave.

I don't understand why you're so obstinate on that point, to the extent of not even acknowledging the possibility. It certainly doesn't fit with your supposed "violence as a last resort" stance.

> Its their private property and they can do as they wish.

This statement right here so totally exposes your pro corporate bias. No, a person cannot "do as they wish" even on their own private property. We still have rights as citizens. We still have rights as CONSUMERS even.

Do you disagree? If not then you need to reevaluate your whole stance because the foundation is incorrect.

We do not lose our rights as consumers when we board a plane. They are rules and regulations to protect both the carrier and the passenger that cannot be ignored.

I said: "Its their private property and they need to be able to do as they please. If they break the law, then they get punished. But its their private property."

You said I said: "Its their private property and they can do as they wish."

I chose my words carefully, and you have removed some to create your scarecrow.

They have interpreted the contract in one way and acted upon it. Even if the man interpreted it differently, he still should have left.

But ultimately it comes down to who has what to gain and lose. United has more to lose, so United shouldn't have done it.

Wat? That's a direct copy/paste from your comment. It's right there: "Its their private property and they can do as they wish."

Did you forget that you wrote it, neglect to go back and check, and then attack this person for quoting your literal words? Unbelievable. It's not a "scarecrow," it's a literal, unadulterated quote.

> That's a direct copy/paste from your comment.

Sorry, I cannot find me ever saying that.

Last paragraph, second sentence: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14159003

My apologies.

But it is a reference to my earlier sentence where I add: "If they break the law, then they get punished. But its their private property."

The point I am making is that I think its better to leave someone's private property, than to stay, when there is a dispute and there is the threat of physical confrontation. They have more claim to kick you off than you have to stay when force is involved.

I am talking about before we know who is in the right. If I trespass on someone's property that I believe I can rightfully be on, and they threaten to physically remove me, I will leave, and get the police to remove them. If someone trespasses on my property that they claim they have a right to be on, I will make them leave with force if necessary, and then they can get the police to remove me.

I think its sensible to default to the owner in these situations.

But I agree its a weak point and if we examine tenancy laws then it definitely doesn't universally hold well. But a good rule of thumb.

> You sign a contract when you buy a ticket. You willingly agree to the terms.

Perhaps you do, but the rest of us simply sigh and pretend we agree because in fact there is no alternative besides walking to our destination.

The principles of contracts assume that both parties are of similar power and that both have alternatives; in the case of air travel neither of these are true.

> In a civil society, we resolve disputes with civility

Exactly, this is why the airline should not apply force towards him. You're setting double standards here - airline applied force = good, passenger kicking = bad.

And obey authority.

The difference is the physical logistics of denying a person passage to board vs physically removing them.

The second scenario is an exponential escalation of the situation.

What if he runs on the plane? What is the difference?

>I can't imagine living in a society that does not allow the airline to do so.

I can't imagine living in a society where the airline is allowed to fix their fuckups by using a force towards a paying customer. They should let the passenger to stay on the plane and fight it out in court if they like afterwards.

Interesting point. But I see the after boarding vs. before boarding to be essentially the same.

Say the passenger forced his way on the plane after being bumped. Is this any different?

ianal but according to this analysis, this particular situation hinges on the fact that United's policy only applies to unboarded passengers, and Dr. Dao was correct to assert his right to stay on the plane: http://www.natlawreview.com/article/united-airlines-dr-dao-a...

I do not think Dr Dao was aware of his rights or asserting them.

Yes, in court he can make this argument.

But is it really acceptable for a grown adult to be dragged off a plane? I don't want to live in a society like this, and I don't think the correct solution is to "never drag people off planes". We have a court system to resolve disputes and I think it is far better that whatever injustice people feel, it is resolved in the courts, not kicking and screaming.

I think we agree on the basic principle of the case, but not the solution that follows it.

I do agree that it is not acceptable for a grown adult to be dragged off a plane.

I think it's a straw man to say that don't "never drag people off planes" is one of the possible solutions. if he turns out to be within his rights, even if he didn't have a full understanding of the legality of his decision at the time, then I think he was right to resist being removed from the flight.

Saying that hypothetically he could have resolved it in court later, without being dragged off the plane is missing the point- I don't want to live in a society where it's acceptable to be dragged off a plane either, so let's not give united a pass on this situation just because it should be able to make similar actions in other (possibly legal) circumstances.

> then I think he was right to resist being removed from the flight.

See I don't agree with this. Its an argument for vigilantism. The courts are the appropriate place for this to be disputed. Private property and law enforcement should be respected, especially on airplanes. This is how we uphold a civil society.

If a security guard is going to kick me out of somewhere because they think I am someone else, I am not going to physically resist even though they may be wrong. I will discuss it outside if there is a problem. Same applies to any situation. I can't see how it can ever benefit someone to physically resist something like this. It will always end up the same.

> so let's not give united a pass on this situation

I don't see what other option United had and don't see wrongdoing. The only thing this media firestorm does is set a precedent that if you are kicking and screaming you won't be bumped from a flight.

Even if he was in the right, when you are told to get off a plane, or leave a store, it is the right thing to do regardless of whether you were legally in the right. Encouraging people into physical confrontation does not create a nice society to live in.

First, I don't think it's reasonable to simply say that in any situation the sensible and civilized thing to do is to walk away and "let the courts handle it". It seems extremely naive to say that we should never directly challenge the request of anyone in a position of authority because we can then address it in the courts later in a fair and civilized manner. I'm not saying that this is the right case or even that he was acting completely sensibly but as a blanket statement that it's always better to obey, no matter what the request seems absurd.

Second, I agree that encouraging physical confrontation is a bad way to go. But you seem to pin the blame on the passenger, and that there's some inherent violence or threat of violence in voicing an intent to remain on the plane. To my mind the actors who created a physical altercation were the police officers and not the passenger. Surely at the very least the video shows a certain lack of restraint in removing someone from an airplane, given the circumstances. (there was no direct threat or indication of violence or criminal activity )

> I don't see what other option United had

To me their options are clear, persuade one passenger on the plane to get out, or lose whatever amount of money they were going to lose by not having that crew on their plane. If in fact Dr. Dao was not in violation of any law, (and united should have known this to begin with, it is their responsibility) then that is what this situation comes down to. Allow the state authorities to escalate the situation into a physical altercation or lose x amount of money. Seems clear to me.

> we should never directly challenge the request of anyone in a position of authority because we can then address it in the courts later in a fair and civilised manner...as a blanket statement that it's always better to obey, no matter what the request seems absurd.

You are arguing for the use of violent resistance to authority. If you disobey an authority what do you expect to happen? We have the right to peaceful protest, a democratic government, and a justice system. The only alternative I see is a violent confrontation with police which is not the society I want.

> To my mind the actors who created a physical altercation were the police officers and not the passenger.

You cannot disobey the police. The physical altercation was most definitely created by the passenger refusing police orders. I like US police because they get the job done. If this was Europe it would most certainly have been a different story. Plane would have been endlessly delayed, etc.

> To me their options are clear, persuade one passenger on the plane to get out, or lose whatever amount of money they were going to lose by not having that crew on their plane.

If you leave one passenger on the plane, you give reason for every other passenger to refuse. Then what do you do?

I would have given the same order to remove him from the plane with force, and I would expect this to be carried out like so. If there is some sort of mistake, it can be cleared up afterwards without inconveniencing everyone on the flight.

To argue against this is to argue that no one should ever be forcibly removed from anyone else's private property. The argument clearly does not hold across different scenarios. Follow the police's orders and leave someone else's private property when ordered to is a consistent message that makes it easy for everyone to avoid violence. Allowing everyone to live by their own interpretation of the law ends in more violence and regret.

The correct solution can be to never drag people off planes. The cockpit crew simply stops their checklist at "passenger manifest is correct", and informs the passenger cabin that takeoff will be delayed indefinitely until after the "stowaways" deplane and return to the gate.

Planes aren't trains, either. They can fly on any heading, with speed and distance dependent only on fuel supply.

"We're very sorry, but due to scheduling conflicts caused by a disruptive passenger, this aircraft will now be departing for Fargo, North Dakota, instead of Louisville, Kentucky, with earliest possible takeoff slot in six hours. Please deplane and form a line at the gate agent's desk to arrange for alternate transportation, or stay on this plane as it is pushed back from the gate for six hours, with no airflow, locked bathrooms, and no easy way to return to the terminal, and then go to Fargo, where you will get no compensation from the airline, nor any assistance getting to any other destination."

I'd get off "voluntarily". If that's the bluff, I definitely wouldn't want to call it. After I get off, the pilot says, "Psych!" and the original flight to Louisville is back on, and everyone at the gate gets back on the plane without me. If any cop was called at all, he gives me a complimentary cart ride back outside the secured area, and talks the whole way about that one time Sheriff Andy let him put his bullet in.

A plane doesn't have to take off on time. It doesn't have to take off at all. Once the airline decides it isn't taking off with you on the plane, you're just not going to be seeing any cloud tops from where you're currently sitting. At that point, it's only a matter of what it's going to cost to make you leave. And you have to rely on the company's assessment of what would be the cheapest way to do that. Hopefully, the rule of law is strong enough that "beat him up" is costlier than idling a whole plane on the tarmac for a few hours.

>The correct solution can be to never drag people off planes. The cockpit crew simply stops their checklist at "passenger manifest is correct", and informs the passenger cabin that takeoff will be delayed indefinitely until after the "stowaways" deplane and return to the gate.

The correct solution in this case is that if an airline decides that they want to reclaim 4 seats that were sold to customers, that they figure out a way to get 4 people to voluntarily give up their seats. This was not the last plane out of Saigon. Likely a very small percentage of the flight would not leave the plane for any amount of money (family emergency, etc) and the rest would happily give up their seat for some amount of money. One person on that flight said they would give up their seat for $1500 and the employees laughed at him. For example, I imagine if they offered $10,000 that the vast majority of the plane would have raised their hands. Delta has increased their max offers to about that amount and I assume United will do the same.

>""We're very sorry, but due to scheduling conflicts caused by a disruptive passenger,

So someone who paid for something and doesn't want it taken away is now considered "disruptive"? If a landlord signs a lease with a tenant he can't just decide to kick the person out and use violence agains the "disruptive" tenant who wants the landlord to live up their side of the contract. The airline contract of carriage specifies reasons why someone might be denied transport, but wanting to reclaim your seat for use by their employee is not one of them.

"Disruptive passenger" is a thought-terminating cliche that recruits the other passengers into believing that it is the other passenger's fault for being kicked off the plane. It is exactly the sort of thing an airline would announce to shift blame from itself.

The passenger is not actually disruptive in the traditional sense, but is disruptive to the way the airline wants to run itself. The passenger has no access to the announcement system to rebut the assertion, so the airline can paint them in as bad a light as they like.

Or did you think that airline employees did not routinely lie to passengers for their own convenience?

I agree with everything you wrote here. In your original post it sounded like maybe what you were saying was that the airline should have used peer pressure as a means to violate their contract with a passenger. There are much better choices available than "beat him up"and "idling a whole plane on the tarmac for a few hours." - both of these are very bad choices. In the case of United, simply coming on board and saying a screwup happened and saying you are authorized to give 4 free round trip first class tickets on any destination where United flys would have quickly gotten more than enough volunteers.

A plane must followed it pre-defined Flight plans. A plane that does not take off as scheduled get pay a fine... that is the reason why, the rent-a-cop were used, to speed up the process so the airliner can take off as soon as possible.

Most passengers don't know that. Lying to someone sometimes works better than punching them in the face.

And flight plans can not only be changed and refiled on the ground, they can be altered in the air by talking to a control tower over the radio.

Nice story. But I don't want to be on that plane or live in that society, and I am happy that the US police still have the guts to enforce the law and follow orders.

Though in this particular case, they were breaking criminal law in the course of intervening in a civil dispute. They were attempting to simultaneously act as police and as private security personnel for the airline.

One cannot serve two masters. You cannot serve the public interest as police and a private interest as a security thug at the same time.

Following orders takes no guts. It takes guts to refuse to obey an unlawful order. The Nuremberg Principle still exists.

> But is it really acceptable for a grown adult

This is not really a matter of being grown up or not. This is about standing for something that one believes is their right.

I agree with you in that we have a court system to resolve disputes. What I don't agree with is that there should be "the chosen ones" in the society - in this case a big company - who can apply force instead of resolving dispute in the court.

If you don't allow law enforcement to do their job, the world would grind to a halt. If the flight was cancelled because of this guy, I think the passengers would quickly turn on him.

"A completely free market approach" would not allow airlines to involuntarily remove passengers who have already paid for and used a ticket. A free market approach would involve offering greater and greater compensation for voluntary removal until enough people took it.

Ok "completely free market approach" was a bad statement.

A "generous free market approach" maybe is better, as the penalty for bumping is steep.

No, it would involve whatever the contract between the passenger and the airline says. Which is very likely to favor the airline as they wrote it.

Exactly...I don't get the complaints about the existence of IDB legislation. If the airlines got to write the contracts themselves, they'd say you'd get no compensation at all outside of a refund of your ticket price if you can't be rebooked.

I'm OK with its existence. I'm not really OK with its content. min(4 x fare, $1,350) is way too low. Make the minimum compensation for involuntary bumping $10,000 (cash, not stupid vouchers) or something, and then maybe we'd see some sense.

I'm sure there needs to be some way to remove people against their will if something really crazy happens. But it should be the absolute last resort if all else fails, not a way to cap losses to a low amount.

A free market solution would include revevant laews and regulations.

Compensation would come from means to achieve it.

Pleaae tie free market solution as above to compensation

Only on HN would somebody compare the United incident to Rosa Parks in the segregated South.

That's a facile truth about an overblown analogy, buy there's good insight in that analogy: this could be a tipping point for a rights of individuals and the mass public vs exploitative rules of large corporations. Like 'The Jungle' a century ago. Probably won't be, but could be. Hasbrouck shows how the evidence has been building over the past few years, each time picking up more steam.

And in the regards, Rosa Parks was just a small, single incident that has become iconic, so in that regard it's a good choice.

Now this United event was spontaneous, while Rosa Parks was planned action (NAACP leaders saw what Claudette Colvin had done and recruited an activist, Rosa Parks, as part of a managed publicity campaign). It was used to good effect (in both the sense of working well and in support of an important and good cause). The thing that has fascinated me the most about the United event is that now that everyone has a camera and the opportunity to write, some balance of power is being restored.

If you think there is insight to be gained by this analogy, you clearly do not understand the magnitude and the background leading up to the Rosa Parks incident. They are not comparable in any way shape or form. There is literally no insight to be had. It's a horrible analogy.

> you clearly do not understand the magnitude and the background leading up to the Rosa Parks incident.

Indeed don't know you, treehau5 and how your life has been, any more than you know mine.

But yes, I do have some idea: when I first came to America in the 1960s with my parents we landed in D.C. My parents knew to drive north because had we tried to stay in Virginia we would not have been permitted to all stay in the same hotel. At the time of their marriage my parents' could not even get married in my native country, although the marriage itself (performed elsewhere) was legal, unlike in parts of the US.

I have seen firsthand the effect of racial laws on my direct family. I myself have been barred entrance to a hotel on racial grounds (though thankfully I think those times are behind us). I don't sit around complaining about it, or even thinking about it every day for which I am thankful: not everyone has that luxury. But yes, I think I have some understanding.

You are correct in that I was not here when Rosa Parks staged her protest so I do not understand firsthand what it was like in the South before the civil rights movement was accepted by whites. Perhaps you do. But I am very much aware of the benefit I have derived from her effort. As well as the social reasons why Colaudette Colvin's protest could not have had the same effect -- and how today's calculus has changed.

> There is literally no insight to be had.

You blandly make this claim but do not support it. I did in fact claim there was insight to be had. You can disagree, but simply stating your disagreement provides no explanatory value.

It seems the area where they are connected, is the rights of "Average Citizens vs Big Companies". Or better yet, poor people. (Yes I know he's a doctor, and has means to legally defend himself- he's an exception.)

But how would you or I fare in this? We'd get assaulted, arrested, lives put in turmoil, and for what? Yeah, a pile of debt.

Black people in the US have a substantially more of this to go through, primarily due to racial targeting and profiling. That's not to even discuss targeting crack cocaine and "nigger weed" for extra punishment (marijuana, go look up Hearst, Nixon, and others' comments *why marijuana was illegalized).

So yeah, the analogy does sound rather decent. Except it's not White vs Black, but Monied vs Poor.