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