To make it worse, he paid to be there. If they didn’t want him in the seat, they shouldn’t have sold him a ticket.
He already paid, already received the ticket, and already had his ass in the seat.
The United incident was a total disaster for United, they were incompetent and doubled down on that incompetence because of policies driven by their bottom line. The “police” that removed the trespasser were no trained and were also incompetent.
None of that changes the fact that if the captain of the airline thinks it’s a safety problem he can remove the passenger.
Why would you call this medieval?
And no, btw, pretending to be confused isn't convincing.
The property owner of the property he is occupying against the owner’s wishes.
> What is this, medieval Europe?
Capitalism isn't the same thing as feudalism, though both give preeminence to property rights (in capitalism, the important ones are more likely to be marketable rather than fixed to predefined systems of inheritance.)
'Bumping' is the colloquial term for 'involuntary denied boarding'. Bumping does not apply in this case, because the passenger in question was already boarded, and therefore could not be denied his seat, as he was not acting abusively.
But don't take my word for it, this is directly from the US Department of Transportation:
> Can airlines involuntarily bump me after I have boarded the flight?
> Generally, no. If you have met the following conditions, airlines are not allowed to deny you permission to board, or remove you from the flight if you have already boarded the flight: > You have checked-in for your flight before the check-in deadline set by the airlines; and > A gate agent has accepted your paper boarding pass or electronically scanned your boarding pass and let you know that you may proceed to board. > However, airlines may deny boarding or remove you from a flight even after accepting your boarding pass and informing you that you may proceed to board if the denial or removal is due to a safety, security, or health risk, or due to a behavior that is considered obscene, disruptive, or otherwise unlawful.
https://www.transportation.gov/individuals/aviation-consumer...
No, if you read the DOT website I linked to, you'll see your second point is not valid either.
The DOT explicitly states airlines are not allowed to deny you permission to board, or remove you from the flight if.... If you have already boarded the plan, or had your ticket scanned, and are not being unruly, airlines are literally not allowed to deplane you.
The Airline is as much a guest in an airport as the passenger is.
He paid for the flight, was checked in, allowed into the plane and didn't provide any reason himself for being thrown out. The people who escalated the situation were the airline staff and airport staff. Huge difference.
The equivalent analogy would be: you paid for and were situated in your hotel room, when you receive notice from the hotel that they have overbooked their hotel and that hotel staff from another hotel need to stay in your room and you must evacuate your room immediately. When you refuse to do so, they have security slam your head into the bedframe, resulting in you breaking your teeth, and then leave you outside on the curb.
Throwing someone out in the street with a proper reason is not entirely legal in most jurisdictions, at least not in mine. Proper reasons include disruption, property damage, violating the rules, committing crimes, being intoxicated, not having paid, being past the leave date, etc.
In this case, the reason is "hotel staff from another hotel need to stay in your room", which is not grounds for expelling anyone.
Even when hotels make mistakes and overbook they can't throw out guests that are already accepted and accommodated. Hotels even go the extra mile of directing the additional guests to other hotels and foot the bill.
The correct thing for the airline to do is call the police if necessary and resolve the dispute using the law.
Morally? Legally? In order to not get beaten up? For the first two, I disagree. For the last one, perhaps but it might be worth the bad publicity for them and the lawsuit money.
"It's bullshit if they hurt you while forcing you to leave, but it seems like you've contributed somewhat to the situation you find yourself in when you leave them no choice but to physically remove you."
I don't want to be rude but one could use the same argument to justify horrible acts such as violence during sexual assault.
It's not unreasonable to expect them to plan ahead better. Perhaps they need to have more jumpseats, or force them to displace the highest paying customer first to discourage that kind of planning.
There are many more humane options available when we realize we should be in control of the rules governing their operations, if only this whole shitstorm wasnt massively corrupt.
They're an airline, get another plane, maybe even a charter if their employees' travel is important enough for them to justify brutalizing their paying customers.
They are the ones that should have let him fly and dealt with the issue separately without creating a new incident if they felt he was in the wrong.
Being in the right (if that is the case) does not mean you can behave however you want. If a hotel denies your booking for whatever reason, would you just stay in the lobby anyway?