271–280 of 549 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is to stop the four "winners" of this auction demanding more money? (Apart from the threat of assault of course!)
"Hey, so, these four are being jerks, so we're starting over again, but they're not allowed to participate."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's actually not true (afaik). Certainly the command to kill another passenger is unlawful, and you won't carry it out. But also just as certainly he can tell you to leave the aircraft for refusing. There literally is absolutely no legal right for you to stay on that vessel after the captain requests you leave. Plenty of incidents support this on a practical level - captains remove people rarely but not unheard of…
> That's actually not true What exactly did I say that wasn't true? If a captain removes people for discrimination, then they are removing choice from individual based on making choice for group. People don't want to hear a racist's rationalizations, so as a group decision it might be a good one, especially given it is related to in-flight matters (or the prediction it will be related to in-flight matters). Again, I…
The captain (afaik) can remove you for wearing blue shoes, and you must leave. He will face zero legal consequences for that action, but of course is subject to company discipline. In the absurd case the captain somehow owns the airline itself, I think there would be zero recourse available to an arbitrarily removed passenger other than IDB compensation and a refund of the ticket.
I also think the level of force in this case can certainly be argued - but I don't think the United crew will face any legal liability even if the officers do. Had they used a bit more discretion I'm quite certain this guy would have no case whatsoever even if physically removed against his will. Knocking him out of course is excessive, and I believe that is a separate argument.
I didn't intend to call you wrong, that wasn't the greatest choice of words. I'm simply stating this has been my understanding of the legal implications for some time now, as explained to me by casual conversation with various lawyers over the years since it's a curious subject for me.
The real thing to fear here is the normalization of violence. Good perspective in the WP comments: "The truly shocking thing here is that violence - with the real possibility of serious injury - was viewed as appropriate in a situation that was purely logistical. The airline wanted seats for its own employees. This was not an emergency - such as a terrorist attack or a drunk passenger endangering people. The lack of…
I agree. I will point out that it is not United that "chose" violence. They asked the police to intervene. The state is supposed to have a monopoly on physical force, so they did. Now, for the police, violence has always been normal, or normalized. Consider the appropriate responses: 1. An airline should not call in the police when dealing with customers because they can reasonably expect violence. 2. The police shou…
The real thing to fear here is the normalization of violence. Good perspective in the WP comments: "The truly shocking thing here is that violence - with the real possibility of serious injury - was viewed as appropriate in a situation that was purely logistical. The airline wanted seats for its own employees. This was not an emergency - such as a terrorist attack or a drunk passenger endangering people. The lack of…
Then there's not much to fear, because I don't see anyone at all finding this normal. It's on every news site and social network, everyone is deeply disturbed about these events.
If anything this clearly shows that violence is FAR from normal in peoples' mind.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I can't imagine that out of more than 100 people they wouldn't find at least 4 interested in waiting in the airport to travel 1st class. Apparently they did. The law is pretty clear on this. You can be refused a flight for this reason - United decided that they wanted the seat for their employee more than the passenger. Once the passenger starts resisting, he/she should get removed by any means necessary, up to and…
I don't think your average person will view this as being "fair". Specifically already being on the plane and effectively being evicted from your seat for no fault of your own I would call "unreasonable". Public opinion I think will also be very "unreasonable" regarding United in these circumstances.
It's lawful, and eventually you will be taken off the plane. The time to fight the battle is after you get off, not struggling against overwhelming odds and then getting charges piled on you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> With that said, don't drag people off your flights. No matter what it costs you to get staff where they need to be when you make this mistake, it'll be cheaper than the negative publicity of a physical altercation removing a passenger (even if you need to retask a commuter aircraft just to relocate the crew, or ask another carrier to get them there). Of course, that just gives a hecker's veto to anyone insubordinat…
No, what they should have done is exactly what other airlines do when they are overbooked: keep raising the voucher amount until someone volunteers to get off. And if you can't find someone to get off at a price that seems appropriate (which is very unlikely: you're always going to find someone willing to take $1000), work out other arrangements. The moment you've escalated to "we've selected people at random, and we…
No need for violence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not trying to rationalize anyone's actions here, but if the captain told you to kill another passenger, that is not within his right of removal of choice for individual. i.e. The captain is only allowed to remove choice for an individual when the group is threatened, given they are in charge, by law, of making choices for group (perhaps for the reason of or related to in-flight matters). Edit: changed he to they.
The captain has extremely broad latitude over who is allowed to be on the flight. He doesn't need to give a reason for kicking someone off.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The other problem is what society views as ethical or moral is now subjective to each on a variety of different factors in this post post-modern society. There was once puritanical values, however despised they are by certain factions, which unified the "ethos" of the nation on what is and is not ethical. The civil rights movement came along and augmented that ethos for the better. Now we have groups who place abando…
The golden age of unified national consensus on what is ethical is a myth.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whoever decided to force the guy off the plane is an idiot. They could have simply raised the comp for volunteering slowly until someone took the money.
But that costs money immediately. Forcing someone off the plane and causing a huge HR mess only costs money long-term, and it doesn't come out of my budget, so why should I care?