United airlines defences

A collection of links to internal martial arts videos. Serious martial arts videos ONLY. Joke videos go to Off the Topic.

Re: United airlines defences

Postby windwalker on Wed Apr 12, 2017 6:44 am

chud wrote:What's ironic is the doctor was selected by computer.
So law enforcement committing police brutality at the direction of a computer.


Prove it.

That what you saw was police brutality...

Start with the flight crew asking him to leave the plane, and then
the officers asking him to leave the plane....

What I saw was a man who did not comply with a request
to depart the plane, and then resisted it when he was removed.

The fact that he claims to be a doctor or anything else has little to do
with him not abiding by the "laws" in which he is subject to per his contractual agreement
in the purchase of a ticket.
Last edited by windwalker on Wed Apr 12, 2017 6:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
rule 19
windwalker
Wuji
 
Posts: 6061
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 4:08 am

Re: United airlines defences

Postby Trick on Wed Apr 12, 2017 7:09 am

Yes absolutely crazy, the airline company computer select someone to be a potential criminal. Law enforcement is used against someone who is a criminal by lotteri.....I read somewhere that the so called contract one agree to when flying with that airline is some 30,000 words long?
Trick
Huajing
 
Posts: 472
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2016 1:30 am

Re: United airlines defences

Postby RickMatz on Wed Apr 12, 2017 7:25 am

A lot of people are calling for the CEO to be fired. I think that is letting him off too easily.

He and his family should have to fly commercial, economy class only.
RickMatz
Huajing
 
Posts: 317
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2008 6:17 pm
Location: Near Detroit

Re: United airlines defences

Postby Ian C. Kuzushi on Wed Apr 12, 2017 8:44 am

Prove that it was illegal.
Why not ask why the man did not follow the laws that he agreed too by buying the ticket.
Were does his responsibility come into play, or is he not responsible for the result of his own actions.


I know it's hard to believe, but if you actually try reading instead of simply watching videos all the time, you yourself could find out why it was not legal (i.e. illegal):

The passenger wasn’t denied boarding — he had a confirmed seat, and was allowed to board and take that seat.

Later they come onboard and asked him to get off the plane. At that point that’s no longer being denied boarding, but rather being refused transport. United’s contract of carriage addresses both of these situations:

Here’s the contract of carriage regarding denied boarding compensation
Here’s the contract of carriage regarding refusal to transport

The contract of carriage lists a bunch of reasons that the airline can refuse transport to someone, though a flight being oversold after a passenger has boarded isn’t one of them. In looking at the Department of Transportation regulations, I don’t see anything that clarifies how they define “denied boarding.”

In light of that, it sure seems like this was a case of refusal to transport, rather than a case of denied boarding, since the passenger wasn’t denied boarding. If this was a refusal to transport case, then United had no legal grounds on which to refuse him transport, based on the contract of carriage.


http://onemileatatime.boardingarea.com/ ... g-illegal/

lets hope you never have to call on any of those "rotten apples" to protect you
from the other apples in the barrel with you..


That's laughable. The last county I lived in, we all received mail from the sherrif stating that, becuase voters (conservative dipshits) had voted down the taxes so much, the sherrif could no longer guarentee response to 911 calls. That's okay, I can and always have taken care of myself and family. The police simply complicate matters.

Just where do the freedoms you feel you have come from?


From the law, supposedly. Unfortunately, many police and bootlickers like you seem always ready to trample people rights, especially when it comes to people of color. Your posts have long made that clear. Disgusting. I'm glad that you don't live here, from what I have gathered.

What freedoms or liberties did this man lose or were violated when he refused to
abide by what he agreed to...and then did not....


As always, you just have no idea what you are talking about. Indeed, this is the age of the death of expertise. For shame.

If a flight crew asked you to leave and you did not leave, would you leave or not.


This simply doesn't make sense. If "I did not leave," then obviously I would not leave? I imagine I would have to eventually if they tazered me. My resistance would be based on the circumstances. Once you have passed the gate, you can't be asked to leave unless you are deemed to be a danger.

the man if is lucky will not be charged for anything.


That's hilarious. I imagine he will get a settlement. United's stock is down over a billion dollars. The police involved on are admin leave and their boss condemned their actions. Again, try not to lick those boots every single chance you get.
文武両道。

Lord Li requires one hundred gold coins per day!
User avatar
Ian C. Kuzushi
Great Old One
 
Posts: 1640
Joined: Sun May 15, 2011 10:02 pm

Re: United airlines defences

Postby Ian C. Kuzushi on Wed Apr 12, 2017 8:55 am

Since he had already boarded, he would have to breach one of the following:

Rule 21 Refusal of Transport

UA shall have the right to refuse to transport or shall have the right to remove from the aircraft at any point, any Passenger for the following reasons:

Breach of Contract of Carriage – Failure by Passenger to comply with the Rules of the Contract of Carriage.
Government Request, Regulations or Security Directives – Whenever such action is necessary to comply with any government regulation, Customs and Border Protection, government or airport security directive of any sort, or any governmental request for emergency transportation in connection with the national defense.
Force Majeure and Other Unforeseeable Conditions – Whenever such action is necessary or advisable by reason of weather or other conditions beyond UA’s control including, but not limited to, acts of God, force majeure, strikes, civil commotions, embargoes, wars, hostilities, terrorist activities, or disturbances, whether actual, threatened, or reported.
Search of Passenger or Property – Whenever a Passenger refuses to submit to electronic surveillance or to permit search of his/her person or property.
Proof of Identity – Whenever a Passenger refuses on request to produce identification satisfactory to UA or who presents a Ticket to board and whose identification does not match the name on the Ticket. UA shall have the right, but shall not be obligated, to require identification of persons purchasing tickets and/or presenting a ticket(s) for the purpose of boarding the aircraft.
Failure to Pay – Whenever a Passenger has not paid the appropriate fare for a Ticket, Baggage, or applicable service charges for services required for travel, has not paid an outstanding debt or Court judgment, or has not produced satisfactory proof to UA that the Passenger is an authorized non-revenue Passenger or has engaged in a prohibited practice as specified in Rule 6.
Across International Boundaries – Whenever a Passenger is traveling across any international boundary if:
The government required travel documents of such Passenger appear not to be in order according to UA's reasonable belief; or
Such Passenger’s embarkation from, transit through, or entry into any country from, through, or to which such Passenger desires transportation would be unlawful or denied for any reason.
Safety – Whenever refusal or removal of a Passenger may be necessary for the safety of such Passenger or other Passengers or members of the crew including, but not limited to:
Passengers whose conduct is disorderly, offensive, abusive, or violent;
Passengers who fail to comply with or interfere with the duties of the members of the flight crew, federal regulations, or security directives;
Passengers who assault any employee of UA, including the gate agents and flight crew, or any UA Passenger;
Passengers who, through and as a result of their conduct, cause a disturbance such that the captain or member of the cockpit crew must leave the cockpit in order to attend to the disturbance;
Passengers who are barefoot or not properly clothed;
Passengers who appear to be intoxicated or under the influence of drugs to a degree that the Passenger may endanger the Passenger or another Passenger or members of the crew (other than a qualified individual whose appearance or involuntary behavior may make them appear to be intoxicated or under the influence of drugs);
Passengers wearing or possessing on or about their person concealed or unconcealed deadly or dangerous weapons; provided, however, that UA will carry law enforcement personnel who meet the qualifications and conditions established in 49 C.F.R. §1544.219;
Passengers who are unwilling or unable to follow UA’s policy on smoking or use of other smokeless materials;
Unless they comply with Rule 6 I), Passengers who are unable to sit in a single seat with the seat belt properly secured, and/or are unable to put the seat’s armrests down when seated and remain seated with the armrest down for the entirety of the flight, and/or passengers who significantly encroach upon the adjoining passenger’s seat;
Passengers who are manacled or in the custody of law enforcement personnel;
Passengers who have resisted or may reasonably be believed to be capable of resisting custodial supervision;
Pregnant Passengers in their ninth month, unless such Passenger provides a doctor’s certificate dated no more than 72 hours prior to departure stating that the doctor has examined and found the Passenger to be physically fit for air travel to and from the destination requested on the date of the flight, and that the estimated date of delivery is after the date of the last flight;
Passengers who are incapable of completing a flight safely, without requiring extraordinary medical assistance during the flight, as well as Passengers who appear to have symptoms of or have a communicable disease or condition that could pose a direct threat to the health or safety of others on the flight, or who refuse a screening for such disease or condition. (NOTE: UA requires a medical certificate for Passengers who wish to travel under such circumstances. Visit UA’s website, united.com, for more information regarding UA’s requirements for medical certificates);
Passengers who fail to travel with the required safety assistant(s), advance notice and/or other safety requirements pursuant to Rules 14 and 15;
Passengers who do not qualify as acceptable Non-Ambulatory Passengers (see Rule 14);
Passengers who have or cause a malodorous condition (other than individuals qualifying as disabled);
Passengers whose physical or mental condition is such that, in United’s sole opinion, they are rendered or likely to be rendered incapable of comprehending or complying with safety instructions without the assistance of an escort. The escort must accompany the escorted passenger at all times; and
Unaccompanied passengers who are both blind and deaf, unless such passenger is able to communicate with representatives of UA by either physical, mechanical, electronic, or other means. Such passenger must inform UA of the method of communication to be used; and
Passengers who are unwilling to follow UA’s policy that prohibits voice calls after the aircraft doors have closed, while taxiing in preparation for takeoff, or while airborne.
Any Passenger who, by reason of engaging in the above activities in this Rule 21, causes UA any loss, damage or expense of any kind, consents and acknowledges that he or she shall reimburse UA for any such loss, damage or expense. UA has the right to refuse transport, on a permanent basis, to any passenger who, by reason of engaging in the above activities in this Rule 21, causes UA any loss, damage or expense of any kind, or who has been disorderly, offensive, abusive, or violent. In addition, the activities enumerated in H) 1) through 8) shall constitute a material breach of contract, for which UA shall be excused from performing its obligations under this contract.
UA is not liable for its refusal to transport any passenger or for its removal of any passenger in accordance with this Rule. A Passenger who is removed or refused transportation in accordance with this Rule may be eligible for a refund upon request. See Rule 27 A). As an express precondition to issuance of any refund, UA shall not be responsible for damages of any kind whatsoever. The passenger’s sole and exclusive remedy shall be Rule 27 A).

:-*

Prooved it.
文武両道。

Lord Li requires one hundred gold coins per day!
User avatar
Ian C. Kuzushi
Great Old One
 
Posts: 1640
Joined: Sun May 15, 2011 10:02 pm

Re: United airlines defences

Postby Greg J on Wed Apr 12, 2017 9:49 am

Windwalker,

I appreciate your point that the doctor should have just gotten off the plane when he was asked to do so - even more so when the police got involved. I think that in general if the police are ready to go hands on with you, no matter how unfair or even illegal their rationale, it is always best to cooperate. In most countries it doesn't take much to be on the receiving end of a beating or a bullet if the police are instructing you to do something and you aren't complying (even more so if you are a minority). Better to be alive and in one piece and get a lawyer to fight that fight, than to be dead or seriously injured and facing charges like assaulting a police officer, obstruction of justice, resisting arrest, etc.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out in court. I agree with Bao's recent post predicting that Dr. Dao will get a hefty settlement. UA and the police may not have broken the law (it actually appears that they didn't), but Dr. Dao could certainly make a case in civil court that he is entitled compensation for physical harm and emotional distress suffered as a result of the decisions UA made. And this would not be a bad thing if it gets airlines to make sure that they do everything they can to avoid incidents like this from happening in the future. This was a situation they created, and one that could easily have been avoided.

Best,
Greg
Greg J
Anjing
 
Posts: 231
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2013 12:59 pm

Re: United airlines defences

Postby Bhassler on Wed Apr 12, 2017 9:52 am

There are actually two questions here:
1. Did United have the right to boot passengers?
2. Was there police brutality?

1. Short answer is, probably.
First off, a contract is not law. A contract is an agreement between two parties, and is superseded by law. So even though United did not have a contractual agreement saying they could boot passengers, they may have had the right. Generally speaking, laws are very favorable towards companies doing whatever they have to do to run their business. In this case, if what the NY Times reported is true (that they had to make room for another flight crew so they could work a flight leaving Chicago), then United could easily argue that the people they were making room for were not flying as passengers, but were employees engaged in the task of doing their jobs, and United as a company had to make a decision between booting 4 passengers (with compensation) or cancelling another flight entirely due to lack of a flight crew, which would have done much more harm to customers and the company. If they could demonstrate that the reason they had to do this was due to another flight being delayed, then they could say that it was not poor planning or negligence on their part, but uncontrollable circumstances.

Does a passenger then not have any rights? Well, they do have rights, but the process for remediation happens either through working with United's so-called customer service department or through suing in the courts. If an authorized agent of a business asks you to leave, you pretty much have to leave, by law. Remediation does not happen on the spot between principles.

2. Was there police brutality? No.
First off, the airport police do not work for United. Usually, they're a branch of the local police department, which I believe is the case here. Second, when a police officer in the course of doing their job tells you to do something, you have to do it. Period. That's the law. There may be exceptions in extreme cases like if a cop tells you to murder someone or suck their dick, but that wasn't the case here. Get it straight-- cops are enforcement, not judicial. Their job is to get shit handled in the safest way possible to the best of their ability given the info available. If you think the cop is in the wrong, you still have to comply-- the place for remediation is in the judicial system later on. That's why we have a judicial system and that's how the system works. In this case, the cops get called saying a passenger has been asked to leave and won't do it, so their job is to get the guy off the plane, not to decide who's right or wrong. And if you think the way the cop went about it was "brutal", you are extremely ignorant in use of force and about violence in general. The cop lifted the guy up and pulled him out of the plane. The guy bumped his lip coming out of the seat, but he wasn't struck or slammed into anything. If it was a younger person, he probably wouldn't even have bled-- old people tend to have thin skin and bleed a lot (http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifes ... q-20057753).


So, in short, there is some question as to whether or not United had the right to do what they did, but very little evidence to suggest police brutality.

Officers are commonly placed on leave after use of force incidents as standard procedure. The Commissioner probably resigned as a PR move and because he's had a long career making very good money and has a big pension headed his way-- why not take one for the team and at the same time save yourself about a million headaches? Most of the noise around this is about news outlets fanning the flames because that's what makes them money. I'm amazed at how many people think the government is out to control them and are totally oblivious to the manipulations of mainstream media, who's job at the end of the day is to sell advertising, not to inform anyone.


Also, fuck United. I hope their whole executive team gets canned.
Bhassler
Great Old One
 
Posts: 2950
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 8:05 pm
Location: xxxxxxx

Re: United airlines defences

Postby Steve James on Wed Apr 12, 2017 10:13 am

I'm not sure there's an easy legal case to be made. Imo, the central issues are why the airline removed the passenger and how the officials who removed him handled it. If there was a reasonable reason for removing him, then it's easy to justify the amount of force used to remove him. For ex., if the airline found out that the passenger was carrying a plague, but after he had checked in and boarded, would it be reasonable to force him off? Otoh, if the passenger were going for a heart transplant next morning, would it still be reasonable? This passenger might have had a good reason for making that flight.

However, all that depends on communication, which in this case, imo, is the airline's responsibility. It's a pr nightmare because I'm sure the airline officials could have handled it better. They could have at least asked if anyone else were willing to give up his or her seat.... hopefully, because it was an emergency. That person could be offered compensation ... again, because it was a necessary situation. The problem is that it probably wasn't a necessity, just a convenience. And, this poor guy was picked to make the sacrifice.

Personally, I could see lots of reasons for demanding that I continue my journey. I don't, however, think there's any reason to fight back or refuse to leave. It's not about being right; it's about choosing the time to fight. If I missed something important because they bumped me, I would sue the ___ out of the airline. As it was, it was a digital situation: either the guy gets off, or the plane doesn't.

Anyway, I would sure have hated to be the person who took that guy's seat for the flight :) And, the airline better come up with a really good reason for removing the passenger. I don't think that the CEO has any responsibility for this incident. It's not something that happens every day.

Edit: just saw that I agree with BHassler.
Last edited by Steve James on Wed Apr 12, 2017 10:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
"A man is rich when he has time and freewill. How he chooses to invest both will determine the return on his investment."
User avatar
Steve James
Great Old One
 
Posts: 16177
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 8:20 am

Re: United airlines defences

Postby Ian C. Kuzushi on Wed Apr 12, 2017 1:08 pm

Bhassler wrote:There are actually two questions here:
1. Did United have the right to boot passengers?
2. Was there police brutality?



You may be right about them being able to kick people off for no reason, but I doubt it will fly in civil court. They broke their own contract.

Police brutality is the undue use of violence by police. Since the head of the Department of Aviation (which runs the Aviation police here in Chicago, and is totally self-funded--drawing no funds from local or state taxes) stated"

“The incident on United flight 3411 was not in accordance with our standard operating procedure and the actions of the aviation security officer are obviously not condoned,” Aviation Department spokeswoman Karen Pride said. “That officer has been placed on leave effective today pending a thorough review of the situation.”


It meets the criteria for police brutality.

The removal was a clear breach of contract, which is at least part of the reason why it "was not in accordance with...standard operating procedure." This suspension should not be explained away so nonchalantly.

As for people being paranoid about the government and listening too much to the media...where to begin. Every article I have read has been clearly partisan in favor of the airline, although social media has been another story. Why is it that left leaning people are always accused of wanting too much governement until something like this happens? Why is the media called liberal when the most popular cable news shows and talk radio are hard right conservative? Yeah, it just don't add up. As for civilians trying to stand along that Thin Blue Line: pathetic, but not as disgusting or as bad for the nation as the actual officers who look the other way every day. I guess that's another topic, but ties into what is being said between the lines here.
文武両道。

Lord Li requires one hundred gold coins per day!
User avatar
Ian C. Kuzushi
Great Old One
 
Posts: 1640
Joined: Sun May 15, 2011 10:02 pm

Re: United airlines defences

Postby Bao on Wed Apr 12, 2017 1:24 pm

windwalker wrote:
Bao wrote:What right did they have according to what he signed? .???


"If you're still in the terminal waiting to board, you can be told you can't board, even if you have a reservation, even if you have a ticket. And once you're on board, you are subject to being deplaned based on the order of the crew. So you don't really have any rights,"


You mean like not complying with a request of an airline flight crew,,,is that what your asking?
I would suggest finding a better lawyer, or someone who understands air line ticketing contracts


No you wrote:

"He refused to comply with the request to leave in a accordance with the contract he signed and agreed to."

He bought a ticket. What did he sign? You don't need to sign anything when you buy a ticket, so what contract do you mean that he signed?

windwalker wrote:I understood the flight was booked full all seats taken.

Federal regulations do not prevent carriers from selling more seats than a flight can accommodate, a practice the airline industry says allows carriers to try to fill planes despite the number of no-shows that they can expect on any given flight.

Typically, airlines will ask for volunteers on oversold flights, promising some sort of compensation in return for taking a different flight. If few volunteer, carriers typically will keep increasing their offers until enough fliers agree to take another flight.

If not enough volunteers are found, the airline has the power to decide who gets “bumped” off the flight, though that typically happens before boarding.


You need to read what I wrote again. You are put on hold before boarding. They never let passengers take seat and change it or take it back. The booking system which most airline use, including United, doesn't work the way so you can change seats after you have given someone a seat. You can also never change between different classes (economy can be more than ten different classes. Employees are put in a special class. They are not exchangeable).

All of their explanations are pure BS. Anyone who has worked daily with IATA regulations know that it doesn't work that way. They had no right according to any contract or any standard procedure common for any airline.

United warns of the potential to deny boarding for an oversold flight even if a passenger doesn't want to leave. The Sunday flight that caused outrage worldwide wasn't oversold. However, it was sold out and United said it needed four seats for crew members to reach their next flights.
.
?[/quote]

It was about bad planning, not about overbooking or over selling. They just forgot to put them into the system, they forgot to give them seats. So they just chose someone on the spot, someone that they thought they could handle. There is absolutely nothing that supports their action to drag out someone who already got his seat. No company work that way. I don't think United has this method as a standard procedure either, and there's definitely nothing in their "rules". Then they would certainly be the first airline in the world to have it.
Last edited by Bao on Wed Apr 12, 2017 1:28 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Thoughts on Tai Chi (My Tai Chi blog)
- Storms make oaks take deeper root. -George Herbert
- To affect the quality of the day, is the highest of all arts! -Walden Thoreau
Bao
Great Old One
 
Posts: 5753
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 12:46 pm
Location: High up north

Re: United airlines defences

Postby Bhassler on Wed Apr 12, 2017 1:32 pm

Right or left has nothing to do with my point about media-- both sides are in the business of making money, period. And politicians are in the business of getting elected. Congratulations, we're all fucked.

As for whether or not it was breach of contract, that has nothing to do with whether or not it was police brutality. It's definitely a shitty situation, but understanding whether or not a crime was committed (which last I checked, police brutality was a crime) requires both a dispassionate analysis of the actions that occurred on a moment-to-moment basis, and an understanding of the law.

What's relevant to this forum, and the reason I posted, is that many folks are demonstrating a real misunderstanding of what personal rights actually are and how to deal with the legal system. That's kind of a big deal for anyone who thinks they're training for any kind of real-world application. The truth is both sides were wrong, and both had what they thought were legitimate reasons, and that's life. How do we best take care of ourselves and our loved ones if we find ourselves in a similar situation, or can the situation be avoided entirely? That's a much more productive thought exercise than proving right or wrong. Learning happens best with clarity, and that's why it's best to look at each interaction individually instead of getting caught up in the narrative.
Bhassler
Great Old One
 
Posts: 2950
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 8:05 pm
Location: xxxxxxx

Re: United airlines defences

Postby Greg J on Wed Apr 12, 2017 1:45 pm

Bhassler wrote:
What's relevant to this forum, and the reason I posted, is that many folks are demonstrating a real misunderstanding of what personal rights actually are and how to deal with the legal system. That's kind of a big deal for anyone who thinks they're training for any kind of real-world application. The truth is both sides were wrong, and both had what they thought were legitimate reasons, and that's life. How do we best take care of ourselves and our loved ones if we find ourselves in a similar situation, or can the situation be avoided entirely? That's a much more productive thought exercise than proving right or wrong. Learning happens best with clarity, and that's why it's best to look at each interaction individually instead of getting caught up in the narrative.



Well said, Bhassler. +1
Greg J
Anjing
 
Posts: 231
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2013 12:59 pm

Re: United airlines defences

Postby Bao on Wed Apr 12, 2017 1:51 pm

Greg J wrote:It will be interesting to see how this plays out in court. I agree with Bao's recent post predicting that Dr. Dao will get a hefty settlement. UA and the police may not have broken the law (it actually appears that they didn't), but Dr. Dao could certainly make a case in civil court that he is entitled compensation for physical harm and emotional distress suffered as a result of the decisions UA made.


I do think that they did not only go straight against standard procedure, but they did in fact brake the law. The selling and buying of a certain service was finalized when he had boarded the plane. I can't sell you something, take your money and then just take it back. I can't do it even if I give the money back if you don't clearly agree with this and together make a verbal agreement. What they did is just like theft. They tried to take back a service from a deal that was already finalized. No one can do that, it's a theft.

What I am perfectly sure of is also that penalties from IATA will come. They handled it completely against the standard procedures of the International Air Transport Association, which United is a member of: http://www.iata.org/about/members/Pages ... -list.aspx

IATA regulate passenger security for all members and have very strict guidelines.

Our vision
To be the force for value creation and innovation driving a safe, secure and profitable air transport industry that sustainably connects and enriches our world.

Our mission
IATA’s mission is to represent, lead, and serve the airline industry.


Representing the airline industry
We improve understanding of the air transport industry among decision makers and increase awareness of the benefits that aviation brings to national and global economies. Advocating for the interests of airlines across the globe, we challenge unreasonable rules and charges, hold regulators and governments to account, and strive for sensible regulation.

Serving the airline industry
We help airlines to operate safely, securely, efficiently, and economically under clearly defined rules. Professional support is provided to all industry stakeholders with a wide range of products and expert services.

But you will recognize us by the consistent way in which we act and behave. We live our values and embody the supporting behaviors to make IATA a great place to work:

We act with integrity and uphold our standards

We think strategically in support of the global big picture
We partner and manage to create high performing teams
We put people first, by acting with a simple human touch


Right now, they are surely very, very embarrassed for one of their members... :P
Last edited by Bao on Wed Apr 12, 2017 1:53 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Thoughts on Tai Chi (My Tai Chi blog)
- Storms make oaks take deeper root. -George Herbert
- To affect the quality of the day, is the highest of all arts! -Walden Thoreau
Bao
Great Old One
 
Posts: 5753
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 12:46 pm
Location: High up north

Re: United airlines defences

Postby Ian C. Kuzushi on Wed Apr 12, 2017 1:56 pm

Bhassler wrote:Right or left has nothing to do with my point about media-- both sides are in the business of making money, period. And politicians are in the business of getting elected. Congratulations, we're all fucked.

As for whether or not it was breach of contract, that has nothing to do with whether or not it was police brutality. It's definitely a shitty situation, but understanding whether or not a crime was committed (which last I checked, police brutality was a crime) requires both a dispassionate analysis of the actions that occurred on a moment-to-moment basis, and an understanding of the law.

What's relevant to this forum, and the reason I posted, is that many folks are demonstrating a real misunderstanding of what personal rights actually are and how to deal with the legal system. That's kind of a big deal for anyone who thinks they're training for any kind of real-world application. The truth is both sides were wrong, and both had what they thought were legitimate reasons, and that's life. How do we best take care of ourselves and our loved ones if we find ourselves in a similar situation, or can the situation be avoided entirely? That's a much more productive thought exercise than proving right or wrong. Learning happens best with clarity, and that's why it's best to look at each interaction individually instead of getting caught up in the narrative.


A very reasonalble post. I would like to point out that, as far as I know, police brutality is *not a law.* As I said, it is the undue use of force by police. If there was no reasonable cause to remove this guy from the plane, then it was police brutality.

It's strange, my first jujutsu teacher and I taught a lot of LEO's (he taught the Oakland PD for years after his own teacher did and before moving to the small college town I grew up in), and we always ran specific clinics on getting resisting people out of seats of all types. Judging from the looks of this passenger, it should not have been so difficult for someone trained in pain compliance to get him up and out without getting him bloody and traumatazing the plane as was clearly the case.

At any rate, United is already feeling it, and I hope they change their behavior. The airlines seem to just be getting worse and worse (in the US). Of course, it is a lot more expensive to fly the friendly skies with JAL or KLM...
文武両道。

Lord Li requires one hundred gold coins per day!
User avatar
Ian C. Kuzushi
Great Old One
 
Posts: 1640
Joined: Sun May 15, 2011 10:02 pm

Re: United airlines defences

Postby windwalker on Wed Apr 12, 2017 3:33 pm

This is my understanding, in reading the postings
I have yet to see anything that would counter it.

@Bao, your correct I did say signed what I meant was entered into a contract.
Contracts are enforced by law, they are not law.


Bao wrote :They had no right according to any contract or any standard procedure common for any airline.


Is it legal for the airline to treat a fare-paying passenger like this?

Yes. The captain is in charge of the aircraft. And if he or she decides that someone needs to be offloaded, that command has to be obeyed. From the moment that the unfortunate individual in this case said, “I’m staying put”, he became a disruptive passenger. He was disobeying the captain’s command. Officials were legally entitled to remove him, and they did so using plenty of physical force.


It appears from the evidence that the law was broken – by him, not by the airline. But I would be surprised if United pressed charges.

http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/new ... 77601.html

Which I would agree with.
Passengers have been asked to leave before for many reasons which in most cases they do and later complain about it.
The reasons they are asked to leave vary, the point is that the captain agrees with the flight crew or the flight crew follows his order that the passenger should leave, either way the passenger will leave, voluntarily or by force.
The choice is the passengers.

After the passenger refused the request to leave, there was no way he would be allowed to continue with this flight. He demonstrated
that he would not follow flight crew instructions and became a safety risk.

As to the conduct of UA vs other airlines,,,I would agree with this but then again most airlines are a reflection
of the cultures and people.
Last edited by windwalker on Wed Apr 12, 2017 6:22 pm, edited 4 times in total.
rule 19
windwalker
Wuji
 
Posts: 6061
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 4:08 am

PreviousNext

Return to Video Links

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ambulocetus and 1 guest