UA forcibly remove random pax from flight - Round 2

[WingNut60]

A former aviation officer who dragged a United Airlines passenger off an oversold flight last April is suing the airline and his former employer, the Chicago Department of Aviation, ABC 7 reported on Tuesday.
In the lawsuit, the former officer, James Long, claims that he wasn't properly trained to handle passengers who misbehaved and that United "knew or should have known" that calling aviation officers to "remove a passenger who was refusing to leave their plane would require the use of physical force."
Long also argues that he was fired on unfair terms and subject to slander after videos of him and other officers dragging the passenger off the plane went viral.

[stilton]

A former aviation officer who dragged a United Airlines passenger off an oversold flight last April is suing the airline and his former employer, the Chicago Department of Aviation, ABC 7 reported on Tuesday.
In the lawsuit, the former officer, James Long, claims that he wasn't properly trained to handle passengers who misbehaved and that United "knew or should have known" that calling aviation officers to "remove a passenger who was refusing to leave their plane would require the use of physical force."
Long also argues that he was fired on unfair terms and subject to slander after videos of him and other officers dragging the passenger off the plane went viral.


Okay, I give up, what is an ‘aviation officer’ ?

[jack11111]

It's a Chicago cop who is assigned to the airport, I think.

[WingNut60]

I particularly liked the comment quoting a tweet from the Chicago Department of Aviation saying :
... its officers were not armed “for good reasons.”
At the time, Chicago aviation officers were pursuing an effort to carry guns while working.

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/officer-who-dragged-united-passenger-off-flight-sues-airline-2018-4

[FIRESYSOK]

I particularly liked the comment quoting a tweet from the Chicago Department of Aviation saying :


https://www.businessinsider.com.au/officer-who-dragged-united-passenger-off-flight-sues-airline-2018-4

Very popular to bag on this guy but he was doing what he was hired for and what, essentially, he was tasked to do...written or not. For me? I feel the lawsuit is fair game. He was outed in the media and used as a scapegoat by all parties.

Have things changed? Yes. Should he be scarred for life? No.

There is more to this story than is reported. The officers didn’t abuse him, he resisted and smacked his face as a result.

[WingNut60]

........Should he be scarred for life? No.

There is more to this story than is reported. The officers didn’t abuse him, he resisted and smacked his face as a result.

I agree, somewhat.
But I am glad that that those officers were not armed - not even with Tasers.

And this comment is definitely not intended to be a start to another round of firearms control venting. Take that argument elsewhere.

[Right Hand Thread]

What was “random” about the removal of this passenger? Presumably he was selected from the manifest for whatever reason(s) UA thought they had. That seems rather specific rather than random.

[WingNut60]

What was “random” about the removal of this passenger? Presumably he was selected from the manifest for whatever reason(s) UA thought they had. That seems rather specific rather than random.

Took the title from the original thread which is now closed.
And that probably came from some newspapers headline.

[DaveReidUK]

What was “random” about the removal of this passenger?

PPRuNe: UA forcibly remove random pax from flight (https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/593329-usa-today-ua-forcibly-remove-random-pax-flight.html)

Enjoy.

[Chipzilla]

Very popular to bag on this guy but he was doing what he was hired for and what, essentially, he was tasked to do...written or not.

If he was doing what his employers had tasked him to do, he doesn’t have a leg to stand on - “I was just following orders” hasn’t been an excuse for illegal behaviour for a long time now. If he assaulted the passenger on his own initiative, he also doesn’t have a leg to stand on as he was acting outside his job description. He shouldn’t need training to know what he was doing was wrong.

I feel the lawsuit is fair game. He was outed in the media and used as a scapegoat by all parties.

I don’t agree. The officer was acting like a thug with a badge, and used extremely poor judgment in dealing with a passenger who had done nothing wrong. The only reason he’s suing is because he’s ruined his own reputation and won’t be able to find a job as a mall cop from now on.

The officers didn’t abuse him, he resisted and [the officers] smacked his face as a result

Blaming the victim for the assault. Nice.

[Chipzilla]

Long also argues that he was fired on unfair terms and subject to slander after videos of him and other officers dragging the passenger off the plane went viral.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t Illinois an at-will employment state? Meaning you can be fired without reason?

Also, the truth is a defence to a slander/libel suit. Video evidence which shows the guy assaulting the passenger would be evidence as to the truth of what happened - I can’t see the slander in that. :=

[HEMS driver]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t Illinois an at-will employment state? Meaning you can be fired without reason?

Also, the truth is a defence to a slander/libel suit. Video evidence which shows the guy assaulting the passenger would be evidence as to the truth of what happened - I can’t see the slander in that. :=

"At will" doesn't apply to public employees who work under a CBA/contract.

[Carbon Bootprint]

It's a Chicago cop who is assigned to the airport, I think. They're actually City of Chicago Aviation Department employees (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-met-security-officer-sues-united-20180410-story.html), not CPD. They have limited arrest rights and don't carry weapons, though they are certified Illinois law officers.

"At will" doesn't apply to public employees who work under a CBA/contract. In any case, Illinois is one of the last remaining bastions of union power in the U.S. and is not an at-will employment state.

[SLFinAZ]

Chipzilla, I'm certainly not taking sides here...to much is still unclear...however.

A decision was made to remove the passenger (right or wrong) and a sworn peace officer was tasked with that passengers removal due to his failure to comply with a lawful order from the flight crew.

So....

1) Under no reasonable circumstances (that I am aware of) is his behavior "illegal". His job was in fact to remove the non complying passenger who disobeyed a direct order from a law enforcement official. This is not meant to defend United in any way but to try and objectively look at the officers role in this...

2) This "thug with a badge" rhetoric is dangerous. Yes bad, rogue and even criminal conduct does occur and needs to be carefully monitored and prosecuted as appropriate....but this falls far short of that criteria. Once United chose to resort to escalating this situation to involve law enforcement the passenger failed to recognize the difference.

From my limited perspective the lawsuit actually stands on it's merits very well. The true fault lies with United and the irate passenger....the poor shmuck in the middle trying to his job (admittedly poorly) was guilty of questionable judgement in not calling for a supervisor or for CPD (if they were allowed on the plane). The flip side is how would he be viewed for "failing" to do his job in that case....

[Gauges and Dials]

The officers didn’t abuse him, he resisted and smacked his face as a result.

The term "Resisting" would apply only in the case where the individual trying to use force on the passenger was acting under legitimate authority. If, for example, a passenger was sitting quietly in his seat and a fellow passenger, or a member of the cleaning crew, had grabbed him and tried to drag him off the airplane for no legitimate reason, and if the passenger had refused to be easily dragged, one would not term that "resisting," one would term it "defending oneself against assault and battery."

In this particular case, it's very much unclear that the individuals assaulting Dr. Dao had the legitimate authority to act as they did. In fact, United's apology and settlement, and the dismissal of one of the attackers for misconduct, would suggest that they didn't.

Since the passenger was not convicted of resisting arrest, nor of assault, nor of anything else for that matter, I'd suggest that "resisting" does not apply here.

[Gauges and Dials]

Chipzilla, I'm certainly not taking sides here...to much is still unclear...however.

a sworn peace officer was tasked with that passengers removal due to his failure to comply with a lawful order from the flight crew.



Even that is still unclear. What is the lawful order from the flight crew to which you refer here? Contrary to what we might like to believe, the captain's discretionary authority to refuse a passenger is not unlimited.

[Gauges and Dials]

It's a Chicago cop who is assigned to the airport, I think.

Alternatively, it might be someone who didn't get a job at the CPD, settled for a lower-status and lower-paid job at the airport, and who has a significant chip on his shoulder as a result.

[Harry Wayfarers]

I agree that the individual concerned over-reacted, the clearly educated passenger was stating his case that he had every right to remain occupying that seat etc., however I do believe that this individual has a right to sue the airline, not necessarily his employer, but the airline.

It was a case of 'chain of command', first of all that the airline has a ridiculous rule that deadheading crew must travel in cattle class rather than by chartered executive jet or whatever, faced with such stupidity the ground staff decided that revenue pax would be offloaded in favour of deadheading crew, faced with refusal did they offer other pax financial incentives to offload before calling in law enforcement officers?

This individual had no right to treat the passenger the way he did but the airline put him on the spot "we want this guy off the plane and it is your job to do it".

[rog747]

what was wrong the skipper coming back into the cabin and asking and explaining to the pax nicely:
'sorry old chap we have an awful problem and need to use your seat for one of our crew, can you get off, we will look after you and get you home asap but we really need this seat''
with that approach the chances are the pax would have got off or even someone else volunteering

or do i now live in a twilight zone of aviation

[Chipzilla]

They're actually City of Chicago Aviation Department employees[/URL], not CPD. They have limited arrest rights and don't carry weapons, though they are certified Illinois law officers.

It appears these aviation officers are required to attend and graduate from the Chicago Police Academy or the Cook County Sheriffs Training Academy, and to be sworn in as LEO. I'm not sure how this squares with the officer's claim that he was improperly trained. It's not like his employers picked him up in a Home Depot parking lot.

"At will" doesn't apply to public employees who work under a CBA/contract.

I stand corrected, thanks :ok:

what was wrong the skipper coming back into the cabin and asking and explaining to the pax nicely:
'sorry old chap we have an awful problem and need to use your seat for one of our crew, can you get off, we will look after you and get you home asap but we really need this seat''
with that approach the chances are the pax would have got off or even someone else volunteering

or do i now live in a twilight zone of aviation

That approach would definitely seem more reasonable than the one which was chosen

[DaveReidUK]

I thought it had been established that the flight crew was unaware of what was taking place until after the event ?

[Super VC-10]

Also established that removal of said passenger was unlawful.

[Harry Wayfarers]

Also established that removal of said passenger was unlawful.

And an airport cop should have been aware that the passenger concerned hadn't committed any criminal offence and should have been left well alone ... So what was lacking, the airline's policies, the cop's training, neither, or both?

[SLFinAZ]

Also established that removal of said passenger was unlawful.

I must have missed that, I'm not aware of any finding that the decision to remove the passenger was "unlawful". I'm looking at a distinction between actions that might have civil liability and those that are criminal on their face.

From my admittedly limited knowledge United faced clear civil exposure for this, however I can't see anything in the officers actions that rose to the standard of criminal misconduct. This is not meant to defend him or his actions in any way or to dispute his termination.

I'm looking at this from a perspective of simple cause and effect. The airline chose to involve the police and the passenger refused a lawful (even if incorrect) order which led to the unfortunate incident. If this occurred in a setting where civil disobedience has a measure of protection (public protest) then in fact the officer was guilty of a civil rights violation. However, under the circumstances I'd wager that the actual ticket gives the airline the right to remove the passenger and the officer the legal authority (and protection)to act on the airlines behalf.

Again, United was (and continues) to act in a shortsighted and unprofessional manner and the officer's judgement (and training?) was poor. This should have been handled much more tactfully but in the end someone had to get off the plane....

[SLFinAZ]

And an airport cop should have been aware that the passenger concerned hadn't committed any criminal offence and should have been left well alone ... So what was lacking, the airline's policies, the cop's training, neither, or both?

This wasn't a criminal issue but a matter of civil compliance. The ticket itself undoubtedly gave the airline the right to ask the passenger in question to vacate the plane. The underlying legal issue would actually be somewhat similar to trespassing. There is absolutely no criminal charge for being on someone else's property...until you refuse to leave (or it is clearly marked).

So the passenger had a ticket and has undeniable rights and remedies but I am unaware of any passenger actually having the right to unilaterally refuse the order to leave an aircraft.

[Gauges and Dials]

Again, United was (and continues) to act in a shortsighted and unprofessional manner

There are airlines whose general corporate culture seems to take the attitude, "This airline would be so much easier to run if it weren't for the damned passengers." ... and then there are airlines whose corporate culture seems to take genuine delight in being a positive part of their passengers' travel experience.

And, as shouldn't need to be pointed out here, some airlines cherish their pilots as fellow aviation professionals, and others take the position that "it would be so much easier to run the airline if it weren't for the damned pilots."

It starts at the top, but it pervades everywhere. My hope is that airline execs who don't like dealing with pilots or passengers soon find themselves in a position of not having to do so. ;)

[Harry Wayfarers]

This wasn't a criminal issue but a matter of civil compliance. The ticket itself undoubtedly gave the airline the right to ask the passenger in question to vacate the plane. The underlying legal issue would actually be somewhat similar to trespassing. There is absolutely no criminal charge for being on someone else's property...until you refuse to leave (or it is clearly marked).

So the passenger had a ticket and has undeniable rights and remedies but I am unaware of any passenger actually having the right to unilaterally refuse the order to leave an aircraft.


Forget any ticket ... The pax had a boarding pass with that flight number and that seat number clearly printed on it, and even perhaps the cabin crew politely directed him to his allocated seat, so why should he need to give up that seat to another person who doesn't have such a boarding pass?

someone had to get off the plane

No they didn't, the airline could have made alternative arrangements for their positioning crew, they could have delayed or cancelled the flight that crew were next scheduled to operate, they may have been all sorts of alternative crewing possibilities available.

But, if the price is right there will always be someone willing to give up their seat, $500, $1,000, $2,000 etc. but I'd like to bet that the ground staff didn't exhaust such possibilities before calling in the heavy mob.

[WingNut60]

Forget any ticket ... The pax had a boarding pass with that flight number and that seat number clearly printed on it, and even perhaps the cabin crew politely directed him to his allocated seat, so why should he need to give up that seat to another person who doesn't have such a boarding pass?



No they didn't, the airline could have made alternative arrangements for their positioning crew, they could have delayed or cancelled the flight that crew were next scheduled to operate, they may have been all sorts of alternative crewing possibilities available.

But, if the price is right there will always be someone willing to give up their seat, $500, $1,000, $2,000 etc. but I'd like to bet that the ground staff didn't exhaust such possibilities before calling in the heavy mob.

This was all done to death in UA forcibly remove random pax from flight - Round 1; subsequently and appropriately closed.

The new aspect (Round 2) need only be about the airport officer's claim to compensation, or anything related to that claim.

[Right Hand Thread]

PPRuNe: UA forcibly remove random pax from flight (https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/593329-usa-today-ua-forcibly-remove-random-pax-flight.html)

Enjoy.


Still doesn’t show the correct use of the word.

[WingNut60]

Still doesn’t show the correct use of the word.

Maybe.
I don't know what mechanism they use for selecting a passenger to eject.

Maybe they use an algorithm with a random number generator... maybe.

If not, then their selection was poor. They should logically CHOOSE someone traveling alone if they just want to sling one person out of the door.

Dr Dao was with his wife (and daughter ??)

[Harry Wayfarers]

This was all done to death in UA forcibly remove random pax from flight - Round 1; subsequently and appropriately closed.

The new aspect (Round 2) need only be about the airport officer's claim to compensation, or anything related to that claim.

True but it can be difficult to refer to one without mentioning the other.

In my experience in UK if a cop is called to an apparent scene of crime it shall become his/her task to establish what, if any, crime has been committed and he/she may need to call a more senior cop on the radio/phone to establish such.

Thereafter the cop should announce to any offender that he is being arrested on suspicion of whatever crime, taken in to custody accordingly, and should the offender resist arrest then that in itself would be a further criminal offence.

I don't pretend to be knowledgeable of US/Illinois law but from what I recall seeing in video(s) was that none of this happened and it was literally "you get off this plane" before they beat the cr@p out the guy.

So who is at fault, are these airport cops so poorly trained that they don't even understand the law and/or have a more senior officer to contact before taking such an action or did these airport cop(s) simply overstep the mark and act outside of their jurisdiction?

[WingNut60]

True but it can be difficult to refer to one without mentioning the other.



Yes, true, they are inextricably linked.

However no need to re-hash the entire argument over how UA should manage their crew relocations.

Hopefully this thread can be limited to opinions as to whether the airport officer should or should not receive compensation.
Ultimately, a judge will decide which JB contributors are right or wrong.

[timbob]

I think that it is not insignificant that the United flight in question was operated by Republic Airlines, a subcontractor, and that all airline employees involved, including the dead-heading crewmembers, were Republic employees. Republic Holdings is based in Indianapolis, Indiana and provides regional jet service for United, Delta and American airlines. The Republic CEO is on record openly bragging to his employees that they, Republic, have a contractual agreement with each airline that they can remove any passenger for a deadheading crewmember at anytime because "the airplanes belong to us". United bears responsibility for the conduct of their subcontractor, but Republic crewmembers have frequently repeated their CEO's assertion.

[A Squared]

I think that it is not insignificant that the United flight in question was operated by Republic Airlines, a subcontractor, and that all airline employees involved, including the dead-heading crewmembers, were Republic employees. Republic Holdings is based in Indianapolis, Indiana and provides regional jet service for United, Delta and American airlines.

It was a Republic airplane and the Crew were Republic employees. However, I seem to recall reading at the time in a source more reliable than the news reports, that the Chicago gate agents are actually United Employees. Can't seem to find that now, so not 100 percent sure where I read it.

[Gauges and Dials]

I think that it is not insignificant that the United flight in question was operated by Republic Airlines, a subcontractor

The airline can't have it both ways. If you are going to have the aircraft livery and crew uniforms and general face presented to the public say "United" (even if there is fine print somewhere), and if the flights are going to carry United flight numbers, and if you're going to sell tickets to those flights on the United website, and if you're going to use this as evidence of your awesomely awesome route network, then when something goes wrong, you can't start saying, "Whoa, dude, not us, that was Republic."

[West Coast]

the Chicago gate agents are actually United Employees. Can't seem to find that now, so not 100 percent sure where I read it.

Correct, UA handles all above and below wing services at ORD with the exception of MX.

[Maoraigh1]

In my experience in UK if a cop is called to an apparent scene of crime it shall become his/her task to establish what, if any, crime has been committed and he/she may need to call a more senior cop on the radio/phone to establish such.

Thereafter the cop should announce to any offender that he is being arrested on suspicion of whatever crime, taken in to custody accordingly, and should the offender resist arrest then that in itself would be a further criminal offence.

I've never been employed by an airline or the police, but my sympathies are with both the pax and the cop. The quote above sounds like a good way to escalate an active situation, e.g. drunks in a bar. Get situation under control first.
This guy had neither space nor time, and was possibly inexperienced in this kind of situation. A Chicago inner-city cop would have experience in handling this, and judging how the recalcitrant will react. How often are the Airport cops dealing with guys refusing to move?
He's called to remove a pax, who is defying the cabin crew. He (they) did it. He might well fear dismissal if he walked away and left the aircraft presumably stuck at the gate.
(My career was 43+ years of teaching teenagers, and maintaining discipline, with the luxury of calling the cops to remove someone in the few extreme cases.)

[Harry Wayfarers]

The Wikipedia account of this incident (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Express_Flight_3411_incident) makes for some interesting reading and from reading it if I were the cop I'd sue United also.

[ironbutt57]

the passenger has paid for the service, and has done nothing to warrant his removal...I would sit tight as well if traveling with my family, and required to be at my place of employment...

[Gauges and Dials]

In my experience in UK if a cop is called to ...

Which is why the old saying starts out, "In Heaven the police are British..."

[infrequentflyer789]

The Wikipedia account of this incident (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Express_Flight_3411_incident) makes for some interesting reading and from reading it if I were the cop I'd sue United also.

That article also makes clear that the "cop" was not actually a cop but Department of Aviation security, and that they say his actions were "not within standard operating procedures". The word "police" (which confused many people) was supposed to have been removed from their uniforms etc. some months before the incident, but the order to do so was apparently ignored.

Of course this didn't stopped the real cops stating that the passenger fell and hit his head, before issuing a correction saying that actually they had nothing to do with the incident... says it all really :ugh:

A quick skim through the actual lawsuit shows it is mostly against CDA and its commissioner, the sole allegation against United appears to be that they were negligent in requesting the plaintiff to do something which they should have known would require use-of-force, which he wasn't trained for. That seems rather like a urologist suing and saying a patient was negligent for asking him to do brain surgery which then went wrong.

There was a simple response to United's request - "we cannot persuade him to leave, and we are not trained to force him to leave". That that didn't happen is down to the plaintiff, not United.

[BluSdUp]

Is he only now realizing he is incompetent and asked to do something he was not trained for!?
What was he doing on the airport then?

Anyway
Belongs in jail, assault!

[Harry Wayfarers]

That article also makes clear that the "cop" was not actually a cop but Department of Aviation security, and that they say his actions were "not within standard operating procedures". The word "police" (which confused many people) was supposed to have been removed from their uniforms etc. some months before the incident, but the order to do so was apparently ignored.

Of course this didn't stopped the real cops stating that the passenger fell and hit his head, before issuing a correction saying that actually they had nothing to do with the incident... says it all really :ugh:

A quick skim through the actual lawsuit shows it is mostly against CDA and its commissioner, the sole allegation against United appears to be that they were negligent in requesting the plaintiff to do something which they should have known would require use-of-force, which he wasn't trained for. That seems rather like a urologist suing and saying a patient was negligent for asking him to do brain surgery which then went wrong.

There was a simple response to United's request - "we cannot persuade him to leave, and we are not trained to force him to leave". That that didn't happen is down to the plaintiff, not United.


What I believe to be quite significant is that it was the United ground staff that infuriated the passengers with their seriously bad attitude, that they created a passenger revolt that they realised, too late, that they couldn't control and found it necessary to call in 'airport security' to solve the problem that they created during which the 'assault' took place.

Something else I notes is that UA do not offer a cash incentive for volunteer offloads, if I were one of their passengers being offered travel vouchers, that probably have terms & conditions of use attached, I'd refuse to get off also but were they to offer me a sufficient amount of $$$ then I might be happy to go for a night on the lash at their expense!

[Gove N.T.]

Presumably the carrier knew that the flight was oversold so why would they let a passenger through the boarding gate when no seat was available?
So far as I'm aware, boarding gate readers should reject any/all boarding cards when the capacity of the aircraft is reached.
Are BGRs not used at ORD?

[A Squared]

Presumably the carrier knew that the flight was oversold so why would they let a passenger through the boarding gate when no seat was available?
So far as I'm aware, boarding gate readers should reject any/all boarding cards when the capacity of the aircraft is reached.
Are BGRs not used at ORD?

The conflict was due to a last minute deadheading crew who had been issued "must ride" passes.

[DaveReidUK]

This was all done to death in UA forcibly remove random pax from flight - Round 1; subsequently and appropriately closed.

The new aspect (Round 2) need only be about the airport officer's claim to compensation, or anything related to that claim.

Your plea doesn't seem to be having much effect. :O

I've posted the link to the original thread already, but here it is again in the forlorn hope that this might save a load of time and unnecessary posts:

PPRuNe: UA forcibly remove random pax from flight (https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/593329-usa-today-ua-forcibly-remove-random-pax-flight.html)

[A Squared]

Your plea doesn't seem to be having much effect. :O

I've posted the link to the original thread already, but here it is again in the forlorn hope that this might save a load of time and unnecessary posts:

PPRuNe: UA forcibly remove random pax from flight (https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/593329-usa-today-ua-forcibly-remove-random-pax-flight.html)

In any thread over 3 pages, half the posters can't be bothered to read the posts in the first 2 pages. Good luck getting them to go read a different thread.

[RAT 5]

The United flight in question was operated by Republic Airlines, a subcontractor, and that all airline employees involved, including the dead-heading crewmembers, were Republic employees.
The Republic CEO is on record openly bragging to his employees that they, Republic, have a contractual agreement with each airline that they can remove any passenger for a deadheading crewmember at anytime because "the airplanes belong to us".
United bears responsibility for the conduct of their subcontractor, but Republic crewmembers have frequently repeated their CEO's assertion.

If all this is correct then the lawyers are going to have a field day. If correct, then it would have been Republic who ordered seats to be made available for their dead-heading crew. It was their ground staff who attempted to action that. It would seem UA could not stop them, but UA has a duty of care to its pax. I presume the dispatcher, and station management staff and the flight crew all report to the CEO of Republic. So UA would not get a lot of help there. I can't remember if there was a UA representative on the scene. If so, and alone, I suspect they would have been powerless.
The pax had a UA ticket, so their claim is against UA, who no doubt will counter sue Republic. I wonder how the relationship is now?

Apologies for any wrong assumptions or missed facts. They will no doubt be corrected.

[ethicalconundrum]

IMNSHO, there should be a bright line between civil actions, and criminal actions. In this case, the LEO(he WAS an LEO at the time of the incidence, but they have been striped of that power now) had a duty and obligation to enforce laws as written. That, and only that is the power that LEO have over every other citizen(or human) on Earth. If there is no criminal activity involved, then the bright line standard drops to civil remonstrant.

Which leads to passenger rights and is covered by each airline contract of carriage, or contract of adhesion in the case of UA/Republic. Does a paying passenger, with a ticket and boarding pass become a 'trespasser' when the boarding pass is subsequently revoked AFTER granting access to the plane, and the seat? IMNSHO, the airline can no longer revoke passenger access to a common area(the plane) once it has gone through the extensive steps of; 1 selling the ticket(through whomever market). 2 Issuing a ticket. 3 Issue a boarding pass. 3 Checking the boarding pass prior to loading. 4 Allowing the passenger to cross the rubicon(pressure vessel) and take a seat. Therefore, no trespass, therefore no criminal action taking place, therefore the LEO was in the WRONG for using force to enforce a clearly civil disagreement.

And in that we finally come to the lawsuit of the LEO against the carrier, and his trainer, etc. Anyone can sue anyone in the US. Access to the civil courts is almost limitless, and as an LEO he's protected very carefully by a statute known as 'qualified immunity'. The true victim in this instance, is almost completely barred from suing the LEO(except in rare and egregious cases), however the LEO has unlimited access to redress his own failings by blaming others. A competent civil court judge would have a case hearing, with all parties present, and limited discovery and then toss the thing out for being unfounded in law, and pointing out that the LEO acted outside the bounds of his authority, and should be liable for civil action himself, notwithstanding, or outside of the scope of qualified immunity.

Having that ever happen is about as likely as me dating Ariel Winter, but one can always hope.

YMMV

[Lascaille]

Therefore, no trespass, therefore no criminal action taking place, therefore the LEO was in the WRONG for using force to enforce a clearly civil disagreement.

This is basic legal stuff that was settled literally centuries ago in jurisdictions where trespass isn't a criminal offence, such as the UK.

The police are allowed to use 'police powers' such as restraint and physical force to remove people from private property if the owner of the property so requests, even if no criminal offence is being committed by them being there.

[A Squared]

Which leads to passenger rights and is covered by each airline contract of carriage, or contract of adhesion in the case of UA/Republic. Does a paying passenger, with a ticket and boarding pass become a 'trespasser' when the boarding pass is subsequently revoked AFTER granting access to the plane, and the seat? IMNSHO, the airline can no longer revoke passenger access to a common area(the plane) once it has gone through the extensive steps of; 1 selling the ticket(through whomever market). 2 Issuing a ticket. 3 Issue a boarding pass. 3 Checking the boarding pass prior to loading. 4 Allowing the passenger to cross the rubicon(pressure vessel) and take a seat. Therefore, no trespass, therefore no criminal action taking place, therefore the LEO was in the WRONG for using force to enforce a clearly civil disagreement.

Do you have a copy of United's Contract of Carriage in force at the time of sale of the ticket? Shortly after this hit the news, (within a day or two) looked up United's Contract of Carriage on their website, and the contract there was a contract whcih had been revised after the incident. I doubt that it was a coincidence that happened withing 24 hours of the incident. So I don't know what provisions were in the contract of carriage for that ticket. You've opined that once a passenger is physically on the airplane, he is invulnerable to being removed. (there are specific provisions for removing someone for bad behavior but those wouldn't be relevant to the initial request to leave the airplane) Let's assume in arguendo that you are correct. Hypothetically what happens if the boarding process allows more ticketed passengers on board the airplane than there are seats? This is not much of a stretch, I personally have been boarded several times holding a ticket for a seat for whcih someone else held a ticket to. In each time it happened to me, there eventually was a seat for everyone. However if the seat assignment program and the ticket scanning and screening device work that imperfectly, it ain't a big leap to having allowed say, 141 passengers all holding legally issued tickets on a 140 seat airplane. You say to one of the redundant ticket holders, I'm sorry sir, you will have to step off the airplane. and he says, no, I'm not leaving. What then? What if all of the 141 legally ticketed passengers who are already physically on the airplane refuses to get off the airplane? You take off with one person standing in the aisle? You wait until the airplane grows another seat? If you can't remove anyone except for cause, and everybody refuses to deplane, what happens then?

[ethicalconundrum]

This is basic legal stuff that was settled literally centuries ago in jurisdictions where trespass isn't a criminal offence, such as the UK.

The police are allowed to use 'police powers' such as restraint and physical force to remove people from private property if the owner of the property so requests, even if no criminal offence is being committed by them being there.

Nice to know. However, they weren't in the UK, they were in the People's Republic of Illinois, which has a very different set of rules on trespass.

However, you slice it - the burden of trespass is not linear, or equal for all types of locations. One could argue a very strict circumstance in a private home, where revoking consent to remain results in trespass if the person doesn't leave immediately. To a more liberal version where the public is granted normal access to a privately owned, but publicly accessible location like a Starbucks. To an ever more liberal interpretation to a location which has been granted access to the public by use of control methods such as; paying a fee for that location. Controlling access through ticket and checking. An expectation of a quid-pro-quo(I sit here quietly, you move me from point A to B). In the later case, I submit that the rules on trespass no longer exist as a criminal case. As long as the person has met all the contract rules in place, there is no criminal activity. As such, the airline has a duty to perform on that contract, or optionally take civil action to thwart the contracted party.

They were free to sue the person on their plane, or cancel the flight and let the person sit there until they rot, or offer alternatives, or many other civil remedy. What they were NOT allowed to do is order an LEO to create a criminal case out of thin air, then violate the citizens civil rights by attacking, and beating on them like a poor step child.

Again - YMMV, but this is how civil society is supposed to work. Maybe UA/Republic didn't get the memo.

[Lascaille]

Nice to know. However, they weren't in the UK, they were in the People's Republic of Illinois, which has a very different set of rules on trespass.

I'm pointing out that in a jurisdiction where trespass is _not_ criminal, the police are still allowed to remove a person despite no crime being committed.

This is because the alternative is clearly ludicrous - imagine finding a person in your front garden, calling the police and them saying 'we can't arrest him or force him to move because he's not committing a crime, you'll have to sue him.'

I don't know why you would expect the police to have fewer powers in a jurisdiction where the offence _is_ criminal.

[ethicalconundrum]

I've already covered this. The case you use as example - the trespass on private property is the underlying crime. Provided you have told them to leave your property, and they have refused. Once more just to clear up - a person sitting in an airline seat, which they paid for, which is a publicly accessible place, which the airline checked off numerous ways, can no longer revoke permission to remain and create a criminal case.

To whit: 1 Dr Dao was never charged with a crime. 2 The LEO was subsequently fired for cause. 3 The CEO of the airline admitted publicly that Dr Dao had ever legal right to sit there unencumbered. 4 Dr Dao received a significant CIVIL settlement from the airline, and I think from the city of Chicago for his treatment.

And that will be the end of this. Back to the lawsuit aspect, I think given the above points, the LEO will have an uphill battle with the courts, including the court of public opinion where his CIVIL case will be heard.

[Lascaille]

I've already covered this. The case you use as example - the trespass on private property is the underlying crime. Provided you have told them to leave your property, and they have refused.

That is not a crime in the UK. It is a civil matter.

Do you understand my point now?

[A Squared]

To whit: 1 Dr Dao was never charged with a crime.

That doesn't prove anything.

2 The LEO was subsequently fired for cause.

That doesn't necessarily shed any light of the underlying issue of whether an airline can request you to get off their airplane.


3 The CEO of the airline admitted publicly that Dr Dao had ever legal right to sit there unencumbered.

You have a link to that statement? I've read a number of statements by Untid's CEO and none of them say anything remotely like that.

4 Dr Dao received a significant CIVIL settlement from the airline, and I think from the city of Chicago for his treatment.

Also proves nothing. Sometimes a settlement is the cheapest, least painful way to make a situation go away, regardless of whether you're right or wrong. With a settlement, you know what your getting, if a lawsuit goes before a jury, you're rolling the dice. Better to agree to a pay out, save the trial costs, and have the plaintiff agree to things like not discussing the case, not disclosing the size of the award.

[ethicalconundrum]

That doesn't prove anything.

However, the contra-positive would prove something. That he had committed a prima facia crime(which would be followed by indictment, trial, conviction, sentence, and punishment). None of that happened, but the opposite happening would be fairly conclusive.

That doesn't necessarily shed any light of the underlying issue of whether an airline can request you to get off their airplane.

Of course they can request you get off the plane. They can insist you get off the plane. What they cannot do is turn their civil failure to manage their property short of declaring it escheat, and surrendering it to the city/state/fedguv. The resolution of this civil failure on the part of UA devolved to 'we are not going to cooperate, we are going to use force'. The results were as I have indicated, and the entire event has had serious negative consequence for EVERYONE(firings, loss of revenue, settlement cost, loss of advancement, etc) involved except Dr Dao. We call this a 'win'.

You have a link to that statement? I've read a number of statements by Untid's CEO and none of them say anything remotely like that.

I do, and you should find it and read it.

Also proves nothing. Sometimes a settlement is the cheapest, least painful way to make a situation go away, regardless of whether you're right or wrong. With a settlement, you know what your getting, if a lawsuit goes before a jury, you're rolling the dice. Better to agree to a pay out, save the trial costs, and have the plaintiff agree to things like not discussing the case, not disclosing the size of the award.

Again, as with before, the proof is in the contra-positive. While I agree in principle that the compensation was the least worst case for UA to go, they had the option of telling Dao to go consume feces, become ill, and die in the corner. That they did not do this, and that the settlement amount was significant shows that the alternative more than likely would have cost them far, far more. A settlement is never an admission of guilt. However, we all are adults and we all know better. - well, some of us are.


I hope this brings an end to the original case discussion, but sigh - I suspect that may not be the case. Either way, I'm not interested in participating in the orig case discussion anymore, and would like to move on to the dismissed LEO lawsuit. But - for those of an argumentative bent, carry-on without me. ;)

[A Squared]

You have a link to that statement? I've read a number of statements by Untid's CEO and none of them say anything remotely like that.



I do, and you should find it and read it.

Yep, exactly to be expected.

[ethicalconundrum]

You have a link to that statement? I've read a number of statements by Untid's CEO and none of them say anything remotely like that.



Yep, exactly to be expected.

Research is a paid service. Contact me by PM for my rates. Or - don't. I found it.

[A Squared]

Research is a paid service. Contact me by PM for my rates. Or - don't. I found it.

Uh-huh.

The CEO never made a statement that could be remotely construed as admitting that legally Dao could refuse to leave the plane. We all know that. You're just making yourself look foolish and dishonest by playing your "I have a link but I'm not going to show it to you" Do you seriously believe anyone is fooled by that?

[Rick777]

the passenger has paid for the service, and has done nothing to warrant his removal...I would sit tight as well if traveling with my family, and required to be at my place of employment...
The passenger had given up his seat and been compensated. He changed his mind and snuck back on the plane illegally. He intentionally made a scene to get attention and more money from United. It worked. United should have had him arrested and pressed charges against him. Instead they tried to make nice with him. It didn't work.

[A Squared]

The passenger had given up his seat and been compensated. He changed his mind and snuck back on the plane illegally. He intentionally made a scene to get attention and more money from United. It worked. United should have had him arrested and pressed charges against him. Instead they tried to make nice with him. It didn't work.

I think your memory of the incident is pretty flawed. I think if you read a few reports you'll see that he refused to surrender his seat when chosen by whatever means (unlike the other 3 selected passengers, who took the voucher and deplaned) it was only after he was forcibly dragged off the airplane that he managed to sneak back on.

[Lascaille]

I think your memory of the incident is pretty flawed.

Memory flawed? It's not a flawed memory when you basically make up a position from scratch. I challenge you to find any reporting of any kind whatsoever that would, does or ever did support that position. It's straight up slander.

[DaveReidUK]

The passenger had given up his seat and been compensated. He changed his mind and snuck back on the plane illegally. He intentionally made a scene to get attention and more money from United. It worked. United should have had him arrested and pressed charges against him. Instead they tried to make nice with him. It didn't work.

At a conservative estimate, around 50% of the 1200 or so posts in the original United thread discussed the circumstances under which Dr Dao was removed from the flight, and the respective rights of the passenger, United and Republic.

As far as I can recall, none of them match your "recollection" of events.

Frankly, I don't know why we're having this debate at all. Other than the issue of the lawsuit by the officer involved, nobody has added anything new at all (other than the above fiction) to the discussion.