It is the UA pilots union that created this situation, assault and actual bodily harm, from what I have read they are so inflexible, they insist that crew positioning/deadheading must be by scheduled service thus eliminating any other option for all the UA ground staff concerned, they couldn't possibly charter an aircraft or even a limousine to move the crew because UA pilots union had outlawed such an option.

When are these people going to ever learn to stop digging holes for themselves?

Particularly the way one guy had hand hovering over his gun, obviously just dying for an excuse to use it.

In fairness to the UA unions, their attitudes surely reflect the management they have to deal with.
Things can be improved, Gordon Bethune proved it when he resurrected Continental, but it requires a focus on people even ahead of profit.,

Interesting comments from the professor of law.

But isn't the captain the one responsible - not wanting to pass blame on any particular person of course - there have been plenty of instances when captains have asked pax to leave the aircraft on the ground.

It seems that while the union are morally correct, isn't the captain the one who is technically and legally responsible?

The Captain is not involved in the boarding process, nor responsible
For how the boarding goes.

It seems that airlines (in general) have not been particularly bothered about terminating contracts, using Captain's authority and law enforcement if necessary.

I would suggest that any court will take a very dim view of this behaviour indeed and, if proven to be the case, punitive damages (in the high millions, or hundreds of millions) would actually be appropriate.

This is another good example: https://www.yahoo.com/news/united-at...170009715.html

I maintain my view that you cannot deplane a paid up passenger who is seated in their seat. If the CoC were changed to make this possible, I think that would be an unfair contractual term which I hope a court would disregard in future cases like this.

You can under certain circumstances (passenger is drunk, aggressive, violent, etc), though those clearly didn't apply in this case.

If you had spent any time carrying a sidearm in confined, crowded spaces you would know to keep your hand over it to stop it snagging on something​ and more importantly, to guard against someone trying to snatch it.

The one person the Dr would most likely have listened to was the Captain. Captains that I knew on hearing of the problem in its early stages would have made it their business to get involved and thus avoided the need for forcible evac. Having had the situ explained to him by the Captain in a conversation between two reasonable people, the Dr might well have agreed to leave, under protest. If he didnt agree, I believe the Captains I knew would have announced that he must be allowed to remain and that one of the other solutions be adopted instead.

Thank you for that link. The article gives an important legal clarification to the term 'deny-boarding' and possibly explains why a number of professionals on here continue to misinterpret the phrase as 'refuse to transport'.

Oh, I don't know, I think most basic first aid courses suggest a whole range of more appropriate care strategies for looking after the injured. DR ABC comes to mind, he could have had spinal damage or breathing trouble, anything. Duty of care?

Harry,
UA pilots union had nothing to do here. It was a United Express flight operated by Republic Airlines.
And I think the captain could have prevented the violent removal of the pax.

Absolutely you can deplane an individual passenger. If they contravene the CoC.

Or you can deplane an entire load if there's some reason to do so (Crew goes sick, plane goes sick, weather goes sick, bomb threat etc).

What you cannot do is single out an individual pax for deplaning if they haven't contravened the CoC and there's no other term in the contract permitting this to occur. That seems to be the situation here. (And was the situation in that other story which is doing the rounds concerning the first class United passenger who was threatened with the Dr. Dao treatment if they refused to vacate their already-taken seat for a 'higher priority' first class pax who had shown up at the last minute).

I completely agree that drunk, violent and aggressive behaviour can and should be removed (but this can be dealt with under other areas of the law). If the plane is tech or there is a security incident, then that seems pretty obvious.

But the CoC is cloudy area.

How do you know if the CoC are enforceable terms and not unfair terms?

How do you know if a court would decide the terms had been breached?

You don't.

So in minor cases, would it not be wiser the carry the pax and then seek redress against the pax in court after the event?

I can't tell you how much I want to believe that.

Why should he have listened to anyone? I just don't get this lets worship airline employees and let them undermine our own self respect.

The doc was entirely within his rights, shame on all those involved. How do 3 burly guys bring themselves to treat any human being like that, never mind a 69 year old one? As for those heroes supporting the henchmens' actions, it says a lot about you.

It has always been my understanding that captains total command, from a legal point of view, commences when engineers and traffic staff have completed their tasks, the load sheet is signed and the doors are closed. Obviously the captain will have important decisions to make from the time he signs on until the doors close regarding the operation of the aircraft and crew but it is unlikely he will become involved in seating disputes, other than if jump seats are requested. The dispute here is entirely the responsibility of the ground staff and does not come within the captain's remit.

Many regional flight crew are early in their careers, and are a ways away from Robert Staak or John Wayne-like Sky God status.
One can appreciate a certain hesitation prior to jumping headlong into a potentially sticky situation, especially considering the sacrifices made to achieve that status as flight crew, and the questionable jurisdiction and utility of becoming involved.

Were the deadheading crew, for which this passenger was so violently and illegally removed, were that crew United crew or Republic crew?

There have been numerous instances reported of passengers being bumped in the USA onto the "next flight" which turns out, once they are got out of the queue and over to the desk, to be one actually several flights away, at the point of low demand the following day. I, too, would find it unlikely that the next FIVE flights on United from Chicago to an obscure Kentucky destination (sorry if you are from Louisville) are all sold out up to 24 hours beforehand, because among other things USA yield management systems don't work that way.

Passengers told they are being put on the "next flight", in practice means the next one with availability at a low fare bucket, to minimise any revenue loss. Meanwhile, the intervening flights are still available to new bookers at higher fares.

I think there was a bit of a clue about this when Munoz (is he still supposedly 'in charge' ?), in one of his several, rambling, contradictory pronouncements, said that among other points of detail there would be a detailed review of the way in which rebookings of denied boarding passengers were handled.