Haha what?! You think that in the midst of this ongoing ####storm, the social media backlash, the horrible reaction from the Chinese market (one of their key growth markets), the CEO now finally apologizing that "no one should ever be mistreated this way" - that they are going to now press charges?
I mean, they've ####ed this up so badly and consistently on this that sure, they might go the nuclear option and #### it up even more.
Not a chance. In court months from now when this guy's lawyers and Republic's are negotiating... it will be on the table behind closed doors. Not like United's going to make a statement tomorrow saying they're seeking felony charges.
Quote:
Originally Posted by burn_this_city
I don't know that they can really charge him with anything, since he was within his rights to refuse removal once he was boarded. I believe they can only bump you prior to boarding.
Nope... not to mention that would have no bearing on any potential interference charge.
If a cop tried to arrest you for a crime you didn't commit and you resist, are you exempt from resisting arrest charges because it was later proved you didn't do it?
If a cop tried to arrest you for a crime you didn't commit and you resist, are you exempt from resisting arrest charges because it was later proved you didn't do it?
I know you were asking this sarcastically and I don't know about the US but I'm pretty sure there actually is a law in Canada that allows you to resist arrest in certain cases.
What a crock of ####. If the person claims they cant get off the plane and refuses to cooperate, you're saying everyone else just shouts of "freedom" like in Braveheart and the plane will descent into chaos?
Can we also stop pretending the airline gave up at 800/1000 dollars? YOU overbooked the ####ing flight, go up to 1200 or 1400 or whatever it takes to get someone to get off the plane voluntarily.
Do some of you people own or work for these airlines? My god, flying is already such garbage and reading this is astonishing.
Why are you so angry?
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Erick Estrada For This Useful Post:
They should have just announced on the intercom until Mr. Dao agreed to follow procedures, the plane would be delayed. Eventually, someone would get bored enough to take the money or Mr. Dao would get uncomfortable enough to leave.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
The Following User Says Thank You to FlamesAddiction For This Useful Post:
I know you were asking this sarcastically and I don't know about the US but I'm pretty sure there actually is a law in Canada that allows you to resist arrest in certain cases.
Any lawyers able to back this up?
Coles Notes:
In order to be guilty of obstructing justice or assaulting a peace officer, the officer must be acting in the lawful course of his or her duties at the time. This does not mean simply being on duty. The officer must be acting in accordance with the powers conferred by legislation or common law.
Just be clear, one doesn't have to eventually be convicted in order for the arrest to be lawful.
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
The Following User Says Thank You to Makarov For This Useful Post:
In order to be guilty of obstructing justice or assaulting a peace officer, the officer must be acting in the lawful course of his or her duties at the time. This does not mean simply being on duty. The officer must be acting in accordance with the powers conferred by legislation or common law.
Just be clear, one doesn't have to eventually be convicted in order for the arrest to be lawful.
Basically once an officer uses powers out of his course of duty to try and arrest you a citizen in Canada can resist, right? But even if not guilty and arrested within powers and you resist you can be charged with resisting?
Yeah it sounds like as long as the cop doesn't needlessly beat the hell out of you, you can't resist. Which I imagine makes it no different from an arrest in which you actually did commit the crime.
You can resist if they try to arrest you for something that isn't a crime, for example.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Yeah it sounds like as long as the cop doesn't needlessly beat the hell out of you, you can't resist. Which I imagine makes it no different from an arrest in which you actually did commit the crime.
But in this case they were just city aviation department security officers do they have the same rights in this situation? I would assume they should have just observed the situation trying to talk it down and if it came down to it calling police to remove him and according to the stories this is what happened until the 3rd security came in like a bull in a china shop.
Yeah it sounds like as long as the cop doesn't needlessly beat the hell out of you, you can't resist. Which I imagine makes it no different from an arrest in which you actually did commit the crime.
In fact, the description I read was that Dao hit his mouth on the arm rest when they were pulling him out. There was no evidence mentioned that they hit him at all.
The injury would have been directly due to him resisting and not of an offensive nature.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
But in this case they were just city aviation department security officers do they have the same rights in this situation? I would assume they should have just observed the situation trying to talk it down and if it came down to it calling police to remove him and according to the stories this is what happened until the 3rd security came in like a bull in a china shop.
Yes, it was not Chicago Police involved in dragging him off. I was talking specifically about his alleged belligerence to the flight crew which would be the attendants and pilots. My point was that if they later determined that there was some technicality that in fact allowed him to stay on the airplane, it wouldn't absolve him of the alleged belligerent action against the flight crew prior to security's arrival, which is a felony.
At the same time, the incident stemmed from something any airline claims the right to do. Buried in United's "Contract of Carriage" is a line saying the airline can deny boarding to passengers if the flight is overbooked:
"If a flight is Oversold, no one may be denied boarding against his/her will until UA or other carrier personnel first ask for volunteers who will give up their reservations willingly in exchange for compensation as determined by UA. If there are not enough volunteers, other Passengers may be denied boarding involuntarily in accordance with UA’s boarding priority."
United does not define "boarding" in its contract, but an airline representative told Business Insider that boarding refers to any period before the plane physically takes off. So you can be told to leave the plane at any point before liftoff — even after you've boarded.
But aviation analyst Henry Harteveldt told Business Insider that gate agents typically deny boarding before anyone gets on the plane.
"I cannot recall the last time I have seen or heard about a gate agent going onto a plane to remove a revenue customer from that flight because of involuntary denied boarding," Harteveldt said. "To remove a paying customer from a flight is extremely rare."
I read it yesterday, this article is from today. Basically people were saying at the time that since it says boarding and he was already boarded they couldn't remove him due to overbooking. I wonder how the lawyers would use this argument since he boarded the aircraft already.
I read it yesterday, this article is from today. Basically people were saying at the time that since it says boarding and he was already boarded they couldn't remove him due to overbooking. I wonder how the lawyers would use this argument since he boarded the aircraft already.
The other issue is that this wasn't technically due to overbooking which might absolve them of anything in that regard, but rather due to an irregular operation where they deemed it necessary for a prudent overall operation to get that flight crew to Louisville. So it's likely a different law.
I read it yesterday, this article is from today. Basically people were saying at the time that since it says boarding and he was already boarded they couldn't remove him due to overbooking. I wonder how the lawyers would use this argument since he boarded the aircraft already.
but an airline representative told Business Insider that boarding refers to any period before the plane physically takes off.
Makes sense, once in the air you can't remove anyone from the plane, lol.
They should have just announced on the intercom until Mr. Dao agreed to follow procedures, the plane would be delayed. Eventually, someone would get bored enough to take the money or Mr. Dao would get uncomfortable enough to leave.
Instead of choosing someone specifically to leave the plane, maybe they should just say that the plane won't take off until someone volunteers to leave the plane. Before long someone would.
Instead of choosing someone specifically to leave the plane, maybe they should just say that the plane won't take off until someone volunteers to leave the plane. Before long someone would.
But what about Girlysports' prediction that when faced with that proposition the passengers would all give each other smiles and thumbs up as they band together to screw themselves out of their own plane leaving?
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to jayswin For This Useful Post:
Why would it cost the airline? you buys your ticket its your problem if you cant go, I thought that's what flight insurance was for.
This is an old post and has maybe already been mentioned but the majority of no shows are from missed connections. Given the number of delays, people miss connections alot.
When you miss a connection, the airline puts you on the next available flight free of charge. meaning they are losing out on the profit that seat.
This is the reason overbooking is allowed; thanks to computer models, it has actually decreased significantly since the 1990's
The Following User Says Thank You to Cappy For This Useful Post:
But what about Girlysports' prediction that when faced with that proposition the passengers would all give each other smiles and thumbs up as they band together to screw themselves out of their own plane leaving?
I was on a plane that was grounded for hours, and word to pimp, there almost was an uprising on the plane with people chanting and throwing things. It got pretty ugly and I am sure it wasn't an isolated situation. The air crew seemed ready for it in fact.
Being in a cramped space for too long is a disaster waiting to happen.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
The Following User Says Thank You to FlamesAddiction For This Useful Post:
