Not getting up and leaving the aircraft as directed is being belligerent, I'm sure it was being used to describe him as combative and aggressive though.
bel·lig·er·ent
adjective
adjective: belligerent
1. hostile and aggressive.
I would disagree
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Jbo For This Useful Post:
In my belief, United Airlines is citing the wrong federal rule to justify its illegal request to force a passenger already boarded and seated to disembark so they could make room for crew members being flown to a new assignment.
Under a federal rule [14 CFR 253], commercial airlines are governed by a document known as a “Contract of Carriage” [COC], a legally binding contract which, among other things, protects the legal rights of passengers, and imposes legal duties upon carriers. United’s COC contains two distinct sections: Rule 21 entitled “Refusal of Transport,” and Rule 25 entitled “Denied Boarding Compensation.”
Quote:
United is incorrectly citing the denied boarding compensation rule in its COC, and the federal rule upon which it is based [14 CFR 250.5], to justify requiring a passenger who has already been permitted to board and taken a seat to involuntarily disembark.
But that rule, as its title and history clearly establish, applies only if an airline wishes to deny boarding to a passenger, not to remove a passenger who has already boarded an airplane.
The current federal rule grew out of a situation in which Ralph Nader was denied the opportunity to board a flight, even though he had a valid ticket. He sued, in a case which went to the U.S. Supreme Court, and it was eventually held that he was entitled to compensation if he was denied boarding.
As a direct result, the government adopted a rule which permits a carrier to deny boarding to a ticketed passenger, but only after going through a process of seeking other passengers to give up their seats.
United’s Rule 25, as its title clearly implies, applies only to denied boarding. Thus, it uses the word “denied boarding,” and variants such as “deny boarding,” but says nothing about requiring passengers who have already boarded to give up their seats.
Indeed, it states in part, using the word “boarding” twice, that: “other passengers may be denied boarding involuntarily in accordance with UA’s boarding priority.
Clearly, a “boarding priority” does not include or imply an involuntary removal or refusal of transport. Moreover, under well accepted contract law, any ambiguous term in a contract must be construed against – and in the way least favorable to – the party which drafted it.
Quote:
Rule 21, entitled “Refusal of Transport,” is very different because it clearly and expressly covers situations in which a passenger who has already boarded the plane can be removed. It states clearly: “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.” [emphasis added]
The rule, which unlike the denied boarding rule does provide for removal “from the aircraft at any point,” lists some two dozen justifications including: unruly behavior, intoxication, inability to fit into one seat, medical problems or concerns, etc. But nowhere in the list of some two dozen reasons is there anything about over booking, the need to free up seats, the need for seats to accommodate crew members to be used on a different flight etc.
This is very important because, under accepted legal principles, a law or rule which lists in detail several different factors must be read not to include other factors which were deliberately not included or listed. So, for example, if a rule provides that a license to drive a car may be forfeited by violations of laws governing speeding, intoxication, reckless driving, or driving without a license, it cannot be read to also permit license revocation for parking violations, or for having a burned out license plate illumination light.
In this case, the failure to include over booking, or the need for additional seats, in a long list of justifications for removing a passenger “from the aircraft at any point” means that passengers may not be removed for these non-listed reasons.
The conclusion is further reinforced by the fact that there is a completely separate section of United’s COC which does deal expressly with the need for additional seats, but it provides that the concern must be dealt with by preventing passengers from boarding, not ejecting them once they have boarded.
Quote:
Finally, it appears that United is seeking to blame the passenger, claiming that when asked to give up his seat, he acted belligerently – and citing a rule which requires that passengers obey the orders of the flight crew. But, such a requirement applies only to orders which are lawful.
If, for example, the flight crew had ordered two passengers to fight each other for the amusement of the other passengers, or to take off all their clothing, the passengers would not be required to comply, and their forceful removal could not be based upon refusing to follow unlawful orders.
Once someone in possession of a valid ticket has been seated – whether on an airplane, a train or bus, or at the symphony – he cannot be ordered to give up that which he has a valid contractual right to enjoy, simply because his seat is needed for someone else.
The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to Minnie For This Useful Post:
I posted this earlier, but according to an airline industry watchdog group, "boarding" includes the time that the plane is standing at the gate even after people are on board.
Quote:
Most airlines avoid having to yank someone who has already settled in to their seat. Technically, that is still considered a "denied boarding" as long as the plane is still at the gate and is permissible under the law.
I posted this earlier, but according to an airline industry watchdog group, "boarding" includes the time that the plan is standing at the gate even after people are on board.
Except there have been multiple posts in this thread from legal experts who have claimed united' definition wouldn't hold up in court and they are clearly in the wrong legally.
Except there have been multiple posts in this thread from legal experts who have claimed united' definition wouldn't hold up in court and they are clearly in the wrong legally.
Reading through this thread though, it sounds like the laws are defined by boarding before the craft is operating and then interfering while it is operating.
Are you saying there is a point of time in between where no laws are applicable and the powers of the pilot and airport security are not defined?
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
adjective
adjective: belligerent
1. hostile and aggressive.
I would disagree
Doesn't really matter in the end, as it's highly unlikely there's enough for an interference charge. The "altercation" was primarily with airport security.
adjective
adjective: belligerent
1. hostile and aggressive.
I would disagree
belligerent
adjective UK /bəˈlɪdʒ.ər.ənt/ US /bəˈlɪdʒ.ɚ.ənt/
disapproving wishing to fight or argue:
a belligerent person
a belligerent gesture
Watch out! Lee's in a belligerent mood.
See I can do that also, do you think I made up the definition myself?
Are we seriously debating the definition of belligerent?
I think we all know what it is supposed to mean in this context, that the united ceo looks like a jackass for using it and that there is zero evidence the beaten man was being belligerent prior to being unnecessarily beaten.
The Following User Says Thank You to Cecil Terwilliger For This Useful Post:
Not getting up and leaving the aircraft as directed is being belligerent, I'm sure it was being used to describe him as combative and aggressive though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger
Are we seriously debating the definition of belligerent?
I think we all know what it is supposed to mean in this context, that the united ceo looks like a jackass for using it and that there is zero evidence the beaten man was being belligerent prior to being unnecessarily beaten.
Pretty much exactly what I said and I agree debating definitions is dumb and we should feel bad.
I agree that all faults go to United and the security, but has anything good ever come out of refusing the orders from security or police? I mean yeah it sucks that you're forced to leave your seat after you've gotten comfortable already, but refusing to comply with the authority maybe wasn't the best way to handle it. IIRC two other passengers left their seat without any altercation, and coincidentally they came out unharmed. Even if United is 100% in the wrong, which they were, I would never refuse the orders of security or police. However I don't condone the actions of the security either since they could've handled it way better.
The Following User Says Thank You to Banner For This Useful Post:
You don't feel sorry for the guy assaulted and thrown off a plane?
It's comments like these that show your true opinion on the matter. How can United screw up and you still don't feel sorry for the victim? If united screwed up, you're admitting that they shouldn't have assaulted the victim which should make you feel sorry for him regardless if he didn't do the right thing.
Some very weird and troubling opinions in this thread.
Typically I would feel sorry for someone in that situation, but the way he tried to pull rank doesn't sit well with me. "I'm a doctor, find someone less important to bump...".
He played the status card, so when the media looked into the his background as a high-ranking individual and discovered he is more of a glorified drug dealer that even turned one of his patients into a prostitute, I lost sympathy for him at that point.
I am not saying in any way it justifies the situation, but it does remove sympathy from me.
If it does turn out they have the allegations wrong, I will change my opinion.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
...but has anything good ever come out of refusing the orders from security or police? I mean yeah it sucks that you're forced to leave your seat after you've gotten comfortable already, but refusing to comply with the authority maybe wasn't the best way to handle it...
I see this as a form of non-violent protest against something outrageously and obviously wrong. If the authority tells you to do something humiliating and/or wrong, would you comply without a second thought or would you protest somehow - verbally or otherwise?
I think his actions worked great, overall, for all stakeholders. United will now make changes to their policy on how to handle overbooked situations (better compensation offers, more fair protocol, better crew scheduling management etc.). This is pretty much guaranteed. Other airlines took notes as well - gross ignorance toward customers can cause PR nightmares. Passengers took notes as well. If this guy had complied silently, nothing would have changed.
__________________
"An idea is always a generalization, and generalization is a property of thinking. To generalize means to think." Georg Hegel
“To generalize is to be an idiot.” William Blake
The Following User Says Thank You to CaptainYooh For This Useful Post:
United Airlines passenger who was dragged off flight pursues legal action
Not a big surprise he is pursing legal action.
Quote:
Lawyers for David Dao, the doctor forcibly dragged off a United Airlines plane, filed an emergency request with an Illinois state court on Wednesday to require the carrier to preserve video recordings and other evidence related to the incident.
Citing the risk of “serious prejudice” to their client, the lawyers want the airline and the City of Chicago, which runs O’Hare International Airport, to preserve surveillance videos, cockpit voice recordings, passenger and crew lists and other materials related to United Flight 3411.
Dao is scheduled to hold a press conference Thursday morning, his legal team said.
I see this as a form of non-violent protest against something outrageously and obviously wrong. If the authority tells you to do something humiliating and/or wrong, would you comply without a second thought or would you protest somehow - verbally or otherwise?
I think his actions worked great, overall, for all stakeholders. United will now make changes to their policy on how to handle overbooked situations (better compensation offers, more fair protocol, better crew scheduling management etc.). This is pretty much guaranteed. Other airlines took notes as well - gross ignorance toward customers can cause PR nightmares. Passengers took notes as well. If this guy had complied silently, nothing would have changed.
Well in hindsight yes it worked out for the better in the grand scheme of things, but I doubt he had that all planned out in that moment. At that time he was just simply a dude who refused to listen to airport security and police. I really don't want to sound like I'm victim blaming, cause I'm not, but what was he realistically expecting to happen after he said no to security? That they would just say "Oh alright, we'll just go ask someone else then"? Surely he should have expected them to resort to removing him by force if he wasn't going to listen to them. Again not defending the actions of security but the man could have prevented the whole thing altogether.
I really don't want to sound like I'm victim blaming, cause I'm not,
Yes you are.
Quote:
but what was he realistically expecting to happen after he said no to security? That they would just say "Oh alright, we'll just go ask someone else then"? Surely he should have expected them to resort to removing him by force if he wasn't going to listen to them. Again not defending the actions of security but the man could have prevented the whole thing altogether.
From the sounds of more and more in the legal community weighing in, he realistically could expect to deny them and have them move on and ask someone else. He is not actually required, once on board and seated, according to what I've read tonight, to give up his seat. Also, United failed in not offering the federally mandated amount in the US, for giving up a seat. So yes, it's looking more and more like United and the persons who dragged him off the plane, will be facing a lot of music for this, for some time to come. Dao is not the only person this month to have this issue with United. He's simply the first that continued to refuse them and was physically dragged off the plane. He is now also the impetus for United changing their policy in terms of removal of passengers from their airplanes.
It's a #### show no matter how you look at it. Especially for UA, in terms of PR, and how they initially handled it.
