Dr Dao and the United Airlines incident

[AR]

Zaphod wrote:

AR wrote:

The White Coat Investor wrote:

Kamban wrote:

jfoxcpacfp wrote:

he police may have won this one,

Click to expand…

The police did not win this one. In fact the Chicago police disowned them and stated clearly that they should have changed their uniform to state that they were security and not police, and they did not. Should it go to trial ( unlikely) that will come out.

Yes, he lost his teeth and had injuries but should you accept meekly every time even if you are right. Should Gandhi, Rosa Parks and MLK have accepted the police orders every time because they will win. I am not stating that Dr. Dao was a civil rights leader but sometimes you have to stand up for your rights if you are doing the right thing. It was not like he was speeding and refused to take a breath analyzer test.

United or any airline will never use force again against a non unruly and non disruptive customer. The airline will have to pay appropriately rather than use force. If their profits are less and that their insensitive CEO gets less bonus or is forced to resign, so be it.

And all of this because of one person, and the availability of cell phone cameras everywhere.

Click to expand…

This is a far cry from Rosa Parks, MLK, and Gandhi. First, he was wrong. He bought a ticket and those are the terms on the ticket. We can change the law and make it so airlines can’t overbook, but remember the consequence- every flight will cost you more. And it has been clearly shown that what Americans care about most when it comes to flying (aside from actually landing safely at the destination) is cost. We’ll haul our own baggage, leave most of it home, and bring our own food if it lowers the cost of the airfare. So, would you be willing to fly an airline that didn’t overbook if every flight cost you $50 more? You might, but most Americans would say no.

Second, this isn’t a civil rights issue. Nobody is oppressing airline passengers. To even compare this incident to what was going on in the South in the 60s would probably be taken as an insult to anyone who ever had a burning cross planted on their lawn, much less had a family member lynched.

Click to expand…

I think you may be a little misinformed.

The most important misunderstanding is that Dao was not wrong.  Those clearly were not the terms of the ticket.  Based on United’s own terms, they almost certainly did not have a basis to have him get off the plane.  You can read the link below for more explanation, but the short version is that the rules for bumping someone off the flight are different before and after boarding.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/why-united-legally-wrong-deplane-134223391.html

 

 

 

Click to expand…

No. Any action interfering with the flight crew allows them to deplane you, and the contracts state including but not limited to, I think the writer failed by having an agenda in mind.

I think this incident will go a long way to change the latitude airlines have enjoyed for so long now, but as it is now, they have a lot. They do not have to write out every detail in the contract exactly and standard federal laws still apply, yahoo article notwithstanding. I hope it changes but thats the way it is today.

Reminder: I am not saying this is a fair or just policy, but it is as of now the law of the land and there are zero ambiguities about it. I hope courts find these type of policies and procedures to be unlawful.

Click to expand...

The writer didn't forget that argument, it was covered in the article. If the airline is going to do something illegal to you and then you react to that, and they remove you because of that reaction, that's a very weak justification.  One that is quite unlikely to prevail if it were litigated.

To demonstrate why your interpretation can't possibly be true, just imagine a different type of illegal action.  Imagine if a passenger is just sitting on the plane and a crew member starts randomly punching him in the face.  The passenger responds by defending himself and fighting back.  Now you're saying that it is legal for passenger to be removed because he's "interfering with the crew".  Obviously this is a far-fetched hypothetical scenario, and if it occurred in real life, the passenger might actually be removed in the confusion.  However, that doesn't make it legal.

The point I'm trying to make here is that your "zero ambiguities" statement is false.  Laws require interpretation, that's why we have courts.  There's almost no law that's ever been written with "zero ambiguities".

[ENT Doc]

I think the argument is fairly weak under Rule 21c, but one could make the argument re: weather and how that affected the transport of the other personnel.  I don't think that's the intent of the "weather" statement in the rule though.  The biggest mistake United made here was letting him on the plane.  They should have handled this before anyone boarded.  They would have been permitted to deny boarding and kept with their $800 limitation for reimbursement.

A few points though.  Dr. Dao's history isn't completely irrelevant, as it shows that he doesn't seem to exercise the best decision-making skills.  That was on display not only when he resisted being removed (which he did) but when he came charging back onto the plane.  What childish behavior.  United's decision-making to allow boarding and then removing people set the stage for this, but they didn't actually harm him - nor did the police intend to.  Do we really think that they, in front of all those people and cameras in their faces, meant to harm him?  Please.

As for him "extracting a pound of flesh" from United, I think this attitude is problematic.  Similar to medical malpractice, it inspires people to milk the system well out of proportion to the amount of harm that occurred.  Dr. Dao's payday isn't going to make up for the pain that United caused all of us on various occasions (including myself when they lost my luggage).

As for overbooking, apparently this flight wasn't overbooked - they needed to make room for 4 crew members.  However, nothing is wrong with overbooking.  As WCI pointed out, all of our ticket prices will go up if they're not allowed to do this.  And airlines aren't unique.  The cost of overage/underage decision is employed on a daily basis from news vendors to hot dog stands to airlines.  There's no reason airlines should be treated as unique.  The cost of overage is on full display when they ask people to give up their seat in exchange for money/vouchers.  And the people who take them up on that clearly believe that in that moment the marginal utility of that voucher is greater than the marginal cost of missing that flight.  Everybody wins - as long as it's done BEFORE you board the plane.

[MochaDoc]

Arkad wrote:

Why do we hear about personal responsibility when some teenager in the urban core doesn’t listen to the police, but when a doctor on a plane refuses it seems to be a different standard?

Click to expand...

This made my day. Thank you.

[fatlittlepig]

ENT Doc wrote:

I think the argument is fairly weak under Rule 21c, but one could make the argument re: weather and how that affected the transport of the other personnel.  I don’t think that’s the intent of the “weather” statement in the rule though.  The biggest mistake United made here was letting him on the plane.  They should have handled this before anyone boarded.  They would have been permitted to deny boarding and kept with their $800 limitation for reimbursement.

A few points though.  Dr. Dao’s history isn’t completely irrelevant, as it shows that he doesn’t seem to exercise the best decision-making skills.  That was on display not only when he resisted being removed (which he did) but when he came charging back onto the plane.  What childish behavior.  United’s decision-making to allow boarding and then removing people set the stage for this, but they didn’t actually harm him – nor did the police intend to.  Do we really think that they, in front of all those people and cameras in their faces, meant to harm him?  Please.

It's irrelevant, I would encourage people to view the video of him prior to the altercation ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dk2Y_VL5e7s )

He states that he has no recollection of "charging" back onto the plane which is completely plausible. He clearly loss consciousness (presumably by striking his head on the armrest, as he is clearly unresponsive as he is being dragged) the video of him on the plane after he reboarded shows disorientation I believe he is muttering I have to get home, please kill me or something to that effect, it is completely different than the video prior to the altercation where he is lucid and articulating.

Your statement about the police not intending to harm him makes very little sense- If I drove my car 110 mph and struck another car, could I say of course I did not intend to harm anyone? The actions show disregard to his safety.

I wish law enforcement types had more emotional intelligence, the ability to de-escalate, the ability to step back and ask themselves what is this person guilty of, is what I am doing making sense or making things worse.

As for him “extracting a pound of flesh” from United, I think this attitude is problematic.  Similar to medical malpractice, it inspires people to milk the system well out of proportion to the amount of harm that occurred.  Dr. Dao’s payday isn’t going to make up for the pain that United caused all of us on various occasions (including myself when they lost my luggage).

As for overbooking, apparently this flight wasn’t overbooked – they needed to make room for 4 crew members.  However, nothing is wrong with overbooking.  As WCI pointed out, all of our ticket prices will go up if they’re not allowed to do this.  And airlines aren’t unique.  The cost of overage/underage decision is employed on a daily basis from news vendors to hot dog stands to airlines.  There’s no reason airlines should be treated as unique.  The cost of overage is on full display when they ask people to give up their seat in exchange for money/vouchers.  And the people who take them up on that clearly believe that in that moment the marginal utility of that voucher is greater than the marginal cost of missing that flight.  Everybody wins – as long as it’s done BEFORE you board the plane.

Click to expand...

 

[ENT Doc]

fatlittlepig wrote:

ENT Doc wrote:

I think the argument is fairly weak under Rule 21c, but one could make the argument re: weather and how that affected the transport of the other personnel.  I don’t think that’s the intent of the “weather” statement in the rule though.  The biggest mistake United made here was letting him on the plane.  They should have handled this before anyone boarded.  They would have been permitted to deny boarding and kept with their $800 limitation for reimbursement.

A few points though.  Dr. Dao’s history isn’t completely irrelevant, as it shows that he doesn’t seem to exercise the best decision-making skills.  That was on display not only when he resisted being removed (which he did) but when he came charging back onto the plane.  What childish behavior.  United’s decision-making to allow boarding and then removing people set the stage for this, but they didn’t actually harm him – nor did the police intend to.  Do we really think that they, in front of all those people and cameras in their faces, meant to harm him?  Please.

It’s irrelevant, I would encourage people to view the video of him prior to the altercation ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dk2Y_VL5e7s )

He states that he has no recollection of “charging” back onto the plane which is completely plausible. He clearly loss consciousness (presumably by striking his head on the armrest, as he is clearly unresponsive as he is being dragged) the video of him on the plane after he reboarded shows disorientation I believe he is muttering I have to get home, please kill me or something to that effect, it is completely different than the video prior to the altercation where he is lucid and articulating.

Your statement about the police not intending to harm him makes very little sense- If I drove my car 110 mph and struck another car, could I say of course I did not intend to harm anyone? The actions show disregard to his safety.

I wish law enforcement types had more emotional intelligence, the ability to de-escalate, the ability to step back and ask themselves what is this person guilty of, is what I am doing making sense or making things worse.

As for him “extracting a pound of flesh” from United, I think this attitude is problematic.  Similar to medical malpractice, it inspires people to milk the system well out of proportion to the amount of harm that occurred.  Dr. Dao’s payday isn’t going to make up for the pain that United caused all of us on various occasions (including myself when they lost my luggage).

As for overbooking, apparently this flight wasn’t overbooked – they needed to make room for 4 crew members.  However, nothing is wrong with overbooking.  As WCI pointed out, all of our ticket prices will go up if they’re not allowed to do this.  And airlines aren’t unique.  The cost of overage/underage decision is employed on a daily basis from news vendors to hot dog stands to airlines.  There’s no reason airlines should be treated as unique.  The cost of overage is on full display when they ask people to give up their seat in exchange for money/vouchers.  And the people who take them up on that clearly believe that in that moment the marginal utility of that voucher is greater than the marginal cost of missing that flight.  Everybody wins – as long as it’s done BEFORE you board the plane.

Click to expand…

 

Click to expand...

Your bias is clearly in favor of the passenger while mine is in favor of the police who have 30 cameras in their face and are dealing with a guy with a few screws loose.  Don't think we'll agree here.

[fatlittlepig]

Fair enough.

However keep in mind that the police are supposed to be the professionals, protecting and serving the civilian population.

Likewise as a physician we are the professionals if a patient is acting abusive or inappropriately we are supposed to be professionals.

[ENT Doc]

No doubt.  But also keep in mind that police, military, etc. are given an order to do something and they execute.  Can they do so with discretion and tact?  Yes  - and they should up until the point that is impossible to achieve the mission.  Because Dr. Dao sustained injuries is not evidence that the police didn't act professionally.  It's not like they barged in there and just grabbed him without him being asked to leave politely first.  There is a basic expectation of how we should respond to police requests as well.  Also, forgetting about our interpretation of the videos, does logic lead you to believe that 3 grown men with cameras in their faces don't possess the skill, strength and pressure to extract a relatively smaller man without giving him an injury?  The fact that he sustained injuries is more likely than not evidence that he fought them.  Unwise.  And his history of poor decision-making is important because it provides context to support that conclusion.  If the police officers had a history of violence then that provides context too.  Again, no one person was completely right here, as many have stated.

[Zaphod]

AR wrote:

Zaphod wrote:

AR wrote:

The White Coat Investor wrote:

Kamban wrote:

jfoxcpacfp wrote:

he police may have won this one,

Click to expand…

The police did not win this one. In fact the Chicago police disowned them and stated clearly that they should have changed their uniform to state that they were security and not police, and they did not. Should it go to trial ( unlikely) that will come out.

Yes, he lost his teeth and had injuries but should you accept meekly every time even if you are right. Should Gandhi, Rosa Parks and MLK have accepted the police orders every time because they will win. I am not stating that Dr. Dao was a civil rights leader but sometimes you have to stand up for your rights if you are doing the right thing. It was not like he was speeding and refused to take a breath analyzer test.

United or any airline will never use force again against a non unruly and non disruptive customer. The airline will have to pay appropriately rather than use force. If their profits are less and that their insensitive CEO gets less bonus or is forced to resign, so be it.

And all of this because of one person, and the availability of cell phone cameras everywhere.

Click to expand…

This is a far cry from Rosa Parks, MLK, and Gandhi. First, he was wrong. He bought a ticket and those are the terms on the ticket. We can change the law and make it so airlines can’t overbook, but remember the consequence- every flight will cost you more. And it has been clearly shown that what Americans care about most when it comes to flying (aside from actually landing safely at the destination) is cost. We’ll haul our own baggage, leave most of it home, and bring our own food if it lowers the cost of the airfare. So, would you be willing to fly an airline that didn’t overbook if every flight cost you $50 more? You might, but most Americans would say no.

Second, this isn’t a civil rights issue. Nobody is oppressing airline passengers. To even compare this incident to what was going on in the South in the 60s would probably be taken as an insult to anyone who ever had a burning cross planted on their lawn, much less had a family member lynched.

Click to expand…

I think you may be a little misinformed.

The most important misunderstanding is that Dao was not wrong.  Those clearly were not the terms of the ticket.  Based on United’s own terms, they almost certainly did not have a basis to have him get off the plane.  You can read the link below for more explanation, but the short version is that the rules for bumping someone off the flight are different before and after boarding.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/why-united-legally-wrong-deplane-134223391.html

 

 

 

Click to expand…

No. Any action interfering with the flight crew allows them to deplane you, and the contracts state including but not limited to, I think the writer failed by having an agenda in mind.

I think this incident will go a long way to change the latitude airlines have enjoyed for so long now, but as it is now, they have a lot. They do not have to write out every detail in the contract exactly and standard federal laws still apply, yahoo article notwithstanding. I hope it changes but thats the way it is today.

Reminder: I am not saying this is a fair or just policy, but it is as of now the law of the land and there are zero ambiguities about it. I hope courts find these type of policies and procedures to be unlawful.

Click to expand…

The writer didn’t forget that argument, it was covered in the article. If the airline is going to do something illegal to you and then you react to that, and they remove you because of that reaction, that’s a very weak justification.  One that is quite unlikely to prevail if it were litigated.

To demonstrate why your interpretation can’t possibly be true, just imagine a different type of illegal action.  Imagine if a passenger is just sitting on the plane and a crew member starts randomly punching him in the face.  The passenger responds by defending himself and fighting back.  Now you’re saying that it is legal for passenger to be removed because he’s “interfering with the crew”.  Obviously this is a far-fetched hypothetical scenario, and if it occurred in real life, the passenger might actually be removed in the confusion.  However, that doesn’t make it legal.

The point I’m trying to make here is that your “zero ambiguities” statement is false.  Laws require interpretation, that’s why we have courts.  There’s almost no law that’s ever been written with “zero ambiguities”.

Click to expand...

Its not false at all. Read different articles. People are deplaned by every airline every year. The law will be interpreted now that its going to get a challenge. Thats really how the system works. Corporations, the state, whatever, will put things in as much favor as they can get away with until something like this occurs and then it gets clarified. Until then, its unambiguous.

All they have to say up until this point is it was needed for crew, therefore legal. Not interfering, just stopping them from their duty whatsoever. And though its a tautological argument, not deplaning when asked probably could be used to justify that and an unruly combative passenger.

Its stupid and I agree 100% with your ultimate conclusion. Just because something is obviously unjust or wrong sadly does not make it standard operating procedure or a priori illegal. Had this not been on tape, this would be unlikely to be so fiercely challenged and would go on.

[visoriano]

Have you read the Contract of Carriage from United? Here's the link: https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriage.aspx#sec25

Overbooking is first mentioned in Rule 5 and it then refers to Rule 25. Rule 25 says that the modus operandi in that case is to deny boarding, this guy already boarded and was granted entry.

I completely agree with WCI that whenever the authority is involved, just do as they say/ask... THEY WILL WIN. Also, Dao is not a role model but character bashing is something we need to try to eliminate from our conversation.

A good opinion on what United did wrong can be read here: http://www.newsweek.com/why-united-were-legally-wrong-deplane-dr-dao-583535

[AR]

ENT Doc wrote:

I think the argument is fairly weak under Rule 21c, but one could make the argument re: weather and how that affected the transport of the other personnel.  I don’t think that’s the intent of the “weather” statement in the rule though.  The biggest mistake United made here was letting him on the plane.  They should have handled this before anyone boarded.  They would have been permitted to deny boarding and kept with their $800 limitation for reimbursement.

A few points though.  Dr. Dao’s history isn’t completely irrelevant, as it shows that he doesn’t seem to exercise the best decision-making skills.  That was on display not only when he resisted being removed (which he did) but when he came charging back onto the plane.  What childish behavior.  United’s decision-making to allow boarding and then removing people set the stage for this, but they didn’t actually harm him – nor did the police intend to.  Do we really think that they, in front of all those people and cameras in their faces, meant to harm him?  Please.

As for him “extracting a pound of flesh” from United, I think this attitude is problematic.  Similar to medical malpractice, it inspires people to milk the system well out of proportion to the amount of harm that occurred.  Dr. Dao’s payday isn’t going to make up for the pain that United caused all of us on various occasions (including myself when they lost my luggage).

As for overbooking, apparently this flight wasn’t overbooked – they needed to make room for 4 crew members.  However, nothing is wrong with overbooking.  As WCI pointed out, all of our ticket prices will go up if they’re not allowed to do this.  And airlines aren’t unique.  The cost of overage/underage decision is employed on a daily basis from news vendors to hot dog stands to airlines.  There’s no reason airlines should be treated as unique.  The cost of overage is on full display when they ask people to give up their seat in exchange for money/vouchers.  And the people who take them up on that clearly believe that in that moment the marginal utility of that voucher is greater than the marginal cost of missing that flight.  Everybody wins – as long as it’s done BEFORE you board the plane.

Click to expand...

Are you saying that he cannot resist being asked to move for any reason.  Let's say the follow hypothetical scenario transpired:

 

Flight Attendant: Dao, you're going to have to get of the plane

Dao: Why

FA: Well when we need more seats we kick off Asians, and you're the first one we saw

Dao: What?  That's racist and illegal.  I'm not going anywhere.

FA: Now you're disobeying a crew member, so we have to remove you I'm afraid.

Dao: That's ridiculous, the only reason I'm disobeying is because you're doing something you're not allowed to do

 

So, you're telling me here that in this case Dao is wrong to resist being asked to deplane.  If Dao is not wrong in this case, then why would he be wrong if he was asked to leave for a different illegal reason.

[Arkad]

Kamban wrote:

jsr52 wrote:

Dr. Dao also traded drugs for sex…..

So theres that http://nypost.com/2017/04/11/doctor-dragged-off-flight-convicted-of-trading-drugs-for-sex/

 

Click to expand…

Has no relevance in regards to this particular incident. he was found guilty and paid his time.Certainly in a court of law

In a court of law yes, but maybe not in the court of social media.  It gives you an idea of what he could possibly be thinking.  At some point after you voice your opinion and reluctance, you obey authority.  Did he really have to not make any attempt to remove himself off the plane and allow himself to be dragged off the plane?  Any chance he knew what the outcome of this might be?  Any chance he may have hoped to escalate this to get something out of it?He could have walked off the plane.  His run in with the law in the past was not an honest mistake or error.  yes, he paid a price for that but did he see an opportunity and take it now?  You have to wonder.

[Zaphod]

AR wrote:

ENT Doc wrote:

I think the argument is fairly weak under Rule 21c, but one could make the argument re: weather and how that affected the transport of the other personnel.  I don’t think that’s the intent of the “weather” statement in the rule though.  The biggest mistake United made here was letting him on the plane.  They should have handled this before anyone boarded.  They would have been permitted to deny boarding and kept with their $800 limitation for reimbursement.

A few points though.  Dr. Dao’s history isn’t completely irrelevant, as it shows that he doesn’t seem to exercise the best decision-making skills.  That was on display not only when he resisted being removed (which he did) but when he came charging back onto the plane.  What childish behavior.  United’s decision-making to allow boarding and then removing people set the stage for this, but they didn’t actually harm him – nor did the police intend to.  Do we really think that they, in front of all those people and cameras in their faces, meant to harm him?  Please.

As for him “extracting a pound of flesh” from United, I think this attitude is problematic.  Similar to medical malpractice, it inspires people to milk the system well out of proportion to the amount of harm that occurred.  Dr. Dao’s payday isn’t going to make up for the pain that United caused all of us on various occasions (including myself when they lost my luggage).

As for overbooking, apparently this flight wasn’t overbooked – they needed to make room for 4 crew members.  However, nothing is wrong with overbooking.  As WCI pointed out, all of our ticket prices will go up if they’re not allowed to do this.  And airlines aren’t unique.  The cost of overage/underage decision is employed on a daily basis from news vendors to hot dog stands to airlines.  There’s no reason airlines should be treated as unique.  The cost of overage is on full display when they ask people to give up their seat in exchange for money/vouchers.  And the people who take them up on that clearly believe that in that moment the marginal utility of that voucher is greater than the marginal cost of missing that flight.  Everybody wins – as long as it’s done BEFORE you board the plane.

Click to expand…

Are you saying that he cannot resist being asked to move for any reason.  Let’s say the follow hypothetical scenario transpired:

 

Flight Attendant: Dao, you’re going to have to get of the plane

Dao: Why

FA: Well when we need more seats we kick off Asians, and you’re the first one we saw

Dao: What?  That’s racist and illegal.  I’m not going anywhere.

FA: Now you’re disobeying a crew member, so we have to remove you I’m afraid.

Dao: That’s ridiculous, the only reason I’m disobeying is because you’re doing something you’re not allowed to do

 

So, you’re telling me here that in this case Dao is wrong to resist being asked to deplane.  If Dao is not wrong in this case, then why would he be wrong if he was asked to leave for a different illegal reason.

Click to expand...

Theres no illegal, or aka criminal reasoning here at all and improper on all levels. Its either unwarranted, a breach of contract, wrong, but not illegal. Businesses have a very wide ability to refuse service, and airlines even more. Have people been deplaned for looking in such a way that it bothered others? Yes they have. You must remember the very broad scope given to airlines after 9/11. Its been a while so we may have forgotten the extent of what was given up. Thats a very poor framing reference to be in when looking at it.

Also, remember, what has been perfectly legal and accepted behavior for over a decade will hopefully change with this case. They asked him to leave, which is well within the current regulatory structure to do so, and he resisted, so yes obviously he was "wrong" to not comply. Thats the agreement he made when buying the ticket. The issue is of ignorance of what youre signing up for, just like clicking agree to all the electronic agreements that basically sell your soul. Then we complain about them exercising their contract.

Look, its not right and I hope it gets rectified, but he was in the wrong. I mean he willfully disobeyed crew on a plane, why on earth would they let him fly? What they asked him is irrelevant and a red herring. You can make up any scenario you want like the crew asked him to kill his wife or something outlandish. It doesnt matter at all. Being willfully obstinate and obstructionist to the flight is never the right or dominant action. He should have left, got to his destination, and taken it up the corporate chain or if that was unsatisfactory got a lawyer and made his complaint. His actions were dumb on any and every level and theres no defending that. What did he expect to happen? Whats the point of staying in any of your supposed scenarios? Makes no sense.

You're trying to manufacture some good reasoning instead of focusing on the actual framework of it which just leads you to make justifications and causalities that do not exist. You have the rules and circumstances that actually happened only.

[wideopenspaces]

I think the whole situation was very poorly handled and I'm hopeful it will lead to change as to prevent that outcome in the future. We had to fly united last week since our trip was already booked but won't be flying them again because of this incident and the one where they wouldn't let a passenger in leggings board.

[resident_1]

Speaking of personal responsibility.
What puzzles me is how he got his medical license back, 10 later and severity of crime that lead to license loss.
Is this because rural KY is in such need if docs?

Is someone who has broken rules/disregarded authority (i.e. federal drug laws, medical ethical rules, personal ethical principles) more likely to do the same in the future? The simple account of United being in the wrong makes sense.  Its easy to digest, and feels good because there is a sense of impeding punishment for United.  But there are more complex possible explanations (to describe what drove his decision making) that may not be so pleasant to think about.

[AR]

 

Zaphod,

I think we're just going around in circles. But maybe we're getting somewhere.  We'll see.

So, let's say that what United did was breach their contract. I would agree that is more accurate than saying it's illegal.  You're saying that even though they breached the contract he must leave the plane without argument.

But if they breached his contract for a different reason (let's take the hypothetical example I used earlier, because he was Asian) then his refusal to leave would have been fine.   Or is he compelled to leave without argument in that case also.

If you could give a yes/no on both of the above it would really help me understand what it is you're trying to say.

I think the problem you're having is that you think that the law or the contract says that the flight crew can justifiably ask him to leave for absolutely ANY reason.  That's plainly incorrect.  I mean they can do it, and they might succeed in doing it.  But if that particular point ever makes it to a courtroom, it will be ruled in his favor.  Which means that he was correct.

Even United is saying that it was wrong to ask him to leave the plane.  They are not claiming any legal or contractual basis whatsoever for asking him to leave, even though it would likely mitigate their damages owed substantially if they had one.  Maybe you should call their attorneys up and offer your assistance.