News United Airlines is a terrible business

[russ_watters]

In hindsight, Dao might think it would have been wiser to capitulate to United's demands. At the time, Dao and the other passengers probably never imagined the airline would resort to violence to remove a customer from a flight.

I sure hope most of the other passengers are/were not as childish/naive as that. A very similar example:

When I was too young to remember - as my mother tells the story - I didn't want to leave a department store. So my mom yanked-on my arm, perhaps even just picking me up by it or dragging me...just as I decided to use the "go limp" defense. Which dislocated my shoulder and led to a trip to the emergency room. Eventually, I learned:

1. You don't always get to decide if you are allowed to be somewhere.
2. If you are somewhere that you aren't suppose to be, authority figures can remove you by force.
3. No matter how gently they remove you by force or passively you resist, it is possible to get hurt.

A 2-4 year old can forgiven for not understanding this. A G.A.M. cannot.

Perhaps this incident may embolden some individuals to act out inappropriately in the future, but it also sends a strong reminder to United and other businesses that they need to treat their customers with respect. I expect that if Dao had "willingly" given up his seat and complained after the fact to the airline, nothing would have really changed, and United would have continued with its poor treatment of customers.

What poor treatment? What are we talking about here -- assault and battery or bumping people from their seats? If Dao had acted appropriately, we wouldn't be having this conversation because all parties would have acted roughly appropriately!

Look, I get that airlines are unpopular and I agree that some of their policies are poor in terms of customer service. But I am never a fan of doing wrong in order to provoke a wronger reaction for the sake of discussion of a policy. Not to be overly dramatic, but that's a terrorism tactic. Here, it means wrongly connecting the normal - if annoying and sometimes chaotically applied - tactic of bumping to assault and battery. Bumping is not assault and battery.

 

[russ_watters]

I think he had every right to stay on. I also think faced with three burly thugs I might consider whether now is the best time to assert my rights.

Fair enough. I suspect that as a result of this, airlines are going to put some work into clarifying those rights in their policies, because I believe this matches their intent and is or was a common practice.

...but that doesn't necessarily mean people won't still assume or demand that once in their seat they have a right to stay there.

 

[Borg]

Spirit Airline customers are terrible - Violence Erupts at a Florida Airport After Spirit Airlines Cancellations.

Arrest reports assert that those detained were threatening bodily harm to the airline employees and challenging them to fights. All three of the people who were arrested were charged with disorderly conduct, inciting a riot and resisting arrest.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

No doubt, 9/11 has contributed to the increasing angst over this type of issue, but I feel there is a growing culture of entitlement and disrespect for authority that is also contributing.

Questioning the legitimate bounds of authority is not the same as disrespect for authority.

While it is clear that the airline had the right to prevent any passenger from boarding and taking a seat, it is less clear that they had the proper right to remove a peaceful and non-threatening passenger once seated on the plane or that those acting on their behalf had the authority to do it.

If the airline was acting withing the proper bounds of their authority, their henchmen would likely not have faced professional consequences for their actions, and they would likely not have been so quick to settle out of court with the passenger who was forcefully removed.

 

[XZ923]

Questioning the legitimate bounds of authority is not the same as disrespect for authority.

While it is clear that the airline had the right to prevent any passenger from boarding and taking a seat, it is less clear that they had the proper right to remove a peaceful and non-threatening passenger once seated on the plane or that those acting on their behalf had the authority to do it.

If the airline was acting withing the proper bounds of their authority, their henchmen would likely not have faced professional consequences for their actions, and they would likely not have been so quick to settle out of court with the passenger who was forcefully removed.

I agree with everything you said, but I think the issue is forcibly resisting an authority without imminent threat of injury. I very strongly support your assertion that we should question authority. If you're being arrested, you have every right to know why you're being arrested and insist on the officers' names and badge numbers, as well as speaking your mind about the matter to any length you choose (you'd be advised not to since the prosecutor will likely find a way to twist whatever you say against you in court, but you certainly have the right to talk). The issue in this case was forcibly, physically resisting the legal authority, especially when they were making a non-violent request. Dr. Dao had every right to voice his displeasure, insist on their names and badge numbers, and file a lawsuit. He could have walked down the aisle shouting obscenities about the officers, the airlines, their questionable parentage, etc. if he chose to, then called a lawyer the moment he was off the plane to get the lawsuit started. But he did need to comply with their order. If everyone gets to decide on the spot if they're going to cooperate with the authorities we descend into anarchy mighty quick.

IMO the basic rule of thumb is if you don't like what the authority figure is doing, gather all relevant data and take them to court. There is no shortage of lawyers in this country willing to take such a case. You can probably find at least one who will do it pro bono.

 

[Vanadium 50]

We know some things we didn't at the time.

• Two of the "henchmen" were wearing attire that says "Police" even though they had been specifically told that they were not allowed to do that.
• Both the report of the "henchmen" and the report of the gate agent's supervisor claimed Dao struck first, This is not what the video showed.
• The flight crew decided not to get involved with this. So there was no "interfering with a flight crew"

That combination looks very bad for United. You have a contractual dispute (where most legal opinion is that Dao was in the right) which United chose to resolve by force. To do this they falsely accused Dao of a crime (and since this was done by a supervisor it looks a lot like this is their policy- at least informal policy) and called the "henchmen" who were impersonating police. They set in motion a chain of events that resulted in a man having the snot beat out of him so they wouldn't have to give out $200 worth of travel credits. Of course they didn't want this dragging out in the courts for months.

 

[Vanadium 50]

If everyone gets to decide on the spot if they're going to cooperate with the authorities we descend into anarchy mighty quick.

What about people who are only pretending to be authorities? The actual authorities - the flight crew - did not get involved. The "police" were merely dressed as police. Do I have to do whatever the Village People tell me to do?

 

[WWGD]

. Do I have to do whatever the Village People tell me to do?

Only if you are arrested at the...YMCA.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

I agree with everything you said, but I think the issue is forcibly resisting an authority without imminent threat of injury.

There is no evidence that the passenger used or threatened force. He resisted fake police passively, simply by refusing to comply with orders that they did not really have the authority to give. The fake police escalated the issue from words to the use of force. Claiming the passenger "forcibly" resisted is either woefully misinformed of the facts or dishonest.

As an analogy, consider a Walmart employee stopping you on the way out of Walmart and wanting you to hand over an item you just purchased for some kind of security inspection. Real law enforcement officers may reasonably make that order if they have probable cause that a crime was committed. However, you are not "forcibly" resisting a Walmart employee if you just keep on walking and ignore them. State laws vary, but ordinarily, security employees do not have law enforcement powers to detain you or to give you orders with a burden of compliance. If you've done nothing wrong, you can just keep walking and ignore them.

 

[XZ923]

There is no evidence that the passenger used or threatened force. He resisted fake police passively, simply by refusing to comply with orders that they did not really have the authority to give. The fake police escalated the issue from words to the use of force. Claiming the passenger "forcibly" resisted is either woefully misinformed of the facts or dishonest.

As an analogy, consider a Walmart employee stopping you on the way out of Walmart and wanting you to hand over an item you just purchased for some kind of security inspection. Real law enforcement officers may reasonably make that order if they have probable cause that a crime was committed. However, you are not "forcibly" resisting a Walmart employee if you just keep on walking and ignore them. State laws vary, but ordinarily, security employees do not have law enforcement powers to detain you or to give you orders with a burden of compliance. If you've done nothing wrong, you can just keep walking and ignore them.

Actually, the issue of a merchant's protections on their legal property (very important distinction) are much blurrier than you're making them out to be. I'd recommend reading the following as a quick brush-up:

http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/business-career/legal/store-security-and-your-rights

As you correctly note, laws vary from state to state, but virtually all laws provide proprietors with some form of reasonable discretion in policing how people behave on their property. If a manager at an electronics store sees you put a video game in your pocket, he can detain you, search, and retrieve the property. You could certainly file suit if you wish, but you'll lose in court when the manager shows the security footage that gave him probable cause. To use an additional example, a bouncer at a nightclub can legally force somebody out if that person is causing a disturbance; even though legally that would be an assault it is permitted under that circumstance.

Of course, I'm not sure a straw man argument conflating retail merchandise under local jurisdiction with a human being on a transport vessel under federal jurisdiction would stand up in court (probably not). I believe in court the key questions would be:

1. Was Dr. Dao acting in a way that reasonably caused harm to United's business and/or their ability to conduct legal business?
2. Was United authorized to use force to remove him?

IMHO the answer to #1 is no, at least no more so than everyone else on board, and #2 becomes moot in the case of #1 being "no", which is why a lawsuit is warranted. Also keep in mind that anything having to do with aviation is under federal jurisdiction which creates a whole different wave of complications. United settled quickly because they want this over with; Dr. Dao was probably advised to settle to avoid the bureaucratic entanglements of the FAA.

 

[russ_watters]

Questioning the legitimate bounds of authority is not the same as disrespect for authority.

I agree in principle, but there is such a thing as disrespect for authority and I was referring more to the big picture than this specific incident...for example, the Spirit Airlines incident and the Delta Airline's incident:
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...threatened-jail-refusing-give-toddler-n755141

It appears the facebook comments I saw about putting up a fight were realized.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Of course, I'm not sure a straw man argument conflating retail merchandise under local jurisdiction with a human being on a transport vessel under federal jurisdiction would stand up in court (probably not).

There's an additional twist. The aircraft was owned and operated by Republic. It was only marketed by United. Given that all the Republic staff declined to act, can United reasonably claim Dao was trespassing?

 

[mheslep]

The better analogy is that you have a completely full hotel, and 4 corporate bigwigs show up wanting rooms, so you send 4 guests onto the streets. That said, hotels do overbook - it's called being "walked". You get to the hotel, and are told "Sorry no rooms, and yes, we know you had a reservation, and yes, we even charged your credit card, but we're still full. Sorry." I can tell you, this is not much fun.

Right, and the airline in this case went a step further, busting into a hotel room after the guest has settled in and telling them to get lost. Hotels seem to know better. Airlines, not so much.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

Well, this was not a problem with overbooking. The better analogy is that you have a completely full hotel, and 4 corporate bigwigs show up wanting rooms, so you send 4 guests onto the streets. That said, hotels do overbook - it's called being "walked". You get to the hotel, and are told "Sorry no rooms, and yes, we know you had a reservation, and yes, we even charged your credit card, but we're still full. Sorry." I can tell you, this is not much fun.

This is a good analogy. But as pointed out above, the better analogy would be kicking out guests forcibly from their rooms after they had already been checked in, given key cards, and settled into their rooms.

Are there no limits to what you must do when instructed by "security"? If they ask you for your wallet are you required to give it to them? What about if they ask you to slug another passenger? Dance naked in the aisles singing show tunes? Dao wasn't committing a crime. He wasn't posing a threat to the flight. He wasn't even disregarding flight crew instructions - although he was disregarding gate agent instructions.

This is the point I was trying to make above. There is a duty to obey authority only within the legitimate bounds of that authority, and it seems clear in this case that the "security" was acting beyond the bounds of their authority in several ways. Not many physics teachers would think the authority of a physics teacher extends to telling students how to do their spanish homework or that the authority of the football coach extends to telling students they don't have to do their physics homework. How does putting a uniform on someone and giving limited police powers mean that suddenly no one can ever resist on the spot, but that the only legitimate resistance is to take them to court later (after complying on the spot)?

I think I don't even agree with the description "security". They are not allowed to identify themselves as police. They did anyway. They are not allowed to board an aircraft. They did anyway. They are not allowed to be used as "muscle" to enforce the airline's side in a customer service dispute. And boy, did they ever do that.

Oh, and yes, there are other bad things going on in the world. Doesn't make this one any better.

Yep. The "authorities" were acting well beyond the scope of their legitimate powers. As far as I can tell, the passenger had no more duty of compliance than if a NYC policeman shows up in New Orleans and starts trying to enforce NYC laws.