United Airlines Forcibly Removes Passenger from Flight

[pErvinalia]

In what technical sense could being seated in your allocated seat ready for take-off not be "boarded"?

[Animavore]

Are you idiots actually arguing over whether this was ok? SMH.

Man gets stung by scorpion after it falls from overhead bin on UA flight.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/amp.cnn.com ... index.html

[Forty Two]

I think this will rest on what 'boarding' means in the context of air travel on US soil.

When you are sitting in your allocated seat, readied for the aeroplane to take off, you can truly be regarded as having boarded by any current definition of the word.

I only mean that airline staff might be using the term in a technical sense, something akin to 'passenger management', or 'to accommodate', or whatever.

United can try to prove that...

[Forty Two]

You were asked to cite the law. What you cited is "expert opinion".

Yes, expert opinion on the law. That's how law works, interpretation.

There's a reason why I used quote marks. Had those so-called experts quoted chapter and verse, I would not have used them. I still suspect that the captains' plenary powers are founded on the fine print formulated by the airlines they work for rather than some government legislature. I also think they would not stand up to a court challenge.

I'll add that given that I've heard dozens of people say that the pilot has these kind of plenary powers, but not a one of them has actually shown the provision or paragraph or section of contract or law that they are talking about, I'll say that bit is rather an overstatement. There are no plenary powers, and there are very broad powers, such that it doesn't take much for a crew or pilot to remove you from the airplane. I think we've hit upon, here, an example where a person managed to get thrown off a plane in a situation where he has done nothing that even colorably could merit it.

What happens here is this: the crew needed the seat for an free flight for an employee. So, it came time to demand that someone leave the plane. They gave instructions. He would not obey. They claim disobedience to any instruction is a disturbance of or interference with the cabin crew, and they claim that any objection to or argument with the instruction is belligerence. If the can persuade a court or jury of their position, then indeed, we are slaves upon entering an airport.

"You've done nothing wrong, you aren't breaking any rule. You are causing no disturbance. You are interfering with nothing. But, get off the plane, please, because we need to have an employee sit here..."

"No."

"You're interfering with a cabin crew, and being belligerent."

It's not much different than minding your own business while walking down the street and a cop says "hey, I want you to walk on the other side of the street, even though there is no legal reason other than my command for you to do so."

"umm...how about, no?"

"You're causing a disturbance and interfering with a police officer! You're under arrest!"

[Brian Peacock]

Does the Captain have authority to marry couples in international airspace?

[Forty Two]

Does the Captain have authority to marry couples in international airspace?

Not by virtue of being a captain, no. It's only legal if the jurisdiction in which the parties to the wedding are domiciled allows it, and the officiant, captain or not, must be a person who can lawfully perform marriages according to that jurisdiction.

[Forty Two]

United tosses a bride and groom off a flight to Costa Rica -- http://www.khou.com/news/local/bride-an ... /431644313 United says the bride and groom "repeatedly" tried to sit 3 rows up from their designated seat, attempting to "repeatedly" take over an "upgrade" premium seat. The bride and groom said they boarded last and saw a man sleeping in the row they were supposed to sit in. The flight, they say, had plenty of seats open and they were the last passengers allowed to board before the gate closed. So, rather than wake the guy, they say they sat in row 21 instead of row 24. The flight attendant confronted them about it and when they were told it was an upgrade seat, they asked for an upgrade, which was denied. They then moved back to their assigned seat. Shortly thereafter, a US Marshall appeared and told them to leave the plane, and they were accused by United of repeated trying to take seats which were not their own, and disobeying the instructions of the flight crew to take their assigned seats. The bride and groom left without incident.

Now, obviously, there is a difference here between United's version of events and these folks. Only, United's version does not ring true, to me. It was 3 rows up, not an attempt to grab first class seats. And, these silly "premium"or "upgrade" rows in economy class include things like "exit rows" and that row without seats in front of it, usually across from the crew's jump seat. So, these seats are not like "awesome" seats or anything, and they are barely better than regular seats. Why would the bride and groom fight hard to get them?

Also, the word "repeatedly" doesn't ring true. Did the bride and groom go back to their seats and then try to sneak back up to those seats? I doubt it - if they did, that detail would have been included by United. What I think "repeatedly" refers to is would be 1) they sit in the seats, and (2) when asked to leave the seats, they had a back-and-forth with the flight attendant trying to convince her or him to let them stay. That's the repeat - at least that's what I bet it was.

I would love to see some proof about how this went down - like a witness or video. I bet United is full of it.

[laklak]

New book coming out by Oscar Munoz- "How to Lose a Billion in Market Capitalization Without Really Trying".

[Brian Peacock]

Two Easyjet passengers were removed from an overbooked flight and not offered compensation a day after a United Airlines passenger was dragged off a plane in the US.

The British couple were due to fly from Luton Airport to Catania in Sicily on Monday last week. After boarding the aircraft they were asked to leave by staff because the plane had been overbooked. Easyjet has apologised and blamed human error for the situation.

The two passengers, who had booked non-refundable accommodation in Italy, were told that the next available Easyjet flight was four days later. The airline failed to tell them they were entitled to a flight the same day with another airline, or to compensation as stipulated under EU rules. ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-39620088