I have presented the link to the United Airlines Conditions of Carriage, the contract between the airline and the paying passenger. Again, I will ask you to show me where United has done anything other than what is clearly spelled out in the contract. I have no idea what "previous policy" you are referring to, but only the current CoC between the airline and the passenger is relevant, because contracts can and do change.Greg wrote:I agree completely. That's what that power is *for*, descended from maritime traditions that existed for exactly the same reason. Thank you for being so concise.
NOW, tell me how throwing someone off a plane, for purely airline internal administrative reasons, directly in contradiction to previous airline policy and arguably in contradiction to the relevant contract, is related to the safety of the passengers and crew?
Passengers are taken off all the time for a variety of reasons. The fact that United had piss-poor planning doesn't make this case special. It certainly should influence potential customer's willingness to do business with United Airlines, but yes, they are in business to make money, and it was cost effective to remove revenue passengers to reposition a flight crew. As a business that owns the aircraft, and is providing a service, they DO have the right to tell you to get off their aircraft, just like any other business entity.
I'm glad you seem to have caught on. Because you know what is dangerous? Calling the bully boys to drag an innocent paying passenger off a plane - they had to make everyone deplane to clean up the bloodstains after - to resolve your personnel scheduling issue. As came up in the Eric Garner case, it's always worth remembering that *any* application of force, even just a little to secure compliance, can be fatal.
So airline guys, are you prepared to kill your customers because you have a scheduling problem?
First of all Greg, don't put words in my mouth. I did no such thing. I don't know why you seem so bent out of shape at me personally about this.He first presented that power as unqualified, by implication absolute. Which is absolute bullshit.
Go back and read my first post in this topic. I think I made it VERY clear that I felt the use of force by the Chicago PD was excessive and unwarranted based on the limited facts as we know them right now.
You're mixing apples and oranges here. It wasn't the flight crew that chose to remove the passenger, it was the gate agent in charge of the boarding of the aircraft. That agent was undoubtedly acting on orders from the station operations office that made the decision to take a departure delay in order to get the deadheading crew onboard.So I presented a very simple ad absurdum demonstrating said power is clearly not absolute.
Recalibrate, be more specific.
He did, and shot himself. Because even he admits that the powers of the flight crew are for a specific purpose, which does not apply here.
The problem here is that the passenger neither understood the CoC, nor complied with a lawful request from the business to vacate the aircraft, a situation that we would have been COMPENSATED for under the CoC. There's another word for that breach of contract, and it's called trespassing.
What happens when someone is on your private or commercial property, you decide they need to leave, and they refuse? You call the police and let them inform the individual they are required by law to leave. That is exactly what United Airlines did. After that, it was up to the CPD, whom I'm not even remotely going to defend because I think *THEY* were in the wrong here in their use of force.
Ok then. Go get your private pilot certificate, instrument rating, commercial certificate, multi-engine rating, flight instructor rating with instrument and multi-engine privileges, Airline Transport Pilot certificate, and a type rating in a transport category aircraft, then we'll talk.It's a fancy bus and tricky to operate, but no it's perfectly accurate.
Again, I don't know why you see the need to lump me in this group, but whatever.And I said it for a reason, to puncture the big head God complex that seems to take the form of 'you must obey my every command no matter what' that certain parties seem to suffer from.