On 4/12/2017 11:41 AM, dadiOH wrote:
"Taxed and Spent" wrote in message
news
It seems that the folks here and the
public in general feel he was abused by the airlines and that their
method of enforcing the bumping of passengers was wrong.

Who cares that a supposed majority thinks? What is the LAW?

The law prohibits taking by force something belonging to another, government
excepted. He had bought and paid for the use of his seat.





The police used the force.

And the law explicitly permits the use of reasonable force, including my
YOU, to recover property oned by you or to remove a trespasser.

"trader_4" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 4:02:23 PM UTC-4, wrote:

Offer to put them up at a classt hotel and give them tickets to a
baseball game or something, and a guaranteed morning flight, and
they'd have to fight off the volunteers.

They basically did that, offering $800 and got no takers.

Offer more. They could have gone to at least five figures and gotten off
cheaper than they will now. It is a tort lawyer's wet dream.

On 4/12/2017 11:55 AM, dadiOH wrote:
"trader_4" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 4:02:23 PM UTC-4, wrote:

Offer to put them up at a classt hotel and give them tickets to a
baseball game or something, and a guaranteed morning flight, and
they'd have to fight off the volunteers.

They basically did that, offering $800 and got no takers.

Offer more. They could have gone to at least five figures and gotten off
cheaper than they will now. It is a tort lawyer's wet dream.




If I were United, I would counterclaim for the resulting damage to United.

On 4/12/2017 2:50 PM, Taxed and Spent wrote:
On 4/12/2017 11:41 AM, dadiOH wrote:
"Taxed and Spent" wrote in message
news
It seems that the folks here and the
public in general feel he was abused by the airlines and that their
method of enforcing the bumping of passengers was wrong.

Who cares that a supposed majority thinks? What is the LAW?

The law prohibits taking by force something belonging to another,
government
excepted. He had bought and paid for the use of his seat.





The police used the force.

And the law explicitly permits the use of reasonable force, including my
YOU, to recover property oned by you or to remove a trespasser.

It's been stated the law was wrong. They completely let it get out of hand.

On 4/12/2017 12:58 PM, Kurt V. Ullman wrote:
On 4/12/17 12:49 PM, Oren wrote:
On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 09:26:11 -0700, Taxed and Spent
wrote:

He would have never disregarded authority if the airline never demanded
he be removed for their error. I stated to you below, the authority was
wrong and heads are gonna roll for their unjustified acts on him. Being
a drama queen isn't breaking the law.


trespassing is, dram queen or no.

He wasn't trespassing. He paid to occupy the seat for a period of
time.

The airline revoked the license to use that seat and that makes it
trespassing. Now whether or not they should have is the other part of
the discussion.

That's where it's wrong. Why should they have the power to revoke that
"paid" seat outside the area of purchasers residence, especially without
knowing the circumstance behind his travels or requirement to arrive home.

On 4/12/2017 12:10 PM, Meanie wrote:
On 4/12/2017 2:50 PM, Taxed and Spent wrote:
On 4/12/2017 11:41 AM, dadiOH wrote:
"Taxed and Spent" wrote in message
news
It seems that the folks here and the
public in general feel he was abused by the airlines and that their
method of enforcing the bumping of passengers was wrong.

Who cares that a supposed majority thinks? What is the LAW?

The law prohibits taking by force something belonging to another,
government
excepted. He had bought and paid for the use of his seat.





The police used the force.

And the law explicitly permits the use of reasonable force, including my
YOU, to recover property oned by you or to remove a trespasser.

It's been stated the law was wrong. They completely let it get out of hand.



"the law was wrong"?

On 4/12/2017 1:01 PM, Kurt V. Ullman wrote:
On 4/12/17 12:10 PM, Meanie wrote:

Though I will agree that fighting/resisting police will never win.
Fortunately, it's already been stated the authority did the wrong thing
and heads will roll in that department. They had no right to drag him as
he didn't break any laws.

He refused a lawful order of the flight crew. That is a violation of a
couple federal laws.

Cite.

On 4/12/2017 12:14 PM, Meanie wrote:
On 4/12/2017 12:58 PM, Kurt V. Ullman wrote:
On 4/12/17 12:49 PM, Oren wrote:
On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 09:26:11 -0700, Taxed and Spent
wrote:

He would have never disregarded authority if the airline never demanded
he be removed for their error. I stated to you below, the authority was
wrong and heads are gonna roll for their unjustified acts on him. Being
a drama queen isn't breaking the law.


trespassing is, dram queen or no.

He wasn't trespassing. He paid to occupy the seat for a period of
time.

The airline revoked the license to use that seat and that makes it
trespassing. Now whether or not they should have is the other part of
the discussion.

That's where it's wrong. Why should they have the power to revoke that
"paid" seat outside the area of purchasers residence, especially without
knowing the circumstance behind his travels or requirement to arrive home.


because that is what the contract says! Why is that so difficult?

On 4/12/2017 12:04 PM, Taxed and Spent wrote:
On 4/12/2017 8:45 AM, Meanie wrote:
On 4/12/2017 11:13 AM, trader_4 wrote:



Nobody volunteered...tuff
**** for airlines. Put your four extra people in cargo.

The tough **** would be for the hundred passengers in Louisville, KY
that did not have a flight crew, so they had no flight.


It's just over a 1 hour flight, they can stand. I'd volunteer to allow
the hot flight attendant to sit on my lap if it makes them happy but not
to leave if I didn't want to. Again, their mistake



any airplane I've ever flown has indicated they could not push off
unless everyone was in their seat, seat belt fastened. I guess this is
optional, eh?

So now, when they want the rules followed, everyone must obey, but it's
acceptable for them to break the rules. Typical corporate mentality.

That policy is to protect their own asses from a lawsuit due to any
passenger whining about a sprained ankle if they trip and fall
encountering turbulence during takeoff or landing. The attendants are
up and walking during the entire flight even during turbulence midair
and when the seatbelt sign is on.

On 4/12/2017 12:15 PM, Meanie wrote:
On 4/12/2017 1:01 PM, Kurt V. Ullman wrote:
On 4/12/17 12:10 PM, Meanie wrote:

Though I will agree that fighting/resisting police will never win.
Fortunately, it's already been stated the authority did the wrong thing
and heads will roll in that department. They had no right to drag him as
he didn't break any laws.

He refused a lawful order of the flight crew. That is a violation of a
couple federal laws.

Cite.


look it up.

On 4/12/2017 11:39 AM, Taxed and Spent wrote:
On 4/12/2017 8:36 AM, Meanie wrote:
On 4/12/2017 11:03 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 4:34:53 PM UTC-4, Meanie wrote:
On 4/11/2017 12:35 AM, Taxed and Spent wrote:
On 4/10/2017 9:23 PM, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 21:15:07 -0700, Taxed and Spent
wrote:

If it was overbooked, there should have been four people standing up
looking for a seat. Musical Chairs rules should apply.

Airlines overbook every day. It ****es people off.



People don't show up for flights, so airlines overbook. They play the
statistics game and sometimes there are loosers. Just like in Musical
Chairs.

Irrelevant. It's a game played by the airlines, not the customers. The
"losers" should ALWAYS be the airlines. They assume the risk, they
should suffer the consequences when they lose that risk.

It's not just the airlines. Passengers are very much involved in this
too. Are you willing to pay the increased fares that would result if
airlines did not overbook based on statistics and instead had planes
leaving with empty seats?


You mean we're not paying high fares already?

I don't buy into the corporate lies of their reasoning for low or high
costs. Rules and procedures can be applied to ensure filled seats and no
overbooking. They play that game because they can win. It's all about
the money.


Sounds like you should go to work for an airline. You seem to know it
all about their business.

Two relatives working for the big airlines know much.

On 4/12/2017 12:20 PM, Meanie wrote:
On 4/12/2017 12:04 PM, Taxed and Spent wrote:
On 4/12/2017 8:45 AM, Meanie wrote:
On 4/12/2017 11:13 AM, trader_4 wrote:



Nobody volunteered...tuff
**** for airlines. Put your four extra people in cargo.

The tough **** would be for the hundred passengers in Louisville, KY
that did not have a flight crew, so they had no flight.


It's just over a 1 hour flight, they can stand. I'd volunteer to allow
the hot flight attendant to sit on my lap if it makes them happy but not
to leave if I didn't want to. Again, their mistake



any airplane I've ever flown has indicated they could not push off
unless everyone was in their seat, seat belt fastened. I guess this is
optional, eh?

So now, when they want the rules followed, everyone must obey, but it's
acceptable for them to break the rules. Typical corporate mentality.


you are making up your own set of rules.


That policy is to protect their own asses from a lawsuit due to any
passenger whining about a sprained ankle if they trip and fall
encountering turbulence during takeoff or landing. The attendants are
up and walking during the entire flight even during turbulence midair
and when the seatbelt sign is on.


are you for real? Sound like a troll now. NOBODY stand or walks
during take off and landing, or during real turbulence.

You don't think an employee would sue?

On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 11:47:40 +0100, Cindy Hamilton wrote:

On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 7:42:28 PM UTC-4, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 00:16:01 +0100, Unquestionably Confused wrote:

On 4/11/2017 5:32 PM, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Tue, 11 Apr 2017 23:26:59 +0100, Taxed and Spent
wrote:

On 4/11/2017 3:18 PM, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Tue, 11 Apr 2017 02:50:30 +0100, Ed Pawlowski wrote:


[snip]

Why couldn't the employee just stand?

FAA regulations, for one.

It's an employee not a customer.

Anyway you can stand on a bus, and planes are safer than buses.

Or.... get two smaller people to share a seat. Someone sit on
somebody's lap. Jesus Christ can't people think outside the box anymore?

When was the last time you saw a member of the flight crew standing
during a take off or landing?

I've never been on a plane where the airline was so incompetant they sold more tickets than seats. Can't they add up?

Actually, the can. They want every seat filled. If they sold exactly
the same number of tickets as seats, when someone cancels at the last
minute or fails to show up, they'd have an empty seat.

No, why do you think there are cheap tickets available due to cancellations?

To prevent that,
they sell more tickets than seats, knowing that some will cancel, and
generally enough people will be willing to postpone their flight (for
considerations) that it all works out reasonably satisfactorily for
everyone. They have sophisticated algorithms for deciding how much
to overbook a given flight.

You can't predict how many will cancel. Sometimes it will be zero, in which case you have too many people on the plane. That is totally unacceptable.

Does it make sense from their point of view? Absolutely. Is it
sharp practice? No doubt.

--
Sexy Sharon's sister saw saucy Sally swiftly suck seventy six soldiers sons.

On 4/12/2017 3:06 PM, Taxed and Spent wrote:


Offer more. They could have gone to at least five figures and gotten off
cheaper than they will now. It is a tort lawyer's wet dream.




If I were United, I would counterclaim for the resulting damage to United.

And if they won everything he owns and earns for the rest of his life
they will still have more legal expenses than collected.

On 4/12/2017 12:46 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 4/12/2017 3:06 PM, Taxed and Spent wrote:


Offer more. They could have gone to at least five figures and gotten off
cheaper than they will now. It is a tort lawyer's wet dream.




If I were United, I would counterclaim for the resulting damage to United.

And if they won everything he owns and earns for the rest of his life
they will still have more legal expenses than collected.



That is not the point.

On 4/12/2017 3:14 PM, Meanie wrote:

The airline revoked the license to use that seat and that makes it
trespassing. Now whether or not they should have is the other part of
the discussion.

That's where it's wrong. Why should they have the power to revoke that
"paid" seat outside the area of purchasers residence, especially without
knowing the circumstance behind his travels or requirement to arrive home.

They own the airplane, they make the rules.

On 4/12/2017 3:15 PM, Meanie wrote:
On 4/12/2017 1:01 PM, Kurt V. Ullman wrote:
On 4/12/17 12:10 PM, Meanie wrote:

Though I will agree that fighting/resisting police will never win.
Fortunately, it's already been stated the authority did the wrong thing
and heads will roll in that department. They had no right to drag him as
he didn't break any laws.

He refused a lawful order of the flight crew. That is a violation of a
couple federal laws.

Cite.

Seems vague at best. Newton's Law always applies.

The pilot is in command of the airplance and its safe operation

Beyond that, not much from what I found
http://www.kreindler.com/Publication...e-06162011.pdf
Airline crewmembers are responsible for safety and order in the
passenger cabin and necessarily undertake law enforcement
responsibilities when planes are in flight. Yet no federal statute
clearly defines the police authority of airlines over their passengers.
A 1963
treaty, the Tokyo Convention,
1
does establish rules applicable to international flights. It took
nearly 50 years, but the first U.S. case
interpreting the treaty, Eid v. Alaska Airlines Inc.,
2
was decided last year in a 2-1 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit.
The Supreme Court recently denied certiorari in Eid, despite amicus
briefs filed by the United States and various carrier and pilot
organizations urging the Court to overturn the decision. Eid ruled that
under the treaty, airlines are held to a standard of reasonableness
rather than a more deferential and higher benchmark that would establish
liability only where the airline's conduct was "arbitrary and
capricious."

On 4/12/2017 3:10 PM, Meanie wrote:
On 4/12/2017 2:50 PM, Taxed and Spent wrote:
On 4/12/2017 11:41 AM, dadiOH wrote:
"Taxed and Spent" wrote in message
news
It seems that the folks here and the
public in general feel he was abused by the airlines and that their
method of enforcing the bumping of passengers was wrong.

Who cares that a supposed majority thinks? What is the LAW?

The law prohibits taking by force something belonging to another,
government
excepted. He had bought and paid for the use of his seat.





The police used the force.

And the law explicitly permits the use of reasonable force, including my
YOU, to recover property oned by you or to remove a trespasser.

It's been stated the law was wrong. They completely let it get out of hand.

Yes, this is not a question of law. If the guy was an obnoxious drunk,
perception would be different. In this case, it was a guy not wanting
to give up a seat on an overbooked flight. When you drag him down the
aisle by his arms, you lose. In this case, big time. Nothing to do
with law but everything to do with bad perception.

On 4/12/17 3:06 PM, Taxed and Spent wrote:
On 4/12/2017 11:55 AM, dadiOH wrote:
"trader_4" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 4:02:23 PM UTC-4,
wrote:

Offer to put them up at a classt hotel and give them tickets to a
baseball game or something, and a guaranteed morning flight, and
they'd have to fight off the volunteers.

They basically did that, offering $800 and got no takers.

Offer more. They could have gone to at least five figures and gotten off
cheaper than they will now. It is a tort lawyer's wet dream.




If I were United, I would counterclaim for the resulting damage to United.

Yeah that is a good PR move.

On 4/12/17 3:15 PM, Meanie wrote:
On 4/12/2017 1:01 PM, Kurt V. Ullman wrote:
On 4/12/17 12:10 PM, Meanie wrote:

Though I will agree that fighting/resisting police will never win.
Fortunately, it's already been stated the authority did the wrong thing
and heads will roll in that department. They had no right to drag him as
he didn't break any laws.

He refused a lawful order of the flight crew. That is a violation of a
couple federal laws.

Cite.
An individual on an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the
United States who, by assaulting or intimidating a flight crew member or
flight attendant of the aircraft, interferes with the performance of the
duties of the member or attendant or lessens the ability of the member
or attendant to perform those duties, or attempts or conspires to do
such an act, shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than
20 years, or both. However, if a dangerous weapon is used in assaulting
or intimidating the member or attendant, the individual shall be
imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
(Pub. L. 103€“272, §€¯1(e), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 1244; Pub. L. 107€“56,
title VIII, §€¯811(i), Oct. 26, 2001, 115 Stat. 382.)
49 U.S. Code § 46504 - Interference with flight crew members and attendants

Rather interesting outline at
http://www.iata.org/whatwedo/safety/...st-Edition.pdf

On 4/12/2017 3:20 PM, Taxed and Spent wrote:
On 4/12/2017 12:15 PM, Meanie wrote:
On 4/12/2017 1:01 PM, Kurt V. Ullman wrote:
On 4/12/17 12:10 PM, Meanie wrote:

Though I will agree that fighting/resisting police will never win.
Fortunately, it's already been stated the authority did the wrong thing
and heads will roll in that department. They had no right to drag
him as
he didn't break any laws.

He refused a lawful order of the flight crew. That is a violation of a
couple federal laws.

Cite.


look it up.

Typical

On 4/12/2017 4:10 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 4/12/2017 3:15 PM, Meanie wrote:
On 4/12/2017 1:01 PM, Kurt V. Ullman wrote:
On 4/12/17 12:10 PM, Meanie wrote:

Though I will agree that fighting/resisting police will never win.
Fortunately, it's already been stated the authority did the wrong thing
and heads will roll in that department. They had no right to drag
him as
he didn't break any laws.

He refused a lawful order of the flight crew. That is a violation of a
couple federal laws.

Cite.

Seems vague at best. Newton's Law always applies.

The pilot is in command of the airplance and its safe operation

Beyond that, not much from what I found
http://www.kreindler.com/Publication...e-06162011.pdf
Airline crewmembers are responsible for safety and order in the
passenger cabin and necessarily undertake law enforcement
responsibilities when planes are in flight. Yet no federal statute
clearly defines the police authority of airlines over their passengers.
A 1963
treaty, the Tokyo Convention,
1
does establish rules applicable to international flights. It took
nearly 50 years, but the first U.S. case
interpreting the treaty, Eid v. Alaska Airlines Inc.,
2
was decided last year in a 2-1 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit.
The Supreme Court recently denied certiorari in Eid, despite amicus
briefs filed by the United States and various carrier and pilot
organizations urging the Court to overturn the decision. Eid ruled that
under the treaty, airlines are held to a standard of reasonableness
rather than a more deferential and higher benchmark that would establish
liability only where the airline's conduct was "arbitrary and
capricious."


Thank you

On 4/12/2017 5:17 PM, Kurt V. Ullman wrote:
On 4/12/17 3:15 PM, Meanie wrote:
On 4/12/2017 1:01 PM, Kurt V. Ullman wrote:
On 4/12/17 12:10 PM, Meanie wrote:

Though I will agree that fighting/resisting police will never win.
Fortunately, it's already been stated the authority did the wrong thing
and heads will roll in that department. They had no right to drag
him as
he didn't break any laws.

He refused a lawful order of the flight crew. That is a violation of a
couple federal laws.

Cite.
An individual on an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the
United States who, by assaulting or intimidating a flight crew member or
flight attendant of the aircraft, interferes with the performance of the
duties of the member or attendant or lessens the ability of the member
or attendant to perform those duties, or attempts or conspires to do
such an act, shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than
20 years, or both. However, if a dangerous weapon is used in assaulting
or intimidating the member or attendant, the individual shall be
imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
(Pub. L. 103€“272, §€¯1(e), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 1244; Pub. L. 107€“56,
title VIII, §€¯811(i), Oct. 26, 2001, 115 Stat. 382.)
49 U.S. Code § 46504 - Interference with flight crew members and attendants

Rather interesting outline at
http://www.iata.org/whatwedo/safety/...st-Edition.pdf


That wasn't the case here. He did not interfere, but merely refused a
seat he paid to have.

On 4/12/2017 2:45 PM, Meanie wrote:
On 4/12/2017 4:10 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 4/12/2017 3:15 PM, Meanie wrote:
On 4/12/2017 1:01 PM, Kurt V. Ullman wrote:
On 4/12/17 12:10 PM, Meanie wrote:

Though I will agree that fighting/resisting police will never win.
Fortunately, it's already been stated the authority did the wrong thing
and heads will roll in that department. They had no right to drag
him as
he didn't break any laws.

He refused a lawful order of the flight crew. That is a violation of a
couple federal laws.

Cite.

Seems vague at best. Newton's Law always applies.

The pilot is in command of the airplance and its safe operation

Beyond that, not much from what I found
http://www.kreindler.com/Publication...e-06162011.pdf
Airline crewmembers are responsible for safety and order in the
passenger cabin and necessarily undertake law enforcement
responsibilities when planes are in flight. Yet no federal statute
clearly defines the police authority of airlines over their passengers.
A 1963
treaty, the Tokyo Convention,
1
does establish rules applicable to international flights. It took
nearly 50 years, but the first U.S. case
interpreting the treaty, Eid v. Alaska Airlines Inc.,
2
was decided last year in a 2-1 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit.
The Supreme Court recently denied certiorari in Eid, despite amicus
briefs filed by the United States and various carrier and pilot
organizations urging the Court to overturn the decision. Eid ruled that
under the treaty, airlines are held to a standard of reasonableness
rather than a more deferential and higher benchmark that would establish
liability only where the airline's conduct was "arbitrary and
capricious."


Thank you


Typical.

"Taxed and Spent" wrote in message
news
On 4/12/2017 11:55 AM, dadiOH wrote:
"trader_4" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 4:02:23 PM UTC-4,
wrote:

Offer to put them up at a classt hotel and give them tickets to a
baseball game or something, and a guaranteed morning flight, and
they'd have to fight off the volunteers.

They basically did that, offering $800 and got no takers.

Offer more. They could have gone to at least five figures and gotten off
cheaper than they will now. It is a tort lawyer's wet dream.




If I were United, I would counterclaim for the resulting damage to United.

Giggle...

On 4/12/2017 2:46 PM, Meanie wrote:
On 4/12/2017 5:17 PM, Kurt V. Ullman wrote:
On 4/12/17 3:15 PM, Meanie wrote:
On 4/12/2017 1:01 PM, Kurt V. Ullman wrote:
On 4/12/17 12:10 PM, Meanie wrote:

Though I will agree that fighting/resisting police will never win.
Fortunately, it's already been stated the authority did the wrong thing
and heads will roll in that department. They had no right to drag
him as
he didn't break any laws.

He refused a lawful order of the flight crew. That is a violation of a
couple federal laws.

Cite.
An individual on an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the
United States who, by assaulting or intimidating a flight crew member or
flight attendant of the aircraft, interferes with the performance of the
duties of the member or attendant or lessens the ability of the member
or attendant to perform those duties, or attempts or conspires to do
such an act, shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than
20 years, or both. However, if a dangerous weapon is used in assaulting
or intimidating the member or attendant, the individual shall be
imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
(Pub. L. 103€“272, §€¯1(e), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 1244; Pub. L. 107€“56,
title VIII, §€¯811(i), Oct. 26, 2001, 115 Stat. 382.)
49 U.S. Code § 46504 - Interference with flight crew members and attendants

Rather interesting outline at
http://www.iata.org/whatwedo/safety/...st-Edition.pdf


That wasn't the case here. He did not interfere, but merely refused a
seat he paid to have.



Not following orders is interference.

On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 17:17:51 -0400, "Kurt V. Ullman" wrote:

On 4/12/17 3:15 PM, Meanie wrote:
On 4/12/2017 1:01 PM, Kurt V. Ullman wrote:
On 4/12/17 12:10 PM, Meanie wrote:

Though I will agree that fighting/resisting police will never win.
Fortunately, it's already been stated the authority did the wrong thing
and heads will roll in that department. They had no right to drag him as
he didn't break any laws.

He refused a lawful order of the flight crew. That is a violation of a
couple federal laws.

Cite.
An individual on an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the
United States who, by assaulting or intimidating a flight crew member or
flight attendant of the aircraft, interferes with the performance of the
duties of the member or attendant or lessens the ability of the member
or attendant to perform those duties, or attempts or conspires to do
such an act, shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than
20 years, or both. However, if a dangerous weapon is used in assaulting
or intimidating the member or attendant, the individual shall be
imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
(Pub. L. 103–272, §?1(e), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 1244; Pub. L. 107–56,
title VIII, §?811(i), Oct. 26, 2001, 115 Stat. 382.)
49 U.S. Code § 46504 - Interference with flight crew members and attendants

Rather interesting outline at
http://www.iata.org/whatwedo/safety/...st-Edition.pdf

Link doesn't work.

On 2017-04-12, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

They own the airplane, they make the rules.

That pretty much sums it up!

I was booted off military stand-by status in one of the Carolina's way
back in 1966. So was everyone else, as it was bad weather that halted
the flight. Still, the airline put everyone --except me!-- on a
special chartered airport shuttle, which took everyone to their final
destination of Charleston, SC. Since I was military stand-by, I got
zero refund and I hadda pay my own way to Charleston on a Trailways
bus. Sure, I was upset. I was also very young, very stupid, and on
my own for the very first time. What did I know? Certainly not
enough to alert the media.


So, none of this is new. Overbooking may be common for many airlines,
but they should clear up any overbooking snafus BEFORE anyone even
gets on the aircraft. The four employees? They shoulda been fired!

BUT, --as you sed-- their plane, their game.

nb

On 4/12/2017 3:12 PM, Gordon Shumway wrote:
On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 17:17:51 -0400, "Kurt V. Ullman" wrote:

On 4/12/17 3:15 PM, Meanie wrote:
On 4/12/2017 1:01 PM, Kurt V. Ullman wrote:
On 4/12/17 12:10 PM, Meanie wrote:

Though I will agree that fighting/resisting police will never win.
Fortunately, it's already been stated the authority did the wrong thing
and heads will roll in that department. They had no right to drag him as
he didn't break any laws.

He refused a lawful order of the flight crew. That is a violation of a
couple federal laws.

Cite.
An individual on an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the
United States who, by assaulting or intimidating a flight crew member or
flight attendant of the aircraft, interferes with the performance of the
duties of the member or attendant or lessens the ability of the member
or attendant to perform those duties, or attempts or conspires to do
such an act, shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than
20 years, or both. However, if a dangerous weapon is used in assaulting
or intimidating the member or attendant, the individual shall be
imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
(Pub. L. 103–272, §?1(e), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 1244; Pub. L. 107–56,
title VIII, §?811(i), Oct. 26, 2001, 115 Stat. 382.)
49 U.S. Code § 46504 - Interference with flight crew members and attendants

Rather interesting outline at
http://www.iata.org/whatwedo/safety/...st-Edition.pdf

Link doesn't work.



Works for me. Interesting. I am glad I don't work with the idjit public.

On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 20:09:22 GMT, "Tekkie®"
wrote:


They were some kind of transportation police, not very well trained. The guy
should sue because they didn't follow the passenger notification rules so
bzzt you lose. They could have offered more money and someone would have
bit. Now they will pay millions. They could have transported the employees
by ground as the destination is only four hours away. As usual the airline
administration is rudderless.

Somebody tell me there isn't a Limo and a Lear in Chicago. Price is
cheaper than the market loss UAL is taking in the short term.

On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 16:10:01 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

only where the airline's conduct was "arbitrary and
capricious."

Calling the cops and dragging a man, like what happened is arbitrary
and capricious. Just sayin'. :-)

On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 21:00:12 GMT, "Tekkie®"
wrote:


On 12-Apr-2017, Oren wrote:

On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 12:10:31 -0400, Meanie wrote:

Though I will agree that fighting/resisting police will never win.
Fortunately, it's already been stated the authority did the wrong thing
and heads will roll in that department. They had no right to drag him as
he didn't break any laws.

"United Airlines (UAL) will no longer use law enforcement officers to
remove overbooked passengers from aircraft in the wake of a video that
showed a Chicago passenger dragged from one of its flights on Sunday.

"We're not going to put a law enforcement official... to remove a
booked, paid, seated passenger," United Continental Holdings Inc Chief
Executive Officer Oscar Munoz told ABC News on Wednesday morning. "We
can't do that."

Munoz said the problem resulted from a "system failure" that prevented
employees from using "common sense" in the situation and that Dr.
David Dao, whom security officers dragged by his hands, on his back,
from the cabin before takeoff, was not at fault."

http://www.foxbusiness.com/features/2017/04/12/ceo-says-united-will-not-use-police-to-remove-overbooked-passengers.html

(...and LEO should not be involved with "contract disputes". It's not
their job.)

Hmm imagine that. Every cop should be trained and uses conflict resolution
every day. I repeat the cops were not trained properly.

As I said before, the officer calculated his force wrong. You deal
with passive resistance (sitting on a sidewalk) to deadly when that
amount of force is called for. Meet force with force. Fight fire with
fire.

If a guy refuses to board a prisoner transport bus and jumps into the
compound lake, leave him alone. He will get tired, come to the bank,
get cuffed and put the damn bus anyway. I'm not jumping in the lake
with him. BTDT

On 4/11/2017 7:16 PM, Unquestionably Confused wrote:
On 4/11/2017 5:32 PM, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Tue, 11 Apr 2017 23:26:59 +0100, Taxed and Spent
wrote:

On 4/11/2017 3:18 PM, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Tue, 11 Apr 2017 02:50:30 +0100, Ed Pawlowski wrote:


[snip]

Why couldn't the employee just stand?

FAA regulations, for one.

It's an employee not a customer.

Anyway you can stand on a bus, and planes are safer than buses.

Or.... get two smaller people to share a seat. Someone sit on
somebody's lap. Jesus Christ can't people think outside the box anymore?

When was the last time you saw a member of the flight crew standing
during a take off or landing?




There are what they call jump seats for crew as temporary seats for
landing and taking off and maybe clear air turbulence. These must have
been full too.

On 4/12/2017 6:35 PM, Oren wrote:
On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 16:10:01 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

only where the airline's conduct was "arbitrary and
capricious."

Calling the cops and dragging a man, like what happened is arbitrary
and capricious. Just sayin'. :-)


Commercial aviation is a bit over a century old. This may go down as
the f-up of the century. Costliest too. They could have offered four
passengers $50,000 each and come out ahead.

On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 18:00:28 -0400, "dadiOH" wrote:

If I were United, I would counterclaim for the resulting damage to United.

Giggle...

Yep. The Felon has plenty of money left over after paying his legal
fees for a felony conviction defense.

If he has enough money, he can then counter sue UAL :-)

On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 15:35:38 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 16:10:01 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

only where the airline's conduct was "arbitrary and
capricious."

Calling the cops and dragging a man, like what happened is arbitrary
and capricious. Just sayin'. :-)



Sean Spicer chirped in today about it , saying :

" Even the worst of South America's crime henchmen
wouldn't throw someone from a plane. "

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20....gilestremlett

John T.

On 4/12/17 6:12 PM, Gordon Shumway wrote:
On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 17:17:51 -0400, "Kurt V. Ullman" wrote:

On 4/12/17 3:15 PM, Meanie wrote:
On 4/12/2017 1:01 PM, Kurt V. Ullman wrote:
On 4/12/17 12:10 PM, Meanie wrote:

Though I will agree that fighting/resisting police will never win.
Fortunately, it's already been stated the authority did the wrong thing
and heads will roll in that department. They had no right to drag him as
he didn't break any laws.

He refused a lawful order of the flight crew. That is a violation of a
couple federal laws.

Cite.
An individual on an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the
United States who, by assaulting or intimidating a flight crew member or
flight attendant of the aircraft, interferes with the performance of the
duties of the member or attendant or lessens the ability of the member
or attendant to perform those duties, or attempts or conspires to do
such an act, shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than
20 years, or both. However, if a dangerous weapon is used in assaulting
or intimidating the member or attendant, the individual shall be
imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
(Pub. L. 103–272, §?1(e), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 1244; Pub. L. 107–56,
title VIII, §?811(i), Oct. 26, 2001, 115 Stat. 382.)
49 U.S. Code § 46504 - Interference with flight crew members and attendants

Rather interesting outline at
http://www.iata.org/whatwedo/safety/...st-Edition.pdf

Link doesn't work.

Did for me just now off of your reply. Interesting. Cut and paste the
URL work? Maybe Google GUIDANCE ON UNRULY PASSENGER PREVENTION AND
MANAGEMENT, International Air Transport Association and see if that does
any better.

On 4/12/2017 6:30 PM, Oren wrote:
On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 20:09:22 GMT, "Tekkie®"
wrote:


They were some kind of transportation police, not very well trained. The guy
should sue because they didn't follow the passenger notification rules so
bzzt you lose. They could have offered more money and someone would have
bit. Now they will pay millions. They could have transported the employees
by ground as the destination is only four hours away. As usual the airline
administration is rudderless.

Somebody tell me there isn't a Limo and a Lear in Chicago. Price is
cheaper than the market loss UAL is taking in the short term.


That was a Limbaugh comment today. Corporate mentality is not to follow
what is right to do but what is least expensive to do. A rental plane
would have only cost a few thousand, not much more than ticket prices
for several people.

United has learned a serious lesson about this as the incident is
costing them millions in losses. First was diving stock price.

They have promised never to bump a passenger again so they can save
money transporting an employee.

On 4/12/17 6:52 PM, Frank wrote:


There are what they call jump seats for crew as temporary seats for
landing and taking off and maybe clear air turbulence. These must have
been full too.
Generally the jump seats are filled by the regular crew. Don't know
about that particular jet, but many have a jump seat in the cockpit for
things like check rides by supervisory pilots, etc., If you got three
and needed four, I wonder if the cockpit seat was available and they
screwed up that much more.

On 4/12/2017 3:59 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 4/12/2017 6:35 PM, Oren wrote:
On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 16:10:01 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

only where the airline's conduct was "arbitrary and
capricious."

Calling the cops and dragging a man, like what happened is arbitrary
and capricious. Just sayin'. :-)


Commercial aviation is a bit over a century old. This may go down as
the f-up of the century. Costliest too. They could have offered four
passengers $50,000 each and come out ahead.


Of course, when word gets out, they will be faced with this all the
time. Bad idea.