United Airlines (1 Viewer)

[CraigT78]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...off-battered-and-limp/?utm_term=.9ff5ce73282d

Watch the video. I am in shock. How is this okay? I'm afraid if this was me, I would have been shot for resisting. I have no words.

 

[mummel]

Saw it on the news. What a fiasco. United is in huge sht with this one.

 

[mummel]

https://streamable.com/fy0y7

 

[bentax1978]

...and here I was cursing Delta all weekend.

 

[mummel]

They only offered him $800 vs $1300 and needed the seat for their own employees........ (needed at the destination to crew another flight).

 

[Psypher1000]

How is this okay?

Depends on what you mean by "this". If you're talking about them overbooking & making passengers disembark for another flight, that's permitted by the FAA. Typically there are folks that jump at the chance to take a different flight because it means they receive a reasonable flight credit towards another trip, but sometimes they have to select folks when they don't have enough volunteers. And when the gate/flight staff say to get off the plane, you don't really have a choice.

If you mean, "How is it okay that authorities bust him up while removing him from a flight?"...well, I'm not sure exactly how legal it is, but I strongly suspect said legality will be discussed in legal proceedings between him and the Chicago PD at some point in the future - probably in some form of civil proceeding rather than criminal.

 

[justsomedude]

Depends on what you mean by "this". If you're talking about them overbooking & making passengers disembark for another flight, that's permitted by the FAA. Typically there are folks that jump at the chance to take a different flight because it means they receive a reasonable flight credit towards another trip, but sometimes they have to select folks when they don't have enough volunteers. And when the gate/flight staff say to get off the plane, you don't really have a choice.

If you mean, "How is it okay that authorities bust him up while removing him from a flight?"...well, I'm not sure exactly how legal it is, but I strongly suspect said legality will be discussed in legal proceedings between him and the Chicago PD at some point in the future - probably in some form of civil proceeding rather than criminal.

Yes, it's within United's legal rights to do this, but how it was done... and so publicly... is not good.

Also, keep in mind that this was NOT just about an overbooked flight...United decided to remove 4 paying passengers to seat 4 crew members (who were not working that flight). You mean to tell me that they couldn't get those 4 employees to that destination ANY other way?

Here's my tweet from this morning that pretty much sums it up...

 

[mummel]

They removed 4 paying passengers to seat 4 crew members (not working that flight)

This is definitely fueling the outrage. What if this was your dad, your grandfather, your brother etc. You would be ready to take a flamethrower to that place.

 

[Psypher1000]

how it was done... and so publicly... is not good

I think it's fair to crucify them to boot paid customers for their own crew - permission aside, that's dreadful from a PR perspective. I won't begrudge them the "how" of it all, though, despite the bad optics. That's for Chicago PD to own along w/the person being removed (who had to realize he was ultimately going to lose that fight - if he doesn't resist, chances are he's not leaking blood).

 

[mummel]

Honestly, just keep raising the price to compensate people until someone gets off the flight.

Picture this, "Who wants to step off and catch the next flight and receive $1,300 for your time so that you can go out and buy yourself some nice Paulsons????"

Com'on. Now this incident will cost them millions. Hope they learn their lesson and change policy.

 

[justsomedude]

It just irritates me that United continues to try and spin this as an "overbooked flight" scenario. That is simply false and misleading. It sounds like they had a personnel crunch - needed to get folks to another location fairly quickly to service flights - realized the only option available to them at the time in Chicago was a completely full flight - so they proceeded to remove passengers to make room for their staff.

Where I come from we call that a "serious personnel scheduling f*ck up." Overbooked my ass.

 

[CraigT78]

I think it's fair to crucify them to boot paid customers for their own crew - permission aside, that's dreadful from a PR perspective. I won't begrudge them the "how" of it all, though, despite the bad optics. That's for Chicago PD to own along w/the person being removed (who had to realize he was ultimately going to lose that fight - if he doesn't resist, chances are he's not leaking blood).

Strangest thing happened this morning... I was at the local donut shop and the guy in front of me ordered the last glazed donut. He paid and was about to sit down to eat when an employee told him to stop. Apparently another employee really wanted that glazed and he was asked to return his donut. The man didn't want to because he was hungry. Police were called, the man was knocked unconscious, his donut removed, and his body dragged from the store so that the other employee could enjoy the glazed donut they'd sold to the now-unconscious man in peace.

Now imagine that donut was a seat on a United flight, but everything else was the exact same.

When you put into another perspective it's glaringly wrong. I know it was legal and all that, but still disgusting to me. If it were me, I would have resisted far more than he did. But he's a doctor and arguably a lot smarted than I am. Although the video would be better of them trying to drag my 300lbs of dead weight down that skinny little aisle.

 

[DJ Mack]

And when the gate/flight staff say to get off the plane, you don't really have a choice.

For all sorts of good reasons, it's a violation of federal law to refuse to follow crew member instructions. Since their contract of carriage gives them the right to bump people then as crappy as it is, their order for you to leave the plane is completely lawful, thus your failure to comply is unlawful.

If you mean, "How is it okay that authorities bust him up while removing him from a flight?"...well, I'm not sure exactly how legal it is, but I strongly suspect said legality will be discussed in legal proceedings between him and the Chicago PD at some point in the future - probably in some form of civil proceeding rather than criminal.

In the airline's defense, once they have a passenger refusing to follow a lawful order there's not much they can do other than refer it to law enforcement. That's when the big men with guns and badges get involved. Refusing to listen to them is heading down the road to getting shot. For me personally it's not worth the risk so I'll comply, even if I think I'm in the legal right. If I'm alive and intact I can complain and sue later. If I'm dead it won't do me much good.

Now to provide the LEO perspective here. First of all, yes it's Chicago and Chicago is known for its use of force issues. But having said that, there comes a point in any citizen/police encounter where it's time for action. It's clear you're not dealing with a medical situation or a disabled individual. You're dealing with a competent adult who will simply refuses to follow lawful orders. This individual is delaying and inconveniencing 150+ other people. You're in extremely close quarters with a crowd, and once you figure out how to get that guy out of a cramped airline seat you have to get him through that crowd which may have some sympathetic (to the arrestee), hostile folks in it.

At my agency the arrest policy states that in crowded situations arrests are to be decisive and the arrested individual is to be removed from the scene forthwith for the safety of the officers and the arrestee. If a grown man decides to act like a five year old and lay on the ground he's still leaving; it's just going to hurt a lot more than if he'd gotten up and walked out on his own 15 minutes ago or even 2 minutes ago. It's going to look like hell on video but realistically there's few options left at that point.

Now imagine that donut was a seat on a United flight, but everything else was the exact same.

Except that it's not the exact same. When you buy a donut, you buy a piece of property free and clear. When you book a flight you are signing a contract, and that contract includes provisions for involuntarily losing that seat under certain circumstances (which pretty much come down to management's discretion) in exchange for at minimum, pre-stipulated compensation. Shitty when it plays out this way but everybody involved agrees to it when the flight is booked.

 

[Psypher1000]

it's glaringly wrong

I say this all the time: "Have the right doesn't make it right." Clearly a poor decision on their part, and the ensuing result only makes it look worse.

 

[jbutler]

I think it's fair to crucify them to boot paid customers for their own crew - permission aside, that's dreadful from a PR perspective. I won't begrudge them the "how" of it all, though, despite the bad optics. That's for Chicago PD to own along w/the person being removed (who had to realize he was ultimately going to lose that fight - if he doesn't resist, chances are he's not leaking blood).

This is the kind of thinking that can justify any act so long as it is the result of the "rules".

Regardless of what bullshit was printed on the confirmation screen when the flight was booked, there was a person who had to make the final decision that calling law enforcement to forcibly remove a passenger was worth saving whatever the next jump would have been in the flight bump offer from United. And that person should be fired because he is clearly retarded.

 

[mummel]

When you book a flight you are signing a contract, and that contract includes provisions for involuntarily losing that seat under certain circumstances (which pretty much come down to management's discretion) in exchange for at minimum, pre-stipulated compensation

A civil contract that has a provision for non-compliance which includes being knocked out cold?

 

[rowlin]

I knew a United 1k member who said they'd kick little old ladies off the plane for him, but this appears to be a bit over the top. Talk about an employee benefit package...

 

[DJ Mack]

I say this all the time: "Have the right doesn't make it right." Clearly a poor decision on their part, and the ensuing result only makes it look worse.

You're spot on, lest anybody think my last post is a United supporter. After they way they handled CLE they can shrivel up and die for all I care. But I do think it's important to separate what United did from what law enforcement did.

Regardless of what bullshit was printed on the confirmation screen when the flight was booked, there was a person who had to make the final decision that calling law enforcement to forcibly remove a passenger was worth saving whatever the next jump would have been in the flight bump offer from United. And that person should be fired because he is clearly retarded.

A "retard" is a member of a protected class and cannot be fired on account of his or her disability. In fact, he or she must be reasonably accommodated.

Now, none of us were there, but I doubt that United called law enforcement to forcibly remove him from the flight. It did not go down like my favorite scene from Casino (feet off the table). They may have called to have him removed, but the decision to use force was made by the officers, not United, based on the person's actions.

One thing worth pointing out, people may say what the hell, he was just refusing to give up his seat, and yes that's true. However, in an emergency situation passengers are expected to comply with all crew member instructions, and the law requires that they do so. You've now got actual knowledge of a particular passenger who has no qualms deciding which crew member instructions he will follow and which he will disregard. For the safety of everybody else on that plane the airline can't ignore that.

A civil contract that has a provision for non-compliance which includes being knocked out cold?

Of course not, don't be ridiculous. The provision is you leave when told or you are trespassing, which is a criminal offense that will lead to law enforcement getting involved. Once the referral is made to law enforcement, United has no control over how it is carried out. And by the way, in the case of a passenger refusing to leave the plane, the airline has no option other than to call law enforcement because no, they're NOT allowed to knock passengers out cold.

Was it a shitty business decision on their part to bump people? Yeah I tend to think so, but at the end of the day when someone refuses to leave the plane the cops are going to get called, and it's going to go wherever it goes from there.

 

[Psypher1000]

This is the kind of thinking that can justify any act so long as it is the result of the "rules".

I *think* we're agreeing, but I'm not sure - I think United's decision to contact law enforcement in this situation is straight up stupid. I simply think it's odd that folks are coming after United because the man was busted up. Once the man with the badge says to get off the plane, you have to be intelligent enough to know you're now fighting a battle that you won't win in that moment.

 

[mummel]

passenger refusing to leave the plane, the airline has no option other than to call law enforcement

Who has jurisdiction over this? I keep reading this was the Chicago PD, but I thought "airport law" is federal (marshals on planes etc), or TSA?

 

[mummel]

United's contract of carriage. Im just reading through it briefly. I dont see any guidelines for forced removal?

https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriage.aspx

Rule 25 Denied Boarding Compensation

1. Denied Boarding (U.S.A./Canadian Flight Origin) - When there is an Oversold UA flight that originates in the U.S.A. or Canada, the following provisions apply:
   1. Request for Volunteers
      1. UA will request Passengers who are willing to relinquish their confirmed reserved space in exchange for compensation in an amount determined by UA (including but not limited to check or an electronic travel certificate). The travel certificate will be valid only for travel on UA or designated Codeshare partners for one year from the date of issue and will have no refund value. If a Passenger is asked to volunteer, UA will not later deny boarding to that Passenger involuntarily unless that Passenger was informed at the time he was asked to volunteer that there was a possibility of being denied boarding involuntarily and of the amount of compensation to which he/she would have been entitled in that event. The request for volunteers and the selection of such person to be denied space will be in a manner determined solely by UA.
   2. Boarding Priorities - If a flight is Oversold, no one may be denied boarding against his/her will until UA or other carrier personnel first ask for volunteers who will give up their reservations willingly in exchange for compensation as determined by UA. If there are not enough volunteers, other Passengers may be denied boarding involuntarily in accordance with UA’s boarding priority:
      1. Passengers who are Qualified Individuals with Disabilities, unaccompanied minors under the age of 18 years, or minors between the ages of 5 to 15 years who use the unaccompanied minor service, will be the last to be involuntarily denied boarding if it is determined by UA that such denial would constitute a hardship.
      2. The priority of all other confirmed passengers may be determined based on a passenger’s fare class, itinerary, status of frequent flyer program membership, and the time in which the passenger presents him/herself for check-in without advanced seat assignment.
   3. Transportation for Passengers Denied Boarding - When UA is unable to provide previously confirmed space due to an Oversold flight, UA will provide transportation to such Passengers who have been denied boarding whether voluntarily or involuntarily in accordance with the provisions below.
      1. UA will transport the Passenger on its own flight to the Destination without Stopover on its next flight on which space is available at no additional cost to the Passenger, regardless of class of service.
      2. If space is available on another Carrier’s flight regardless of class of service, such flights may be used upon United’s sole discretion and the Passenger’s request at no additional cost to the Passenger only if such flight provides an earlier arrival than the UA flight offered in 3) a) above.
   4. Compensation for Passengers Denied Boarding Involuntarily
      1. For passengers traveling in interstate transportation between points within the United States, subject to the EXCEPTIONS in section d) below, UA shall pay compensation to Passengers denied boarding involuntarily from an Oversold Flight at the rate of 200% of the fare to the Passenger’s first Stopover or, if none, Destination, with a maximum of 675 USD if UA offers Alternate Transportation that, at the time the arrangement is made, is planned to arrive at the Passenger’s Destination or first Stopover more than one hour but less than two hours after the planned arrival time of the Passenger’s original flight. If UA offers Alternate Transportation that, at the time the arrangement is made, is planned to arrive at the Passenger’s Destination or first Stopover more than two hours after the planned arrival time of the Passenger’s original flight, UA shall pay compensation to Passengers denied boarding involuntarily from an Oversold Flight at the rate of 400% of the fare to the Passenger’s first Stopover or, if none, Destination with a maximum of 1350 USD.
      2. For passengers traveling from the United States to a foreign point, subject to the EXCEPTIONS in section d) below, UA shall pay compensation to Passengers denied boarding involuntarily from an Oversold Flight originating at a U.S. airport at the rate of 200% of the fare to the Passenger’s first Stopover or, if none, Destination, with a maximum of 675 USD if UA offers Alternate Transportation that, at the time the arrangement is made, is planned to arrive at the Passenger’s Destination or first Stopover more than one hour but less than four hours after the planned arrival time of the Passenger’s original flight. If UA offers Alternate Transportation that, at the time the arrangement is made, is planned to arrive at the Passenger’s Destination or first Stopover more than four hours after the planned arrival time of the Passenger’s original flight, UA shall pay compensation to Passengers denied boarding involuntarily from an Oversold Flight at the rate of 400% of the fare to the Passenger’s first Stopover or, if none, Destination with a maximum of 1350 USD.
      3. For passengers traveling from Canada to a foreign point, subject to the EXCEPTIONS in section d) below, UA shall pay compensation to Passengers denied boarding involuntarily from an Oversold Flight originating at a Canadian airport with a maximum of 200 CAD if UA offers Alternate Transportation that, at the time the arrangement is made, is planned to arrive at the Passenger’s Destination or first Stopover more than one hour but less than four hours after the planned arrival time of the Passenger’s original flight. If UA offers Alternate Transportation that, at the time the arrangement is made, is planned to arrive at the Passenger’s Destination or first Stopover more than four hours after the planned arrival time of the Passenger’s original flight, UA shall pay compensation to Passengers denied boarding involuntarily from an Oversold Flight with a maximum of 300 CAD. At the passenger’s request, compensation in the form of check, wire transfer, visa card, or a travel voucher will be made by UA, and if accepted by the Passenger, the Passenger will provide a signed receipt to UA.
      4. EXCEPTIONS: A Passenger denied boarding involuntarily from an Oversold Flight shall not be eligible for denied boarding compensation if:
         1. The flight is cancelled;
         2. The Passenger holding a Ticket for confirmed reserved space does not comply fully with the requirements in this Contract of Carriage Requirements regarding ticketing, check-in, reconfirmation procedures, and acceptance for transportation;
         3. The flight for which the Passenger holds confirmed reserved space is unable to accommodate the Passenger because of substitution of equipment of lesser capacity when required by operational or safety reasons or, on an aircraft with a designed passenger capacity of 60 or fewer seats, the flight for which the passenger holds confirmed reserved space is unable to accommodate that passenger due to weight/balance restrictions when required by operational or safety reasons;
         4. The Passenger is offered accommodations or is seated in a section of the aircraft other than that specified on his/her ticket at no extra charge. Provided, if a Passenger is seated in a section for which a lower fare applies, the Passenger will be entitled to a refund applicable to the difference in fares;
         5. The Passenger is accommodated on Alternate Transportation at no extra cost, which at the time such arrangements are made, is planned to arrive at the airport of the Passenger’s next Stopover, (if any), or at the Destination, not later than 60 minutes after the planned arrival time of the flight on which the Passenger held confirmed reserved space;
         6. The Passenger is an employee of UA or of another Carrier or other person traveling without a confirmed reserved space; or
         7. The Passenger does not present him/herself at the loading gate for boarding at least 15 minutes prior to scheduled domestic departures, and 30 minutes prior to scheduled international departures. See Rule 5 D) for additional information regarding boarding cut-off times.
   5. Payment Time and Form for Passengers Traveling Between Points within the United States or from the United States to a Foreign Point
      1. Compensation in the form of check will be made by UA on the day and at the place where the failure to provide confirmed reserved space occurs, and if accepted by the Passenger, the Passenger will provide a signed receipt to UA. However, when UA has arranged, for the Passenger’s convenience, Alternate Transportation that departs before the compensation to the Passenger under this provision can be prepared and given to the Passenger, the compensation shall be sent by mail or other means to the Passenger within 24 hours thereafter.
      2. UA may offer free or reduced rate air transportation in lieu of a check payment due under this Rule, if the value of the transportation credit offered is equal to or greater than the monetary compensation otherwise due and UA informs the Passenger of the amount and that the Passenger may decline the transportation benefit and receive the monetary compensation.
   6. Limitation of Liability - If UA’s offer of compensation pursuant to the above provisions is accepted by the Passenger, such payment will constitute full compensation for all actual or anticipatory damages incurred or to be incurred by the Passenger as a result of UA’s failure to provide the Passenger with confirmed reserved space. If UA’s offer of compensation pursuant to the above provisions is not accepted, UA’s liability is limited to actual damages proved not to exceed 1350 USD per Ticketed Passenger as a result of UA’s failure to provide the Passenger with confirmed reserved space. Passenger will be responsible for providing documentation of all actual damages claimed. UA shall not be liable for any punitive, consequential or special damages arising out of or in connection with UA’s failure to provide the Passenger with confirmed reserved space.
2. Denied Boarding Non-U.S.A./Canada Flight Origin - Where there is an Oversold UA flight that originates outside the U.S.A. or Canada, no compensation will be provided except where required by local or international laws regulating Oversold flights.

 

[CraigT78]

You're spot on, lest anybody think my last post is a United supporter. After they way they handled CLE they can shrivel up and die for all I care. But I do think it's important to separate what United did from what law enforcement did.

A "retard" is a member of a protected class and cannot be fired on account of his or her disability. In fact, he or she must be reasonably accommodated.

Now, none of us were there, but I doubt that United called law enforcement to forcibly remove him from the flight. It did not go down like my favorite scene from Casino (feet off the table). They may have called to have him removed, but the decision to use force was made by the officers, not United, based on the person's actions.

One thing worth pointing out, people may say what the hell, he was just refusing to give up his seat, and yes that's true. However, in an emergency situation passengers are expected to comply with all crew member instructions, and the law requires that they do so. You've now got actual knowledge of a particular passenger who has no qualms deciding which crew member instructions he will follow and which he will disregard. For the safety of everybody else on that plane the airline can't ignore that.
Of course not, don't be ridiculous. The provision is you leave when told or you are trespassing, which is a criminal offense that will lead to law enforcement getting involved. Once the referral is made to law enforcement, United has no control over how it is carried out. And by the way, in the case of a passenger refusing to leave the plane, the airline has no option other than to call law enforcement because no, they're NOT allowed to knock passengers out cold.

Was it a shitty business decision on their part to bump people? Yeah I tend to think so, but at the end of the day when someone refuses to leave the plane the cops are going to get called, and it's going to go wherever it goes from there.

I think the point being overlooked here is that a LEO has a choice on to handle a situation, and in this situation the choice was made to handle it poorly. There was no need to rip a man out of his seat (which he paid for), violently slamming him into an armrest, and then dragging him off the plane. Seems a bit excessive to me, the video doesn't show the man acting violently to the officers. It wasn't an emergency situation, the choice could (and should) have been made to deplane the entire plane and deal with it that way. There wasn't a security threat and these cops are just as bad as United in my opinion.

 

[DJ Mack]

Who has jurisdiction over this? I keep reading this was the Chicago PD, but I thought "airport law" is federal (marshals on planes etc), or TSA?

Welcome to the world of concurrent jurisdiction. While there are federal laws that apply to conduct on airplanes (e.g. following crew member instructions) most of those laws do not displace state/local law to the extent they don't conflict. The FBI has national jurisdiction once the plane is underway and you'll see them step in for crimes that occur in flight when it would be very difficult to prove exactly what jurisdiction the crime occurred in.

As a practical matter the vast majority of arrests that occur around commercial airports and commercial planes at the gate are handled by state/local LEO. Disorderly conduct and trespassing arrests are very straightforward. Heck, if you bring a gun through a security checkpoint the odds are pretty good that while TSA will issue a civil fine it will be local LEOs who slap the cuffs on and make the arrest under a state/local weapons offense.

 

[Craig D]

If you have paid to fly from point A to B on a date and time, this should happen if it is safe and the plane is staffed

In the United States of Law suits, I'm surprised a flight is ever overbooked

How dare this man get what he paid for

If he is a Doctor as claimed on his way to see patients and someone dies because this, millions of dollars will change hands, and lives could be ruined

Have Fun

 

[jbutler]

A "retard" is a member of a protected class and cannot be fired on account of his or her disability. In fact, he or she must be reasonably accommodated.

Now, none of us were there, but I doubt that United called law enforcement to forcibly remove him from the flight. It did not go down like my favorite scene from Casino (feet off the table). They may have called to have him removed, but the decision to use force was made by the officers, not United, based on the person's actions.

One thing worth pointing out, people may say what the hell, he was just refusing to give up his seat, and yes that's true. However, in an emergency situation passengers are expected to comply with all crew member instructions, and the law requires that they do so. You've now got actual knowledge of a particular passenger who has no qualms deciding which crew member instructions he will follow and which he will disregard. For the safety of everybody else on that plane the airline can't ignore that.
Of course not, don't be ridiculous. The provision is you leave when told or you are trespassing, which is a criminal offense that will lead to law enforcement getting involved. Once the referral is made to law enforcement, United has no control over how it is carried out. And by the way, in the case of a passenger refusing to leave the plane, the airline has no option other than to call law enforcement because no, they're NOT allowed to knock passengers out cold.

More blind devotion to the idea that people simply have to obey the rules or the world will go to hell and therefore people must be forcibly removed from planes. Pretty retarded imo.

I *think* we're agreeing, but I'm not sure - I think United's decision to contact law enforcement in this situation is straight up stupid. I simply think it's odd that folks are coming after United because the man was busted up. Once the man with the badge says to get off the plane, you have to be intelligent enough to know you're now fighting a battle that you won't win in that moment.

The result that occurred, while unlikely, is 100% foreseeable by United when they call cops to come remove someone either by intimidation or direct force and so they are equally culpable.

 

[DJ Mack]

I think the point being overlooked here is that a LEO has a choice on to handle a situation, and in this situation the choice was made to handle it poorly. There was no need to rip a man out of his seat (which he paid for), violently slamming him into an armrest, and then dragging him off the plane. Seems a bit excessive to me, the video doesn't show the man acting violently to the officers. It wasn't an emergency situation, the choice could (and should) have been made to deplane the entire plane and deal with it that way. There wasn't a security threat and these cops are just as bad as United in my opinion.

Except that this guy wasn't willing to deplane. When everyone else gets off the plane but he continues to sit there and argue, then what? Why should everyone else have to get off the plane because of one guy who is to important to do what he's told?

Or in a different context next time there's a drunk in a bar refusing to leave, should the police clear the whole bar out, keep everybody detained in the parking lot for an hour while they continue to beg and plead with the guy to please listen to them?

 

[jbutler]

Except that this guy wasn't willing to deplane. When everyone else gets off the plane but he continues to sit there and argue, then what? Why should everyone else have to get off the plane because of one guy who is to important to do what he's told?

Then you up your cash offer until someone takes it and pay equivalent amounts to the people you already forced off the plane. It's really not that hard.

 

[CraigT78]

Except that this guy wasn't willing to deplane. When everyone else gets off the plane but he continues to sit there and argue, then what? Why should everyone else have to get off the plane because of one guy who is to important to do what he's told?

Or in a different context next time there's a drunk in a bar refusing to leave, should the police clear the whole bar out, keep everybody detained in the parking lot for an hour while they continue to beg and plead with the guy to please listen to them?

Yes - deplane everyone. Why shouldn't everyone get off while the airline fixes their fiasco. Instead they play enie, mini, miny, mo and pick one guy who is forced off the plane? The cops are the enforcers of a private company and their rules. A drunk in a bar is a danger to others. This guy was a paying passenger who wasn't committing a crime. You make it sound like the LEO is the judge and jury......obey or else.....which is the problem with some LEO in America today. This was United's problem to handle, not local police.

 

[mummel]

Or in a different context next time there's a drunk in a bar refusing to leave, should the police clear the whole bar out, keep everybody detained in the parking lot for an hour while they continue to beg and plead with the guy to please listen to them?

In the same light, just like that policy is completely ludicrous, so is randomly picking 4 names from a computer and forcefully removing folks from a flight that they paid for. This guy was a doc and had patients, ok so it sucks. But what if it was your daughter's wedding with 1,000 guests. Or a parents funeral? Or you were rushing home from a business trip because your wife was in a car accident? Can you imagine the rage and the potential for a dangerous situation in these instances?

Seriously, just compensate folks accordingly and let them willingly step off. Those that are able to will do so, and will be happy about it. Win/win.

 

[Hobbyphilic]

Hmm, reminds me of a casino asking people to leave. Once you cross that line, refusing to leave, you are trespassing. So sad he opted to protest in this manner. "Oh no, I make $200,000 + and I have to be inconvenienced like so many people waiting to see... me. Waaaaaaaaah! I want someone else to get off, I think I'm too important! Me, me, me!" Sometimes life deals you a cooler, carry on like an adult.