But the passenger wasn't in your house. He was in a seat for which he purchased a ticket. He's essentially a tenant in your rental property. Even if you want him to leave, you can't force him to leave w/o legal cause.
It depends on the underlying reason. Here's United's contract of carriage. Look at Rule 21, "Refusal of Transport". Which of those rules did the passenger violate? https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriage.aspx#sec21
I would welcome the cops. What the airline is doing is stealing from me, it's a bait and switch. I bought a ticket for a particular time and destination and United isn't living up to their end of the deal. Also, the guy didn't make a scene, he just resisted. The problem is, people like you don't see this as theft on United's part. The airline didn't do enough to fix the situation, the mess they caused, then they gaffed a step more by using force. I guarantee if they increased the incentive someone else would have left. They gambled, and in the era of cell phone photography lost. Big time.
Awww but see, the terms of his ticket are that his ticket and thus his place on the plane can be revoked, this seems to be the case. At this point he has to abide by the terms of the ticket purchase. He refused and at that point could be asked to leave. If I sign a rental agreement that states I can be asked to leave for a whole host of reasons, even as stupid as "we want you to leave" like this appears to be, I have to leave. I don't believe a person should be allowed on an airplane before seating arraignments have been finalized and thus be forced to get off, but it's not illegal.
What term of the ticket purchase did he violate? Also, as I understand it (and someone correct me if I'm wrong), seating arrangements had already been finalized which is why all the passengers had boarded and been seated. Subsequently, 4 United employees showed up wanting seats.
Well first off Safety – Whenever refusal or removal of a Passenger may be necessary for the safety of such Passenger or other Passengers or members of the crew including, but not limited to: 2. Passengers who fail to comply with or interfere with the duties of the members of the flight crew, federal regulations, or security directives
Funny enough, that's usually what the person making a scene in a store thinks.....then they get really pissed off when they are removed from the store by the police and issued a criminal trespass warning.
I think what he is stating is that in the terms United reserves the right to refuse service to anyone. United can state whatever it wants in the terms, it doesn't mean they can legally enforce them. If I loan a friend money at 150% interest, and he doesn't pay, even if I sue him I won't be able to get that money back at that interest rate because those policies are set by the state. The best I could get back is whatever interest rate maximums are. I can set the terms to whatever I want, but it doesn't mean I'm suddenly in the legal right here.
You aren't going to have a hard time convincing anyone that he was failing to comply with the orders of the flight crew though, thus it's automatically considered a safety threat. He had an obligation to comply with those orders, and when he failed to do so he was in breach of the contract of carriage.
Aren't airlines federally regulated? Are you sure United's terms of service allow for them to refuse service to anyone?
So you're saying that refusing an unlawful request turns that unlawful request into a lawful request? That's some interesting circular logic.
Like I said, it's attitudes like yours that are what's wrong with customer service in this nation. If you don't raise your voice, and you demand either the good/service or your money back plus losses caused by the actions of the seller, then you aren't making a scene. You are exercising your rights as a consumer.
Apparently, aside from leggings for free-riders, 69 years old wearing modified leggings are also prohibited by United.
If you were in security's shoes and had to remove that 69 year old man or the hypothetical pregnant woman, would you have done it the same way they did?
I'm not sure, all I'm saying is that the terms they set forth are what they believe them to be. They can set less than legal terms, and then try and stand behind them assuming you won't get a lawyer involved.
I don't think you understand what an unlawful request is and that puts us at an impasse. You have no right to be in any store once you've been asked to leave. I think you need to find out what your rights really are instead of what you wish they were. If you are asked to leave a store, it doesn't matter if you are polite, it doesn't matter if you raise your voice or not, it doesn't matter what you think your reason for sticking around is.....and a police officer would happily explain that to you as they are writing the criminal trespass warning after removing you from the store. You could feel free to sue after the fact, but it doesn't give you the right to be anywhere that you don't own.
Ideally I would not have allowed their face to hit an armrest, but when there's grown adults thrashing around in airplane cabin, I can't really guarantee anything.
Ideally you go get a cop to deal with it to absolve yourself of blame when things go poorly. If you are dealing with someone that stupid, you have to expect things to go poorly and I wouldn't want to be fired over it.
