Huh? Your argument is that "Passengers who fail to comply with the members of the flight crew" is how the sentence should be read? http://www.dictionary.com/browse/comply verb (used without object), com·plied,com·ply·ing. to act or be in accordance with wishes, requests, demands, requirements, conditions, etc.; agree (sometimes followed by with):They asked him to leave and he complied. She has complied with the requirements. You comply with wishes, requests, demands, etc, or in this case, duties. You dont directly comply with people. You might comply with their instructions, but what does it mean to directly comply with them? It's not gramatically correct english despite it being used by people who don't speak well. Perhaps you are the one in need for some elementary english lessons...
Calling him a felon isn't fair. He is a much worse scum bag than your typical criminal. He abused his position as a doctor to get a good look as his patients dicks, abused his position as an employer as he was curious about his employees dicks, sold and traded narcotics for sex in hotels. All of the reports say he is shifty during interviews and changes reality to whatever suits him. I am guessing the earlier predictions of his lawyers keeping him in front of as many cameras as possible for sympathy don't happen unless there are some serious terms agreed to first.
Have you ever heard of contracts? This passenger had a valid contract and was already in his seat. Airlines have been given a lot of leeway by being allowed business practices such as intentional overbooking. There are rules around compensation in these cases. But this case was different. The passenger was already in his seat and there was no overbooking - the airline was trying to prioritize its own employees over paying customers, for operational reasons only the airline was responsible for. Imagine you are in a hotel room that you paid for, and the hotel manager storms in with security and drags you out of the room, in order to put one of his employees in there. "Hotels are no longer private companies who are allowed to dictate who should or should not be in the hotel now? When did this change?" Do you get how ridiculous your question is? There is a big difference here. Yes, hotels also overbook and "walk" people. I am very familiar with the rules around this, both in the hotel and in the airline industry, and have lots of personal experience as an extremely frequent traveler. But there is a difference between being turned away at check-in and someone storming into the room when you are already in it and dragging you out forcibly, making your face a bloody mess.
No, in this case it's still complying with wishes, requests, demands, requirements, or conditions.....
Even more reason to be a little more tactical IMO. Should also be noted that one guard has been suspended. Statement from their spokesperson: “The incident on United flight 3411 was not in accordance with our standard operating procedure and the actions of the aviation security officer are obviously not condoned by the Department,” Pride said.
It does explain why he'd want to get back home so badly though, he's only recently got his medical license back and can only practice medicine one day a week at an outpatient clinic....the airline was potentially going to prevent him from being there for orgy day at the clinic and force him to wait another week for the next one! That's simply not okay.
If the passenger was in the wrong, why didn't they put him in handcuff? They know that what he was doing, there's nothing wrong.
I can't wait for train passes to sky rocket!!! It's about damn time for all of us to hop on a train. Trains are fun as hell. Right? Give me my likes dammit!!
They had an awesome passenger train on the line parallel to Almeda during super bowl. I'd ride on it for fun but not to get somewhere.
https://chicago.taleo.net/careersection/100/jobdetail.ftl?job=99860 PHYSICAL REQUIREMENTS: Ability to walk and stand for extended periods of time and to climb stairs and access multi-level facilities to patrol airfield areas, terminals and facilities Ability to exert muscle force and use appropriate control holds to apprehend, subdue and restrain individuals Ability to run and pursue fleeing suspects on foot , and to lift and/ or carry objects weighing up to 50 pounds Ability to use security equipment including handcuffs and batons, and to wear leather gear and associated equipment weighing up to 25 pounds for extended periods of time
Hotels and airlines don't operate under the same rules and regulations. Your example doesn't apply here, even a little bit, yet you say you're very familiar with these circumstances? I think not. Also, the circumstances that happened with the imaginary hotel room is not what happened in reality in the airplane. An offer of $800-1000 was given to voluntarily leave, no takers, so the next step is involuntary removal. These rules are outlined, the purview of duty to read is on the consumer, not the airline. They followed the procedure that the passenger agreed to, he agreed to possibly being involuntarily being removed from the flight. When it came time for him to abide by the rules that he himself agreed to, he didn't want to, and unfortunately escalating steps were taken. It's unfortunate that he could not comply and thus steps that seem to have gone overboard were taken.
Ok I been collecting all the facts so far, and it seems like you are wrong. Since the guy was boarded, this is not a refusal to board but refusal to transport first of all. Second there are compliance set in which an airplane can refused to transport a person as probably stated already in the thread: https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriage.aspx#sec21 The rule you guys been saying: "Passengers who fail to comply with or interfere with the duties of the members of the flight crew, federal regulations, or security directives;" Well that doesn't apply, he was obeying the rules before United's manager kicking people off the plane. You can't kick someone off for someone not obeying in the future, that doesn't make sense. United didn't have a right to kick off 4 paying customers to accommodate their workers, that's not a valid reason from the contract of carriage. There are rules to refuse to transport and airplane companies can't just refuse service for no reason, unless there's a rule i missed.
He's been trying his best to equate anyone who doesn't side with the multiple felon that forced airline security to physically remove him from the flight with King George III Part of the flight crew's duties were to kick him off the plane to make room for someone else.....and he was interfering with that duty by not complying with the orders of the flight crew......so it applies.
it doesn't apply. they had no rights to kick anyone out just to fit their 4 employees that they needed to fit on that plane ride. What about the people who obliged to get kicked off, what applies to them? They were wrongfully kicked off the plane. You can't apply a rule after you illegally kicked someone off the plane. You can refuse transport only when you overbooked but the flight was not overbooked and it was just a full flight.
It still applies even if you disagree with the policy. No matter what the case, he was obligated to comply with the orders of the flight staff, he refused to do so because he's an individual with serious interpersonal problems and things spiraled out of control. If you are wrongfully kicked off of a flight, you file a complaint and potentially a lawsuit after the fact, but you get off the plane. Like I said, how come every time things like this happen the "victim" is almost always a multiple felon?
