Incompetent United Air Lines Physically Drags Passenger Off Plane For Their (Airline) Mistake

[Divine Wind]

Must.....obey.....FAA.....regulations.

/thread

Agreed, but you're beating your head against the wall trying to convince these self-appointed aviation lawyers. All they'll do is gang up on you and declare themselves winners by weight alone.

 

[airplanemechanic]

And they ask me to cite the federal regulation when I already did. If they'd slow down and read, they'd learn.

1411. Interference With Flight Crew Members Or Flight Attendants -- 49 U.S.C. 46504 | USAM | Department of Justice

 

[Pogo]

And they ask me to cite the federal regulation when I already did. If they'd slow down and read, they'd learn.

1411. Interference With Flight Crew Members Or Flight Attendants -- 49 U.S.C. 46504 | USAM | Department of Justice

Declining to take a bump bonus that is already outside the circumstances the airline's own Contract provides for, is not by any definition "interfering" with jack shit. The only "interference" was from United --- interfering with its own Contract.

 

[airplanemechanic]

Double doozy. Not only is it intimidation to not obey a flight attendant, it does not require any specific intent to do so.

1411. Interference With Flight Crew Members Or Flight Attendants -- 49 U.S.C. 46504
One who assaults, threatens, or intimidates a flight crew member or attendant while aboard an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States, and thereby interferes with the performance of that crew member's duties or lessens the ability of that crew member to perform his/her duties is punishable under this subsection. See United States v. Meeker, 527 F.2d 12 (9th Cir. 1975). A violation of 49 U.S.C. § 46504 is a general intent crime; it does not require any specific intent to intimidate or to interfere with the flight crew member or attendant.

 

[Pogo]

Double doozy. Not only is it intimidation to not obey a flight attendant, it does not require any specific intent to do so.

1411. Interference With Flight Crew Members Or Flight Attendants -- 49 U.S.C. 46504
One who assaults, threatens, or intimidates a flight crew member or attendant while aboard an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States, and thereby interferes with the performance of that crew member's duties or lessens the ability of that crew member to perform his/her duties is punishable under this subsection. See United States v. Meeker, 527 F.2d 12 (9th Cir. 1975). A violation of 49 U.S.C. § 46504 is a general intent crime; it does not require any specific intent to intimidate or to interfere with the flight crew member or attendant.

Let's do this one. "One who...

"assaults"...... whelp, that would be the three security goons assaulting a passenger. Check.
..."threatens" .... same three stooges again threatening same passenger before assaulting Check.
.... "intimidates"... HELLLOOO? Strike three.

STILL waiting for this rescinded assault law that gets those same three stooges --- and the airline that brought them in ---- off the hook for... "assault, threatening and intimidation". Hey, you posted that United broke no laws. Your job now: prove that assault is not against the law.

Should we expect that explanation, I dunno, during the summer?

 

[Faun]

And they ask me to cite the federal regulation when I already did. If they'd slow down and read, they'd learn.

1411. Interference With Flight Crew Members Or Flight Attendants -- 49 U.S.C. 46504 | USAM | Department of Justice

You're done. The salient portion is highlighted...

One who assaults, threatens, or intimidates a flight crew member or attendant while aboard an aircraftin the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States, and thereby interferes with the performance of that crew member's duties or lessens the ability of that crew member to perform his/her duties is punishable under this subsection.

Dao neither assaulted nor threatened nor intimidated any of the flight crew or attendants; rendering that section of FAA code irrelevant to this case.

 

[airplanemechanic]

Refusing to obey what a flight attendant says is intimidation. Simple as that.

 

[Faun]

Refusing to obey what a flight attendant says is intimidation. Simple as that.

Says you. The dictionary says otherwise...

to make timid or fearful : frighten; especially : to compel or deter by or as if by threats tried to intimidate a witness

Definition of INTIMIDATE

 

[airplanemechanic]

Sorry, it's not me, it's the law.

What Happens If You Disobey a Flight Attendant?

Potential Civil Consequences

Acts of interference that don't quite rise to the level of criminal conduct can still warrant hefty fines by the FAA.

In fact, the FAA can propose up to $25,000 per violation for unruly passenger cases. One incident can result in multiple violations, according to the FAA's website.

A slew of disruptive behaviors can be considered interference, including:

• Flashing a laser beam from the ground
• Physically blocking crew members' access in the aisle or galley
• Threatening a crew member
• Disobeying crew members' repeated requests

Game, set, match.

/thread

 

[Pogo]

Refusing to obey what a flight attendant says is intimidation. Simple as that.

About anything?

Suppose a flight attendant says "suck my dick" and you don't do it. Crime?
Suppose a flight attendant says "kill the person next to you" and you don't do it. Prison?
Suppose a flight attendant says "take off your clothes and fly naked" and you DO do it. Then they kick you off the plane for nakedity. ...

Are you actually proposing that "the flight attendant's always right"?
That they're omnipotent?

Are they, like, gods then?

SMH

 

[GWV5903]

Agreed, but IMHO, you're wasting your time trying to explain it to him. Faun has a peculiar posting style when people disagree with him:

...he's just hard to ignore...

You sound like my wife now.

She must be desperate....

 

[airplanemechanic]

Refusing to obey what a flight attendant says is intimidation. Simple as that.

About anything?

Suppose a flight attendant says "suck my dick" and you don't do it. Crime?
Suppose a flight attendant says "kill the person next to you" and you don't do it. Prison?
Suppose a flight attendant says "take off your clothes and fly naked" and you DO do it. Then they kick you off the plane for nakedity. ...

Are you actually proposing that "the flight attendant's always right"?
That they're omnipotent?

Are they, like, gods then?

SMH

Yea, about anything. Did you even fucking read any of my replies? Apparently not.

Incompetent United Air Lines Physically Drags Passenger Off Plane For Their (Airline) Mistake

You're a fucking idiot. You don't have anything better than this? Instead of being flat out stupid, care to debate my thread above yours? The post where it says that not complying with repeated requests can get you fined 25 grand by the FAA?

So DW was right, the FAA can fine you. I stand corrected, I didn't think they could. Shame on me, being a pilot and mechanic I should know better.

 

[Faun]

Agreed, but IMHO, you're wasting your time trying to explain it to him. Faun has a peculiar posting style when people disagree with him:

...he's just hard to ignore...

You sound like my wife now.

She must be desperate....

Nah, she's the luckiest girl on the planet.

 

[Faun]

Refusing to obey what a flight attendant says is intimidation. Simple as that.

About anything?

Suppose a flight attendant says "suck my dick" and you don't do it. Crime?
Suppose a flight attendant says "kill the person next to you" and you don't do it. Prison?
Suppose a flight attendant says "take off your clothes and fly naked" and you DO do it. Then they kick you off the plane for nakedity. ...

Are you actually proposing that "the flight attendant's always right"?
That they're omnipotent?

Are they, like, gods then?

SMH

Yea, about anything. Did you even fucking read any of my replies? Apparently not.

Incompetent United Air Lines Physically Drags Passenger Off Plane For Their (Airline) Mistake

You're a fucking idiot. You don't have anything better than this? Instead of being flat out stupid, care to debate my thread above yours?

The article you linked is wrong all over the place.

It states the flight was overbooked -- it wasn't.

It states Dao was shouting -- he wasn't.

It provides a link to where it claims he was shouting before being dragged out of his seat -- the link is to a video from after he was dragged off, went back on, and kept repeating how they're going to kill him.

It states he was denied boarding -- he wasn't.

You're really not going to win arguments by relying on articles that can't get the story right.

The post where it says that not complying with repeated requests can get you fined 25 grand by the FAA?

So DW was right, the FAA can fine you. I stand corrected, I didn't think they could. Shame on me, being a pilot and mechanic I should know better.

Yes, for passengers causing a disturbance. For passengers like Dao, who are just sitting in their seats not disturbing anyone, there is no fine.

Congress grants the Federal Aviation Administration wide latitude to issue hefty fines, up to $25,000, when passengers' air rage disrupts a flight or otherwise endangers others on board. But, FAA wields that hammer in a small fraction of cases reported by flight crews, according to a review of documents obtained by USA TODAY under the Freedom of Information Act.

FAA rarely wields hefty penalty hammer with air rage​

 

[airplanemechanic]

That link is old, the reason I linked to it was to show that I had said if you are told to do something safe and legal, not just "anything" like the other moron said.

It's all irrelevant. I showed that simply disobeying a legal order is a violation with a fine up to 25000 dollars by the feds.

 

[Faun]

That link is old, the reason I linked to it was to show that I had said if you are told to do something safe and legal, not just "anything" like the other moron said.

It's all irrelevant. I showed that simply disobeying a legal order is a violation with a fine up to 25000 dollars by the feds.

You showed no such thing. What you did show was that it is s crime if a passenger assaults, threatens, or intimidates a flight crew or attendants. And you showed you don't know what the word, "intimidate," means.

 

[danielpalos]

The FAA states that you must obey the orders of all flight crew members (unless told to do something dangerous or illegal) while on board an aircraft. When asked to get up, he refused. This is a direct disobey of a legal order by a flight crew member. At that point, the airline has a right to throw him off the plane.

Whether or not he should have been asked to get up is not to be determined at the time that he is asked to get up. If he feels it was wrong, he should file a grievance with the airline. But refusing an order on a federally protected aircraft will not end well. You are a passenger on this plane, not an owner.

Now the FAA won't do anything about this, but it was under the FAR's that the airline acted. The FAA isn't a law enforcement entity, it's a federal administration that makes laws regarding safety of flight. It doesn't enforce those laws, that's up to the FBI.

1411. Interference With Flight Crew Members Or Flight Attendants -- 49 U.S.C. 46504 | USAM | Department of Justice

1411. Interference With Flight Crew Members Or Flight Attendants -- 49 U.S.C. 46504
One who assaults, threatens, or intimidates a flight crew member or attendant while aboard an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States, and thereby interferes with the performance of that crew member's duties or lessens the ability of that crew member to perform his/her duties is punishable under this subsection. See United States v. Meeker, 527 F.2d 12 (9th Cir. 1975). A violation of 49 U.S.C. § 46504 is a general intent crime; it does not require any specific intent to intimidate or to interfere with the flight crew member or attendant. See United States v. Grossman, 131 F.3d 1449, 1451-52 (11th Cir. 1997); United States v. Compton, 5 F.3d 358, 360 (9th Cir. 1993); United States v. Hicks, 980 F.2d 963 (5th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 941, 507 U.S. 998 (1993); United States v. Meeker, supra, 527 F.2d at 14. While attempted aircraft piracy and interference with flight crew can both be charged in the same indictment, if convicted on both charges, the defendant should be sentenced only under the attempted aircraft piracy conviction because, absent highly unusual circumstances, the interference with flight crew charge is the lesser included offense. See United States v. Compton, supra, 5 F.3d at 360; see also United States v. Calloway, 116 F.3d 1129 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 118 S.Ct. 324 (1997); United States v. Figueroa, 666 F.2d 1375, 1380 (11th Cir. 1982).

That is the point the Court will discover; whether or not the airline even had a legal right to ask that passenger to "cede their sovereign rights" to their Contract.

 

[Divine Wind]

That link is old, the reason I linked to it was to show that I had said if you are told to do something safe and legal, not just "anything" like the other moron said.

It's all irrelevant. I showed that simply disobeying a legal order is a violation with a fine up to 25000 dollars by the feds.

Which once again comes back to the point there are a lot of laws involved here. Federal law trumps State in this case.

Also, many lawyers have run into the wall of Federal law in trying to sue the airlines like they'd sue a Pizza Hut or hotel for bad service.

The self-appointed aviation legal experts on this forum, whose only experience with aviation is buying an airline ticket, keep playing semantics with the phrase "denied boarding" and making a point that Dao was already "boarded". That's irrelevant. His boarding was denied regardless if he was already in his seat and he was asked to leave. When he refuse, airport LEO's were called in. Dao may have a suit against them, but he won't have one against United, Republic, the flight crew or the agents.

The Obligations of Airlines and the Rights of Passengers | Solo, Small Firm and General Practice Division
The bad news: There is no private right of action for violation of the DOT’s consumer protection regulations. So passengers cannot sue the airline themselves and instead must rely on the DOT to enforce the rules. However, the DOT is no paper tiger. In 2012 the DOT brought 62 enforcement actions and imposed more than $4 million in penalties for violations. Figure 2 shows the types of actions brought by the DOT and the frequency of enforcement. Unfortunately, injured passengers don’t have a right to compensation under the law, and the U.S. government keeps all the penalty money.

Clever attorneys have tried to work around the lack of private right of action by bringing suit under state laws (usually consumer protection statutes and/or tort theories). These attorneys find themselves stymied when they discover the complete federal preemption enjoyed by the airlines. In Morales v. Trans World Airlines, 504 U.S. 374 (1992), the Supreme Court held that federal preemption completely prohibits states from enforcing any law “relating to rates, routes, or services” offered by an air carrier. So I caution attorneys to familiarize themselves with Morales before bringing an action against an airline.

Practically all state consumer protection statutes and tort claims are rendered useless against air carriers. This leaves consumers and their attorneys with just one remaining cause of action: breach of contract—specifically, breach of the completely one-sided, adhesive Contract of Carriage. On average, legitimately harmed passengers are able to get their money back in small claims court for breach of contract. Unfortunately, small claims court does not offer the remedies consumers and attorneys generally hope for, such as reimbursement of attorney fees, emotional distress damages, and punitive damages.

 

[Pogo]

That link is old, the reason I linked to it was to show that I had said if you are told to do something safe and legal, not just "anything" like the other moron said.

It's all irrelevant. I showed that simply disobeying a legal order is a violation with a fine up to 25000 dollars by the feds.

So when you get on an airline and a male flight attendant instructs you to "suck my dick", you'll drop to your knees huh.

 

[GWV5903]

That link is old, the reason I linked to it was to show that I had said if you are told to do something safe and legal, not just "anything" like the other moron said.

It's all irrelevant. I showed that simply disobeying a legal order is a violation with a fine up to 25000 dollars by the feds.

So when you get on an airline and a male flight attendant instructs you to "suck my dick", you'll drop to your knees huh.

You just can't get that thought out of your mind can you?