The Captain can't legally ask the passengers to bark like a dog and fork over another $100 dollars or be removed from the plane.

Are you sure? Such behavior might get him fired but I think he has the authority to eject anyone he wants at any time.

 

Are you sure? Such behavior might get him fired but I think he has the authority to eject anyone he wants at any time.

For aircraft and personal safety he does have absolute authority to eject even while the plane is sitting on the ground still loading passengers. This is a case of refusal to transport after being boarded where anyone should respond in the negative for improper (example: The crew using racial slurs to get people to leave their seats in a absolute legal sense) conduct. Once physically boarded the passenger's 'rights' increase greatly. They have no legal right to physically remove you from your seat while the rest remain boarded once you are boarded unless the pilot determines you are a possible threat to the safety of others or for reasons in Rule 21.

All the limits are for denied boarding compensation.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/250.9

refusal to transport
http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/united-cites-wrong-rule-for-illegally-de-boarding-passenger/

Finally, it appears that United is seeking to blame the passenger, claiming that when asked to give up his seat, he acted belligerently – and citing a rule which requires that passengers obey the orders of the flight crew. But, such a requirement applies only to orders which are lawful.

If, for example, the flight crew had ordered two passengers to fight each other for the amusement of the other passengers, or to take off all their clothing, the passengers would not be required to comply, and their forceful removal could not be based upon refusing to follow unlawful orders.

http://www.newsweek.com/why-united-were-legally-wrong-deplane-dr-dao-583535

 

I wonder what the logic is behind the $1,350 limit. Just an appeasement to the airline industry?

 

I wonder what the logic is behind the $1,350 limit. Just an appeasement to the airline industry?

What other reason can you think of?
They know that if they don't clearly set a top amount then the whole process would become an auction and the passengers would try to profit from it.

 

I know this will get me attacked, but the thing that is being missed in this from the start is why him? Why didn't they make one of the mostly white passengers get off? The video clearly shows the many youngish white people and they picked a 'minority' person. I think they chose him because they knew the white people would raise a bigger stink, on board, if they had done it differently and forced one of them off.

 

I know this will get me attacked, but the thing that is being missed in this from the start is why him? Why didn't they make one of the mostly white passengers get off? The video clearly shows the many youngish white people and they picked a 'minority' person. I think they chose him because they knew the white people would raise a bigger stink, on board, if they had done it differently and forced one of them off.

They picked three other people before him that (grudgingly) complied and disembarked. But I ignore what ethnic group they belonged to.

 

I know this will get me attacked

No it won't, this is not United Airlines.

 

I think they chose him because they knew the white people would raise a bigger stink, on board, if they had done it differently and forced one of them off.

If their goal was to avoid a stink, this wouldn't have happened. Unless it's proven otherwise, I believe the initial choice was done quickly and by protocol. They don't have time to waste on thinking. I don't believe anyone at United did some sort of profiling analysis and specifically chose him. It just happened. Failure to bend protocol, to adapt to a 'situation' and do what's right, is what happened next.

 

Failure to bend protocol, to adapt to a 'situation' and do what's right, is what happened next.

And now they're paying for it.... dearly

 

And now they're paying for it.... dearly

Yup, like any accident, this event really exposes many causes all intersecting at one moment in time to create a crisis. Good management seeks excellence in all operations, and achieves it through starting at the top with the right culture. I think Untied Airlines (as we fondly call them) has a lot to think about. They may have actually gotten off easy. One mad passenger is cheaper than other things that can happen to an airline.

To bring this back to the thread topic, I feel a little sorry for the cops that were called into this clusterfart. Here they were enjoying coffee and a donut and minutes later they're the center of an international event. I don't know what they knew and I don't feel like I can judge their behavior. I just know they have a crappy job and this giant turd has rolled down onto them.

 

To bring this back to the thread topic, I feel a little sorry for the cops that were called into this clusterfart. Here they were enjoying coffee and a donut and minutes later they're the center of an international event. I don't know what they knew and I don't feel like I can judge their behavior. I just know they have a crappy job and this giant turd has rolled down onto them.

It seems the airport 'cops' were rick-rolled by United into removing the guy as an imminent threat. Lawyer up guys, maybe you can dip into the United Airline money bucket because your current job is toast due to their possible illegal behavior.

http://www.sfgate.com/news/us/article/Removal-of-United-passenger-shines-light-on-11072548.php

If the aviation department's police force disbands it would bring to an end a decidedly Chicago story. The police force was started decades ago when the long-running Mayor Richard J. Daley allowed the chief of his bodyguard detail to retire and start an airport security force manned by people who, according to Zalewski, knew the right people at City Hall.

Even if the force survives, Burke suggested the officers' job won't be the same.

"Chicago employees should not be doing the dirty work for the Friendly Skies airline," he said.

Shocking, a typical old-school Daley thug force created for favors.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-united-chicago-aviation-police-met-20170413-story.html

A: Investigations are ongoing. Aviation Department spokeswoman Karen Pride said in the statement: "While they do have limited authority to make an arrest, Sunday's incident was not within standard operating procedures nor will we tolerate that kind of action." Three officers have been placed on administrative leave while the department reviews the incident.

 

I know this will get me attacked, but the thing that is being missed in this from the start is why him? Why didn't they make one of the mostly white passengers get off? The video clearly shows the many youngish white people and they picked a 'minority' person. I think they chose him because they knew the white people would raise a bigger stink, on board, if they had done it differently and forced one of them off.

I think in a link supplied in a previous reply to this thread that the passengers were chosen by a computer based on, among other things, booking time.

 

I can imagine the scenario:
Oh K8@p! We have 4 employees that we need some other place today. Let's call the guys that only know how to use force.

 

tenderize him then let him return to plane covered in blood

 

bucket because your current job is toast due to their possible illegal behavior.

there's a city in Georgia that's down two cops. Maybe they can apply there. http://nypost.com/2017/04/13/police-video-shows-georgia-cop-stomping-on-black-mans-head/ Wouldn't even need to be retrained.

 

there a city in Georgia that's down two cops. Maybe they can apply there. http://nypost.com/2017/04/13/police-video-shows-georgia-cop-stomping-on-black-mans-head/ Wouldn't even need to be retrained.

The first cop JuJitsu forearm struck the guy for what looked like maybe videoing in the car then the second cop does a stupid and completely unnecessary head stomp after the guy as cuffed, on the ground and no longer resisting.

 

The first cop JuJitsu forearm struck the guy for what looked like maybe videoing in the car

So your saying the first cop was justified?? The first cop and the victim had a history, he arrested him for possession of weed before. That's why the victim was gabbing his phone. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...llins-had-earlier-encounter-fired-cop-n746476

 

The first cop JuJitsu forearm struck the guy for what looked like maybe videoing in the car then the second cop does a stupid and completely unnecessary head stomp after the guy as cuffed, on the ground and no longer resisting.

Hang on. Circle the wagons. To quote yourself, "The investigation isn't finished." Video doesn't matter to you, only the police investigating themselves.

 

Hang on. Circle the wagons. To quote yourself, "The investigation isn't finished." Video doesn't matter to you, only the police investigating themselves.

That's a flat out lie. I've 'prejudged' (remember keith-lamont-scott , philando-castile , Charles Kinsey) the cops on just video many times. I don't trust only the police to just investigate themselves when the cops are looking at possible jail time.

 

So your saying the first cop was justified?? The first cop and the victim had a history, he arrested him for possession of weed before. That's why the victim was gabbing his phone. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...llins-had-earlier-encounter-fired-cop-n746476

No, I'm not saying the first cop was justified for striking the man in a submission position. The cop clearly seemed to let his emotions get the best of him unless there is some so far hidden fact of a threat from the man that was being struck.