讲讲UA 航班医生拒绝下飞机是否合法
在讨论合法非法之前，先讨论八卦。
华盛顿邮报还有纽约某家报纸连续几天报料，说这位医生同性恋，打扑克，还有患精神病历史。对于媒体如此迅捷的反应让我很惊诧。
先说病史，美国有HIPPA，就是保护病人隐私条款，不得病人本人同意，别人根本拿不到病历。出事之后医生就在病房里，谁给的权力在一两天内查到病历呢？
再说犯罪记录，不能仅凭一个人的名字就断定那个人有犯罪历史。这个犯罪史的调查至少需要社会安全号码经过详细调查才有吧，一天之内就给确证，到底哪个机构有这么迅速的行动和强烈的动机非要把医生说成个无恶不赦的流氓呢？
连我这种政治小白的吃瓜群众都知道，ＵＡ公关那两天非常忙碌，利用媒体转移公众视线。
于是大家陷入到底给医生抹黑还是洗白的八卦运动中。
但本案的焦点在于：这位医生被强行拖出飞机，到底是非法还是合法？
一般我是先看律师解读，毕竟我不学法律，绝对不会在不了解法律的情况下四处去指点江山，直接代表航空公司和司法机构当代言人。
插播：对于直接洋洋洒洒写百字文千字文说医生非法的ID我表示很惊诧，您从哪个条款里得出的法律结论的呢？判一个人非法得有法律依据，不知道你同意吗？此处填空 _______________
插播完毕，贴点律师解读。
先引用一段英文：
"It is illegal",Mahany, who was part of a $16.6 billion fraud settlement with Bank of America in 2015 and specializes in consumer protection, told International Business Times in an interview Wednesday. “You cannot remove, under the current rules, a passenger once they're seated on the aircraft. You can deny them entry if you’re overbooked, but once they are on the aircraft, it is a completely different set of rules.”
"It is illegal",Mahany, who was part of a $16.6 billion fraud settlement with Bank of America in 2015 and specializes in consumer protection, told International Business Times in an interview Wednesday. “You cannot remove, under the current rules, a passenger once they're seated on the aircraft. You can deny them entry if you’re overbooked, but once they are on the aircraft, it is a completely different set of rules.”
United, like all airlines, has protocol in place for overbooking incidents, said Mahany. Under
United’s Rule 25: Denied Boarding Compensation, the airline lays out its responsibilities in dealing with an overbooked flight, but the rule deals only with passengers who have not yet boarded the plane.
大意是什么呢?
根据ＵＡ法则第25条，如果公司订票超过满员状态，可以在乘客未上飞机之前拒绝乘客上飞机。而事实上，此次事件中，飞机只是满员，不存在超载问题。
那么，乘客如果上了飞机之后，在什么情况下会被赶下飞机呢？总不至于美国修订一个法律，老子看谁不爽就赶谁下飞机吧？
根据律师解读是这样的：
“If they’re not dressed appropriately, if they have certain communicable diseases, if they’re drunk, if they’re violent, you can remove them,” he said. “If they don’t turn off their cell phone when they’re supposed to, you can remove them. If they won’t obey lawful instructions from a crew member, you can remove them. But telling someone, ‘Hey, we’ve overbooked, get off the plane,’ that wouldn’t be a lawful instruction.”
如果乘客穿衣不合适，有传染疾病，喝酒，有暴力行为或者威胁其他人员安全问题才会被请下飞机，而不是UA说，我临时有机组人员，你赶紧给我们让路，不让老子就拖你走。
老医生后面一排的乘客也拍了视频放到网上，证明当时他一边在给律师打电话，一边很平静地跟保安沟通，连声音都没有提高，当时根本不存在他本人行为问题直接导致需要被赶下飞机的前提条件。
后来UA CEO又发言了，说“'We will never remove a paying passenger again”。律师们表示说，你这个不可以！这话说的不合法！因为如果乘客威胁到他人安全，你还是必须得把付费乘客请下飞机的。
赶人下飞机，既不是想怎么赶就怎么赶，也不是干脆不赶，法律存在的意义就是要限制一个人在一定范围内行使权力，而不是无限制行使权力。
到底是合法非法的最后盖棺定论，我相信以后法庭上会见分晓，请大家拭目以待。
戳这里 Claim your page
来源: 文学城-羽衣飞飞