强行拖离是合法的？转载一篇网友翻译乔治华盛顿大学法学院公共权益法教授的文章，供大家参考：
美联航的事情这两天刷屏了。昨天听了让我非常哭笑不得的一种说法：“机长权力无限大，看你长得丑不顺眼你也得下飞机。”这真的是法治社会里出来的论调么？
原标题是：《非法驱逐乘客后，美联航援引了错误的法律》（United Airlines Cites Wrong Rule For Illegally De-Boarding Passenger）
我个人观点，美联航为了给自己机组人员腾地方而迫使一个已经登机入座的乘客下飞机，这种要求是非法的。为了合理化自己的所作所为，美联航援引了一条错误的法律。
In my belief, United Airlines is citing the wrong federalrule to justify its illegal request to force a passenger already boarded andseated to disembark so they could make room for crew members being flown to anew assignment.
联邦法律14 CFR 253规定，所有商业航线都受一份名为“运输合同”（“Contractof Carriage”，简称COC）的管理。COC是一份对双方都有约束力的合同，它保障了乘客的合法权利，也对航空公司施加了义务。美联航的COC中包括了两个不同的章节：21号条例，名为“拒绝运输”（“Refusalof Transport”）；25号条例，名为“拒绝登机补偿”。（“Denied Boarding Compensation.”）
Under a federal rule [14 CFR 253], commercial airlines aregoverned by a document known as a “Contract of Carriage” [COC], a legallybinding contract which, among other things, protects the legal rights ofpassengers, and imposes legal duties upon carriers. United’s COC contains two distinct sections:Rule 21 entitled “Refusal of Transport,” and Rule 25 entitled “Denied BoardingCompensation.”
在逼迫已经登机并入座的乘客强制下机后，美联航为了使自己的行为合法化，一直错误地援引它COC中“拒绝登机补偿”条例，以及该条例所依附的联邦法14 CFR 250.5。
United is incorrectly citing the denied boardingcompensation rule in its COC, and the federal rule upon which it is based [14CFR 250.5], to justify requiring a passenger who has already been permitted toboard and taken a seat to involuntarily disembark.
但是，这个条例，从它的名称和历史就清晰地展示了，只能应用于航空公司拒绝给一个乘客登机，而不是将已经登机的乘客从飞机上赶下来的情况。
But that rule, as its title and history clearly establish,applies only if an airline wishes to deny boarding to a passenger, not toremove a passenger who has already boarded an airplane.
现在的联邦法律都从一个Ralph Nader案件而起。在这个案件里，Ralph Nader持有一张合法机票，但是却被拒绝登机。他打官司，一直打到美国最高法院。最高法院最终的判决是，如果他被拒绝登机，他理应受到赔偿。
The current federal rule grew out of a situation in whichRalph Nader was denied the opportunity to board a flight, even though he had avalid ticket. He sued, in a case whichwent to the U.S. Supreme Court, and it was eventually held that he was entitledto compensation if he was denied boarding.
这个案件造成的直接结果是，政府立刻出台一条新的法律，允许航空公司拒绝一个有合法机票的乘客登机，但是，必须先要有一个寻找自愿放弃座位乘客的流程。
As a direct result, the government adopted a rule whichpermits a carrier to deny boarding to a ticketed passenger, but only aftergoing through a process of seeking other passengers to give up their seats.
美联航的25号条例，就像这个名字显示的一样，只作用于拒绝登机。所以，它自己在条款中只出现了“已被拒绝登机的” （“deniedboarding”）和“拒绝登机”“deny boarding”的字样，根本没有提及要求已经登机的乘客放弃他们的座位。
United’s Rule 25, as its title clearly implies, applies onlyto denied boarding. Thus, it uses the word “denied boarding,” and variants suchas “deny boarding,” but says nothing about requiring passengers who havealready boarded to give up their seats.
事实上，它自己也部分承认了，用了“登机”字样两次——“其他乘客或许会根据美联航的登机优先级而被强制拒绝登机。”
Indeed, it states in part, using the word “boarding” twice,that: “other passengers may be denied boarding involuntarily in accordance withUA’s boarding priority.
很显然，“登机优先级”不包括也不隐含任何强制把人从飞机上赶下或者拒绝运输的情况。况且，在公认的合同法中，即使合同中有任何模糊的词汇，必须以对草拟方最不利的方式来解读。
Clearly, a “boarding priority” does not include or imply aninvoluntary removal or refusal of transport. Moreover, under well accepted contract law, any ambiguous term in acontract must be construed against – and in the way least favorable to – theparty which drafted it.
因此，即使美联航争辩根据“登机优先权”而产生的“拒绝登机”含义模糊，即使他们认为这种模糊之处指向这可能意味着根据“驱赶优先权”而产生了“驱赶权力”，法庭也不应该认可这种解读——因为美联航是合同的草拟方。
So, even if United argued that there was some ambiguity in“denied boarding” based upon “boarding priority” – and that it could possiblymean removal based upon a removal priority – a court would be forced to ruleagainst this interpretation because United drafted the contract.
同样的“拒绝登机”条例和相似的“拒绝登机”条例在英国和欧盟也很常见。但是，也只用于拒绝登机而不是把一个已经登机入座的乘客驱赶下飞机。如果发生航空公司要让一个已经登机并入座的乘客下飞机，那就必须依照另一个在COC中完全不同的条例——“拒绝运输”。
This denied boarding rule, and similar rules applying toGreat Britain and the European Union, only permit denying boarding, notremoving a passenger who has already boarded. The situations under which airlines are permitted to have a passengerwho has already been boarded disembark are contained in a completely separatesection the United’s COC entitled “Refusal of Transport.”
21号条例，名为“拒绝运输”，和前面谈到的条例完全不同，它清楚地规定了在什么情况下一个已经登机的乘客可以被驱逐下飞机。条例是这样写的：“21号条例，拒绝运输，美联航有权因为以下原因，在任何时候从飞机上驱赶乘客：（着重号是作者添加）”
Rule 21, entitled “Refusal of Transport,” is very differentbecause it clearly and expressly covers situations in which a passenger who hasalready boarded the plane can be removed. It states clearly: “Rule 21, Refusal of Transport, UA shall have theright to refuse to transport or shall have the RIGHT TO REMOVE FROM THEAIRCRAFT AT ANY POINT, any passenger for the following reasons.” [emphasisadded]
这个条例和“拒绝登机”不一样，给了美联航在任何时候从飞机上驱赶乘客的权力。条例下列了20多条理由，包括：野蛮无法无天的行为，醉酒，不能好好入座，医疗隐患或者医疗问题，等等。但是，在这个包含20多理由的列表中，没有一处谈到“超卖”，“放弃座位的需求”，“为了运输其它航线机组人员的需求”，等等。
The rule, which unlike the denied boarding rule does providefor removal “from the aircraft at any point,” lists some two dozenjustifications including: unruly behavior, intoxication, inability to fit intoone seat, medical problems or concerns, etc. But nowhere in the list of some two dozen reasons is there anythingabout over booking, the need to free up seats, the need for seats toaccommodate crew members to be used on a different flight etc.
这点非常重要。因为，在广泛接受的法律原则中，一个法律或者条例如果列出了很细致的一些不同因素，那么必须被解读为，没有出现在列表中的其它因素都不包括在内。举个例子，如果一个条例说，驾照可以因为超速、醉驾、鲁莽驾驶或者无照驾驶被吊销，那么，这条法律就没有允许驾照因为停车违规或者车牌照有瑕疵被吊销。
This is very important because, under accepted legalprinciples, a law or rule which lists in detail several different factors mustbe read not to include other factors which were deliberately not included orlisted. So, for example, if a ruleprovides that a license to drive a car may be forfeited by violations of lawsgoverning speeding, intoxication, reckless driving, or driving without alicense, it cannot be read to also permit license revocation for parkingviolations, or for having a burned out license plate illumination light.
在这个案子中，美联航没有将“超卖”或者“需要额外位置”这些理由列在“可以在任何时候将乘客从飞机中驱逐”的列表里，就意味着，乘客不可以因为那些没有被列出的理由遭到驱赶。
In this case, the failure to include over booking, or theneed for additional seats, in a long list of justifications for removing apassenger “from the aircraft at any point” means that passengers may not beremoved for these non-listed reasons.
支持这个结论的还有另一个理由。在美联航的COC里专门有另一个完全不同的段落，讨论了万一需要额外的座位该怎么办。但在那个段落里，它仍在讨论如何拒绝乘客登机，而不是乘客已经登机后驱赶他们。
The conclusion is further reinforced by the fact that thereis a completely separate section of United’s COC which does deal expressly withthe need for additional seats, but it provides that the concern must be dealtwith by preventing passengers from boarding, not ejecting them once they haveboarded.
美联航似乎同时还宣称，不仅他们的“拒绝登机”条例适用于已经登机的乘客，还号称他们已经尽他们全力来处理自己机组人员需要从乘客那里获取位置的情况。
United also seems to suggest not only that the deniedboarding justification applies to ordering an already boarded passenger to giveup its seat, but that the carrier did all that it could under the rule to dealwith its need to accommodate additional crew members as passengers.
但是，根据法律，要求别的乘客放弃他们的合法座位是需要金钱补偿的。美联航提供的金额远低于联邦法律标出的最低额度。虽然美联航显然有权拒绝提高自己的补偿金额，但是，根据华盛顿邮报近期的报道，别的航空公司有时会悬赏几千美金来让乘客放弃自己的座位。
But in asking other passengers, as required by law, to giveup their seats for monetary compensation, United offered far less than theminimum specified by the federal rule. It also, although it clearly and legally could have done so, refused tooffer more – although the Washington Post recently explained how airlines will sometimesoffer passengers thousands of dollars to give up their seats.
最后，美联航似乎还准备责怪乘客，宣称当被问是否能放弃座位时，乘客的表现非常有敌意。美联航援引了另一个要求乘客遵守机组人员安排的条例。但是，遵守机组人员安排，仅仅使用于当机组人员提的要求是合法的时候。
Finally, it appears that United is seeking to blame thepassenger, claiming that when asked to give up his seat, he acted belligerently– and citing a rule which requires that passengers obey the orders of theflight crew. But, such a requirementapplies only to orders which are lawful.
再举个例子，如果一个机组人员要求两个乘客互殴来让其他乘客打发漫漫旅行时光，或者要求他们脱掉他们衣服，乘客也要照做么？乘客不需要遵从，机组人员也不能因为你不遵从这个非法的要求就强制来脱你的衣服。
If, for example, the flight crew had ordered two passengersto fight each other for the amusement of the other passengers, or to take offall their clothing, the passengers would not be required to comply, and theirforceful removal could not be based upon refusing to follow unlawful orders.
一旦有个人有合法的飞机票，并且入座了，无论是在飞机上在火车上在公交车上或者在音乐会，他都不能被要求必须放弃他合法的合同权利，仅仅是因为别的其他什么人需要这个位置。
Once someone in possession of a valid ticket has been seated– whether on an airplane, a train or bus, or at the symphony – he cannot beordered to give up that which he has a valid contractual right to enjoy, simplybecause his seat is needed for someone else.
当然，以下这些在21号条例中被提到的情况还是允许的，比如一个已经入座的乘客表现出野蛮无法无天的行为、喝醉了、或者因为一些医疗紧急突发情况。仅仅是超卖这个理由，只能根据25号条例，来处理拒绝登机这种情况。
While it is of course permissible to remove a seated personis such a situation for unruly behavior, drunkenness, to deal with a medicalemergency, etc. – as spelled out here in United’s Rule 21 – simple over bookingcan only be dealt with by denying boarding originally, pursuant to United’sRule 25.
John F. Banzhaf III是乔治华盛顿大学法学院公共权益法教授。
John F. Banzhaf III is a professor of public interest law atthe George Washington University Law School.
Banzhaf教授的观点很清晰：超卖可以作为“拒绝登机”的理由，但一旦登机，“拒绝登机”条例就不再适用。如果一定要驱赶已经登机入座的乘客，必须使用21号条例下面列出的20几个理由中的一个。而超卖，航空公司自己机组人员需要座位，都不在那个列表里，所以不能作为驱赶理由。
所以，美联航对乘客的驱赶本身就是违法的。乘客也不需要听从他们的指挥。造成这样悲剧，美联航难辞其咎。
另外，根据USA Today今天的报道，美联航承认，3411航班并不存在“超卖”的情况。CEO也放弃了乘客野蛮的说辞，开始道歉。
