That United flight wasn’t even “overbooked”

The fact that the flight was not overbooked may seem trivial, or pedantic, but there is very important legal distinction to be made. There may not be a difference in how an airline (typically) responds when it needs additional seats, such as asking for volunteers who wish to give up their seat for a voucher or cash. But there is a legal difference between bumping a passenger in the instance of overselling a flight versus bumping a passenger to give priority to another passenger. Any thoughtful person can see the problem that arises if an airline were allowed to legally remove one fare-paying passenger to allow for another passenger it prefers.

Since the flight was not actually overbooked, but instead only fully booked, with the exact number of passengers as seats available, United Airlines had no legal right to force any passengers to give up their seats to prioritize others. What United did was give preference to their employees over people who had reserved confirmed seats, in violation of 14 CFR 250.2a. Since Dr. Dao was already seated, it was clear that his seat had already been “reserved” and “confirmed” to accommodate him specifically.

A United Airlines spokesperson said that since Dr. Dao refused to give up his seat and leave the plane voluntarily, airline employees “had to” call upon airport security to force him to comply. However, since the flight was not overbooked, United Airlines had no legal right to give his seat to another passenger. In United Airline’s Contract of Service, they list the reasons that a passenger may be refused service, many of which are reasonable, such as “failure to pay” or lacking “proof of identity.” Nowhere in the terms of service does United Airlines claim to have unilateral authority to refuse service to anyone, for any reason (which would be illegal anyway).

Read the Article

Interesting take........

With that being said, in a video I saw which hasn't gotten much play, it showed them going after him in the seat, his subsequent screaming and after they got him into the aisle, he appeared to be knocked out cold with his glasses broken and face bloodied as they started to drag him down the aisle with no struggling on his part........

It should also be noted that he had not been removed prior to this beat down.........this was the beginning of it all.

If an airline can eject a seated customer for another customer who paid more for the seat, then we have chaos in air travel since nobody can be sure that there will be a seat at the other end of their ticket.

Correct. And since many journeys are made with changes in plane and airline, meaning that if they bump you from one flight you will not make your next three flights, this can become a major problem.

This is now a much bigger issue and all airlines are now going to be forced to pay attention.

This is not a brand new issue but it is one that has gotten progressively worse in the past few years.

You refer to the passenger as a “scumbag” apparently based on some reports on a history that may or may not actually be him. Frankly, irrelevant,

I don't know if it is irrelevant anymore. Having that information published now probably raised the level of "pain and discomfort" suffered by him and his family as a result of this incident, and thus probably raised the amount that United will have to pay him to settle.

I thought we FReepers tended to be libertarian-types and supported the right of businesses to serve or not serve their customers.

But I guess that goes out the window and we become FLAMING LIBERALS when:

1) We don’t like the company
2) There is a video
3) The media whips us into a frenzy

So much for us FReepers ‘standing on principle’, at least in this case.

I’ve been minimizing comment on this fiasco and just enjoying the show, but I agree with you. That airplane is private property. If at any time on the ground they decide not to serve a customer, they have the legal right to ask that person to leave (just like a restaurant, or like a girl who invites you over for “dinner” and changes her mind before dessert). When they asked him to leave, he was supposed to leave. It may end their business relationship permanently, but that is their right since the airplane is their property.

By that logic you could walk into Walmart, purchase an item, head for the door and then Walmart would ask you to give that item back because someone else wanted it. Naturally ANYONE would refuse. Walmart would then call the police and they would take the paid item from you and haul you out of the store.

NO, ... THINK ABOUT IT -ITS NOT AS SIMPLE AS “THE AIRLINE JUST WANTED TO FLY SOMEONE ELSE”

If you are flying from A to B, and there is another flight from C to B that is cancelled due to weather or mechanical or whatever, then the airline may need to move a pilot and crew to B to replace the crew from C that could not make it there.

Otherwise hundreds of people at B may get stranded or delayed, and then thousands as that cascades outwards to other airports.

So.. it is simple- remove 4 people now, or have cascading problems outwards...

How about these two principles:

1. He paid for a seat
2. He was seated in the seat he paid for

It’s not socialism to say he has a right to what he paid for.

Was there an emergency of some kind?

No. There wasn’t.

There was only two facts that matter:

1. He paid for a seat
2. He was seated in the seat he paid for

the whole world knows what a pervert he is and that he lost his medical license for illegally prescribing drugs.

Totally irrelevant.......Why didn't they remove the guy three rows back who was a convicted child molester or the guy in seat 21A who has a restraining order against him for abusing and stalking his ex-girlfriend?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.