I don’t agree. He isn’t boarded until the manifest is completed and the door is closed.
Ultimately, it’s their plane. If they ask you to get off, you are entitled to compensation. Not to act like a toddler.
Airline screwed things up with their logistics, sure. Could have done things better, re: better bribes for volunteers.
But at the end of the day, it’s their plane and this man was uncivil and has no legs to stand on legally. he was disobeying the crew and basically engaged in defiant trespass.
Entitled, selfish, uncivil. He’s not hero. He’s a jerk.
Other people got off and grumbled. Didn’t act like toddlers.
no, not a hero, and yes maybe a jerk, but he will receive compensation far beyond the paltry bribes they offered. United will suffer for their mishandling of this situation.
John Banzhaf disagrees:
George Washington law professor John Banzhaf has a pretty neat argument about United’s liability. Defenders of corporate jackboots and internet lawyers everywhere have been quick to refer to the Contract of Carriage. Technically, you agree to this every time you buy an airline ticket. United’s defenders say that rule 25, “Denied Boarding Compensation,” allowed United to refuse to honor Dao’s ticket in an overbooking situation. Which it does. But Professor Banzhaf points out that Dao wasn’t “denied boarding.” As George Carlin might say, he wasn’t on the plane, he was “in” the plane. At that point, rule 21, “Refusal of Transport,” should apply to Dao, not rule 25. Banzhaf writes: “ Rule 21, entitled “Refusal of Transport,” is very different because it clearly and expressly covers situations in which a passenger who has already boarded the plane can be removed…
Overbooked is a technical term that does not apply since that crew was never booked. They wanted paying passengers tossed to accommodate poor planning. It was 4 hours away...rent them a car.