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

I think that everyone understands the logistics of the situation, they just don't like United's solution model.

One viable future model that could arise from this is simply for each airline to reserve the last row of every flight for company use. If the company does not need that row on a particular flight, then the gate agent can release the row for standby travel.

-PJ

I think the way passengers in our airports are abused by TSA and airline employees does matter.

I believe the way people insist it’s all for our safety is a sad joke.

But, keep up the ad hominem attacks by all means. Congrats for getting away from CAPS LOCK.

Precedent:

http://www.espn.com/nfl/news/story?id=5201702

“We do not condone the conduct on the part of the Patriots and the team’s head coach, and we likewise refrain from assessing whether the NFL’s sanctions [and its alleged destruction of the videotapes themselves] were otherwise appropriate,” Senior Judge Robert E. Cowen wrote for the three-judge panel.

However, he said Mayer failed to prove any legal right to damages.

“At best, he possessed nothing more than a contractual right to a seat from which to watch an NFL game between the Jets and the Patriots, and this right was clearly honored,” Cowen wrote.””””

Is there a difference between buying a ticket for a plane or a seat at a stadium? I should say not. Can the NFL remove a fan who was simply watching the game, and put their employees there?

The method of beating somebody up to get a seat for “your crew” isn’t going to fly.

This guy just changed the rules for everybody.

A simple alternative will need to be in place. If they can just arbitrarily beat you up and remove you, why offer any compensation in the first place?

There is a great article about it here:
http://www.liftable.com/carolynfultz/video-passenger-dragged-plane-disturbs-world-wife-pilot-writes-didnt-see/

and here:
https://archive.is/blU5e

with this being the money shot:
“United Airlines has been heavily criticized for their actions, but this blogger wanted to make it clear that United Airlines did not drag out the man. United was required, by law, to contact federal aviation security when Dr. Dao ran back into the plane after being escorted out, since such an act is classified as a threat to security. As she states, running into “a secured, federally restricted area” may not have been the wisest choice “because, you know, that just happens to be breaking a major federal Homeland Security law.””

and this being the most important factor:
[..]this was a must fly, a positive space situation. In layman terms, it means that a crew must be flown to an airport to man a flight in order to avoid cancellation of said flight due to crew unavailability. This is a federal DOT regulation, not an airline one. The airlines are required to do so to avoid disruption of air traffic.

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.