That United flight wasn’t even “overbooked” — and that matters legally

Hotair ^ | 04/14/2017 | Cynthia Than

[SeekAndFind]

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

[Pollster1]

I believe it is: “We are now free to move you about the cabin”.

[House Atreides]

Nah... that “fine print” (known in legal circles as the contract and/or agreement between the airliner and the passenger) was written by lawyers and not by “Cindy the receptionist”. Much of the language in that contract is dictated by FAA hard-and-fast rules.

Much of the litigation involved in any lawsuit filed in this case will involve that contract. And the behavior of the involved cops will be examined in relation to that contract -— AS WILL THE BEHAVIOR OF THE GOOD DOCTOR. The judge will almost certainly direct the attorney on what to consider in reaching any verdict. And the judge’s direction will likely include an admonition to not allow the jurors’ emotions to drive their decisions.

[grania]

Are you kidding? Removing and replacing already seated passengers should not be allowed to happen. It's only 297 miles from Chicago to Louisville....a four to five hour drive. UAL could've rented a car or a small charter plane and gotten the employees there almost as quickly. And then you have flight attendants who didn't stop Chicago security thugs pretending to be police from beating up a passenger. How much worse can it get?

The issue is corporate arrogance and elitism. They treated their paying customer as a slave who had no rights or dignity. Keep in mind when Rosa Parks was asked to leave her seat on the bus, she was offered another one. That started a movement. This is even worse.

It's about time people stood up to corporate thuggery. There used to be rules to protect consumer rights. There used to be rules to protect us from out-of-control monopolies. Are those rules still on the books?

[pghoilman]

well done. Got a laugh out of me.

[Snickering Hound]

If a black gangster refuses to get out of his car when the cops order it, everyone here will yell, doesn’t he know he wouldn’t get his ass kicked if he just cooperated with the cops. But when the security or cops tries to get a guy to leave plane, many here say, you cans’t forcibly remove him. He should have cooperated with the authorioties what happened when he refused was his fault.

There is some dispute whether Chicago Airport had jurisdiction to even board the aircraft.

The Chicago airport is very strange it that it has 2 tiers of policing, Chicago police who are armed and can actually make an arrest report and Chicago Airport Police who are unarmed and have some ability to detain someone but have to let Chicago Police make the arrest.

Chicago Airport police were created way back when by Richard Daly as a reward to his favorite security guard to give him a job after Daly left office.

At some point it was decided to give these mall cops some sort of police academy training although abbreviated and even license them as police officers.

Their jurisdiction at the airport is limited, they can't go to non-secure areas of the baggage area for example and stick to patrolling inside the airport.

There is some dispute as to even if they can board aircraft, they have had some of their own officials say yes, others have said no. You'd think they'd want to clear that up in the decades since they have been formed.

There are calls in Chicago to disband the Chicago Airport Police since the current system is really stupid and disorganized.

[Fantasywriter]

In the case you cited there were no physical injuries. Dao was beat to a pulp. That’s why Golan, one of his two lawyers, is a big name personal injury specialist. Dao had to have facial reconstruction surgery; that is a fact.

[NoCmpromiz]

HEY STUPID PEOPLE THE AIRLINES SOMETIMES *NEED* TO MOVE A PILOT AND CREW STOP PLAYING LAWYER

OK THEN, MAYBE YOU WILL READ AND UNDERSTAND WORDS FROM A REAL LAWYER..

(Sorry everyone else, apparently one must shout to get this poster's attention..)

United Airlines' Own Contract Denied it any Right to Remove Passenger
(Jens David Ohlin - Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Professor of Law, Cornell Law School, 218 Myron Taylor Hall, Ithaca, NY 14853-4901, Phone: (607) 255-0479, Fax: (607) 255-7193, Email: jdo43@cornell.edu)

[Republic_Venom]

My contacts at UA told me that he’s been offered $10M. His lawyers rejected the deal.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

See how easily the fakestream presstitutes can distract you from things that actually matter.

The attention span of a gnat. Congratulations.

[beelzepug]

“I’ve been minimizing comment on this...”

And you should have kept on minimizing.

[Go No]

Hey low IQ, Everyone has needs. The airline traded its needs for money.

[Political Junkie Too]

Is there any merit to the idea of an unenforceable contract in this case?

From Findlaw.com, Unenforceable Contract? 5 Common Errors

---

Unenforceable Contract? 5 Common Errors

By Aditi Mukherji, JD on August 21, 2013 8:47 AM

Under certain circumstances, a seemingly valid contract may be struck down as unenforceable. It can potentially happen even if both parties seemingly agree to all of the contract's terms.

Courts may refuse to enforce a contract for a number of reasons. So how does the law determine which promises are enforceable contracts and which are not?

Here are five common errors that can make contracts unenforceable:

1. Lack of capacity. A person must have the legal ability to form a contract in the first place. A person who is unable, due to intoxication or mental impairment, to understand what she is doing when she signs a contract may lack capacity to enter into a contract. In that case, the contract may be unenforceable.
2. Duress, undue influence, misrepresentation and fraud. Getting consent for a contract through sketchy ways -- such as coercion, threats, false statements (as well as misleading silence) and improper persuasion -- can render a contract unenforceable. The court may strike the contract down as unenforceable or the victim of the unfairness can void it.
3. Unconscionability. If the process of making a contract or terms in the contract are shockingly unfair to one party, then a court may deem a contract unenforceable. The court will look at whether a party had unequal bargaining power or difficulty understanding the terms (due to literacy or language barriers, for example), and whether the terms were inherently unfair.
4. Mistake. A contract can be found unenforceable because of the mistake of one party (called a "unilateral mistake") or both parties (called a "mutual mistake"). To be made unenforceable, the mistake must have been important and must have significantly affected the contract bargaining or performing process. Remember, failure to read the contract doesn't make a contract unenforceable or voidable.
5. Public policy. Some contracts are unenforceable because allowing such contracts could go against the goals of public policy -- namely, public health and safety. This includes contracts for illegal drug sales and sexual services, as well as contracts that bargain away employees' legally protected rights (like the right to unionize or to receive medical leave, for example).

---

Number 2, Duress, is a hard sell to make since nobody is putting a gun to an air traveler's head. However, in today's era of cheap air travel, people have a need to fly to different parts of the country and may feel that they have no choice but to accept the airline's terms in order to get to where they need to be.

Number 3, Unconscionability, is striking a raw nerve right now. Most people believe that the contract of carriage is 100% in the favor of the airline, and that the traveler has no say in anything if they wish to travel large distances. Travelers have no bargaining power against an airline that offers only company scrip as compensation or else they will call law enforcement to physically remove the customer.

Furthermore, consider the additional obligations that the traveler has made based on the contract with the airline. The traveler may have hotel reservations that will be missed, cruise ship reservations that might be missed, family engagements, entertainment tickets, etc., that might be voided because the airline did not honor their contract to transport the customer.

-PJ

[Pollster1]

The ticket is a contract, and it should be enforced under contract law. My experience (having been bumped involuntarily from business travel once and voluntarily from recreational travel many times) is that the passenger doesn’t get much for an involuntary bump. He is entitled to a refund of his money, or other specified compensation of typically a few hundred dollars, and anything beyond that is based on good will. I doubt there is much good will for the drama queen in this instance.

Note: When I was involuntarily bumped, it cost me a fairly large contract, although that contract was reinstated a month later.

[4Liberty]

Pay $2K to liberate seat w happy customers.

VS

Pay $10 Million to liberate seat w bashed-in customer face and angry public.

tricky choice...........

[ichabod1]

Not according to the ticket contract, according to the article. It says there are a defined list of reasons a passenger with a reserved, confirmed seat may be denied service, and because they prefer to give those seats to employees is not one of the reasons.

[Moonman62]

Imagine that. The liberal LATimes won’t over for the guy, but some FReepers will. Thanks for the link.

[Mr. Douglas]

Even if Dao gets money, the whole world knows what a pervert he is and that he lost his medical license for illegally prescribing drugs.

---

I’ve gotta say, I’ve ignored that part of the story. We all have varying sizes of skeletons in our closets, it has no bearing on what the airline did.

i.e. it is a non-sequitur.

[Wuli]

The airlines, in the fine print of you ticket notifies you that what you have is in essence a contract, with terms and conditions.

United’s entire terms of service spells it out. It spells out what United is allowed to do by it’s own contract.

It is allowed to involuntarily not board passengers for a variety of reasons, including over booking. It did not refuse to board the passenger for any reason.

It is allowed, by its own contract, to involuntarily remove a passenger who has been boarded. To resolve a need for a seat for someone else is not one of them. They may ask for volunteers. That’s it.

[ichabod1]

I think this is more about people would like to see Untied get punished.

[freeandfreezing]

His lawyers rejected the deal.

Not surprising. One of Dr. Dao's attorneys is a top tier aviation liability lawyer. His lawyers have already received settlements of around 25 million dollars per person for wrongful death suits, including from United Airlines.

This case is actually worse for United than a crash from a PR point of view.