seats way too small...the airline people treat you like they're doing you a big favor after charging you up the ying yang....its waiting, taking shoes off, waiting, lining up, possessions searched, more waiting...etc...
Not a pleasant experience...
however, this idiot doctor was told to get up and get off the plane...the airlines have this right and we agree to it when we use their business...
and for the record, wasn't it the cops who took him off the plane?....
many freepers are wrong on this incident....
it was a typical "I'm too important to follow the rules or listen to the cops" attitude from this doctor....
and for the record, wasn’t it the cops who took him off the plane?....
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/04/why-united-is-in-legal-trouble-over-removing-a-passenger/
Under United’s Contract Of Carriage (COC) rules (which follow federal rules), a passenger may only be bumped from a flight before they board (Rule 25). After they have taken their seat, Rule 21 is in effect, which would allow security to forcibly remove the passenger for many reasons — none of which includes accommodating last minute needs for a seat for other airline employees (or even overbooking).
The flyer is in a contractual relationship with the airline, and each has rights and responsibilities under that contract. United Express violated the terms of the contract, and injured the passenger in the process.
But doesn’t federal law require passengers to follow all crewmembers’ instructions?
One might argue, ok, so they shouldn’t have forced the passenger to de-plane… but by federal law he has to comply.
Well, what if a flight attendant approaches a young lady who has just taken her seat, and says, “I’m sorry, m’am, but I’m going to have to ask you to stand up and take your clothes off.”
“Excuse me?”
“Take your clothes off, m’am. Either obey our instructions, or you are in violation of federal law.”
Well, that’s just ridiculous, you might protest. It has nothing to do with the safety of the flight.
Exactly. And neither did the passenger who was forcibly removed from the United Express flight.
http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/united-cites-wrong-rule-for-illegally-de-boarding-passenger/
The current federal rule grew out of a situation in which Ralph Nader was denied the opportunity to board a flight, even though he had a valid ticket. He sued, in a case which went to the U.S. Supreme Court, and it was eventually held that he was entitled to compensation if he was denied boarding.
As a direct result, the government adopted a rule which permits a carrier to deny boarding to a ticketed passenger, but only after going through a process of seeking other passengers to give up their seats.
United’s Rule 25, as its title clearly implies, applies only to denied boarding. Thus, it uses the word “denied boarding,” and variants such as “deny boarding,” but says nothing about requiring passengers who have already boarded to give up their seats.
Indeed, it states in part, using the word “boarding” twice, that: “other passengers may be denied boarding involuntarily in accordance with UA’s boarding priority.
Clearly, a “boarding priority” does not include or imply an involuntary removal or refusal of transport. Moreover, under well accepted contract law, any ambiguous term in a contract must be construed against – and in the way least favorable to – the party which drafted it.
So, even if United argued that there was some ambiguity in “denied boarding” based upon “boarding priority” – and that it could possibly mean removal based upon a removal priority – a court would be forced to rule against this interpretation because United drafted the contract.
This denied boarding rule, and similar rules applying to Great Britain and the European Union, only permit denying boarding, not removing a passenger who has already boarded. The situations under which airlines are permitted to have a passenger who has already been boarded disembark are contained in a completely separate section the United’s COC entitled “Refusal of Transport.”