Posted on 04/14/2017 10:48:36 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
But once they take your money and have it in their hands they should provide the service. It's too late to refuse the service when the check has already been cashed.
Of which neither she nor you even read it, did you? Did you? You didn't, so shut up and read it then apologize for being an ignorant and lazy poster.
Here is that legal citation that you and the author didn't read but quote.
In the event of an oversold flight, every carrier shall ensure that the smallest practicable number of persons holding confirmed reserved space on that flight are denied boarding involuntarily.
“Legal or not, it was a scummy thing to do.”
That is the only conclusion worthy of posting on this matter. The airline may have had a legal right, but that doesn’t mean it was a good choice.
It takes a real idiot at the airline to think involuntarily removing a boarded passenger would be a good thing.
I have been boarded on planes and the speaker announces they need volunteers to deplane, happens frequently, but never have I seen a passenger tossed.
First rule of holes applies to you here. Also, you still haven't answered what aspect of Rule 21 applied here, as I asked on another thread.
“They do not have the right to bump someone for an employee who has not paid to be on the flight.”
Yes, they do.
Oh, and I would stop the insults as well, given how many posters have shown how off your points are. Your ignorance appears to be deliberate, given how you attempted to apply a section used to deny boarding to justify removing someone who was already boarded, on a flight that was not oversold.
Some people never learn. They eat up anything that the fakestream presstitutes dish out to them.
http://canadafreepress.com/article/how-the-united-passenger-suckered-us
I wasn’t arguing that there was legal breach of contract, the article was. The original point was that contract law would govern this situation, not the inviolable concept of private property rights. However, I don’t see anything in what you posted to suggest that the airline didn’t breach the contract. The doctor only resisted AFTER he was approached by the security guys, which was only after the airline had acted in violation of the contract by demanding the passenger leave. Up until that point, the doctor appears to have been a well-behaved, fully-paid and seated passenger.
You claimed a legal reference that wasn’t applicable, yet, you claim others are digging holes.
Don’t know what makes you so stupid but it really works.
You are the one who cited about restricting boarding on oversold flights, when the person had already boarded and the flight was not oversold. Since you apparently could care less about the relevance of your comments and only seek to be an argumentative and irrelevant pain in the ass, you may have the last word, as further discourse on this subject with you is futile.
The verdict, on behalf of Dr. Dao, for a $100,000,000 million dollar settlement would be in in less than 5 minutes.
The only thing missing in that story is that United was outside of the law and its own guidelines. They set themselves up for the lawsuit with their actions.
What about Mr. Dildao? Any “guidlines” that apply to his insane behavior? Other than lawsuit-lottery “cha-ching?”
Immaterial. United and the Chicago Airport Police were in the wrong. He would not have grounds for a lawsuit if United had acted differently.
So you have all the facts!
You must be clairvoyant!
Please show me what Dao did wrong, legally. Versus the ample legal wrongs committed by United and the Chicago Airport Police.
Yes but the ‘many more’ that are for the doctor do not make legal right or wrong, the law does. And the law is on United’s side
while that is (finally) a good question here, I don’t know. I would tend to think that if there was another option they would rather keep the paying customers
Sorta like I can decide not to serve a customer at my bakery regardless of his choice of a straight or gay wedding cake?
Or sorta like I can decide not to serve a customer at my lunch counter regardless of his skin color?
You have yet to make a single citation backing your claims. Which makes those claims very hollow.
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.
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).