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

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.

Still can’t get it off caps lock?

You really need to read your comments to yourself - your first and third line regarding people of less than high intelligence and about playing lawyer - which I can safely assume you are not (while you go on in the next line to incorrectly assert a legal right of the airline).

FYI - the legal right to remove an individual from an aircraft is strictly limited by United’s Contract of Carriage Rule 21 which lists specific reasons - none of which were involved here.

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.

That is akin to "Kelo in the air."

In the Kelo v. City of New London decision, the Supreme Court concurred that it is a "public good" for a city to condemn private property for other private use if that alternative use generates more tax revenue for the city.

If an airline can eject a seated customer for another customer who paid more for the seat, then we have chaos in air travel since nobody can be sure that there will be a seat at the other end of their ticket.

-PJ

Winning at trial is one thing. Having the ruling upheld on appeal is another. Airline wins appeal on passenger removal - Jan 11, 2008

I recognize the fact pattern is completely different, and am not citing the article for the proposition that Dao was removed as a sfety risk.

My argument is only that United is going to lose more in the realm of public opinion, than it stands to lose in court or an out-of-court settlement.

and what if someone asked for a gay cake?

Either party to a contract should be able to back out at any time. My contracts always had a penalty clause that allowed me to withdraw and either specified there was a penalty for nonperformance or specified that there was no penalty for nonperformance. That option to withdraw or to refuse to enter into a contract includes baking a cake celebrating a parody of the sacrament of marriage.

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.