Originally Posted by mcjaredsandwich (Post 818739)

Taken from a Reddit thread. I take no credit for this and these are not my words.

"Ok, because people keep missing that I do not claim to be an expert nor did I write the material I quoted, I have to emphasize I copy-pasted from and left a link to the original Reddit comment, which is itself a copy of a comment from off-site. I do not claim it's correct, I just put it forward as a perspective. Remainder of my original comment follows.

It doesn't seem like this situation went off as it should have though. From /u/deskreference's comment taken from https://thepointsguy.com/2017/04/you...luntary-bumps/)

Lawyer here. This myth that passengers don't have rights needs to go away, ASAP. You are dead wrong when saying that United legally kicked him off the plane.

1. First of all, it's airline spin to call this an overbooking. The statutory provision granting them the ability to deny boarding is about "OVERSALES", specifically defines as booking more reserved confirmed seats than there are available. This is not what happened. They did not overbook the flight; they had a fully booked flight, and not only did everyone already have a reserved confirmed seat, they were all sitting in them. The law allowing them to denying boarding in the event of an oversale does not apply.

2. Even if it did apply, the law is unambiguously clear that airlines have to give preference to everyone with reserved confirmed seats when choosing to involuntarily deny boarding. They have to always choose the solution that will affect the least amount of reserved confirmed seats. This rule is straightforward, and United makes very clear in their own contract of carriage that employees of their own or of other carriers may be denied boarding without compensation because they do not have reserved confirmed seats. On its face, it's clear that what they did was illegal-- they gave preference to their employees over people who had reserved confirmed seats, in violation of 14 CFR 250.2a.

3. Furthermore, even if you try and twist this into a legal application of 250.2a and say that United had the right to deny him boarding in the event of an overbooking; they did NOT have the right to kick him off the plane. Their contract of carriage highlights there is a complete difference in rights after you've boarded and sat on the plane, and Rule 21 goes over the specific scenarios where you could get kicked off. NONE of them apply here. He did absolutely nothing wrong and shouldn't have been targeted. He's going to leave with a hefty settlement after this fiasco.

Originally Posted by mcjaredsandwich (Post 818739)

Taken from a Reddit thread. I take no credit for this and these are not my words.

"Ok, because people keep missing that I do not claim to be an expert nor did I write the material I quoted, I have to emphasize I copy-pasted from and left a link to the original Reddit comment, which is itself a copy of a comment from off-site. I do not claim it's correct, I just put it forward as a perspective. Remainder of my original comment follows.

It doesn't seem like this situation went off as it should have though. From /u/deskreference's comment taken from https://www.thepointsguy.com/2017/04...luntary-bumps/

Lawyer here. This myth that passengers don't have rights needs to go away, ASAP. You are dead wrong when saying that United legally kicked him off the plane.

1. First of all, it's airline spin to call this an overbooking. The statutory provision granting them the ability to deny boarding is about "OVERSALES", specifically defines as booking more reserved confirmed seats than there are available. This is not what happened. They did not overbook the flight; they had a fully booked flight, and not only did everyone already have a reserved confirmed seat, they were all sitting in them. The law allowing them to denying boarding in the event of an oversale does not apply.

2. Even if it did apply, the law is unambiguously clear that airlines have to give preference to everyone with reserved confirmed seats when choosing to involuntarily deny boarding. They have to always choose the solution that will affect the least amount of reserved confirmed seats. This rule is straightforward, and United makes very clear in their own contract of carriage that employees of their own or of other carriers may be denied boarding without compensation because they do not have reserved confirmed seats. On its face, it's clear that what they did was illegal-- they gave preference to their employees over people who had reserved confirmed seats, in violation of 14 CFR 250.2a.

3. Furthermore, even if you try and twist this into a legal application of 250.2a and say that United had the right to deny him boarding in the event of an overbooking; they did NOT have the right to kick him off the plane. Their contract of carriage highlights there is a complete difference in rights after you've boarded and sat on the plane, and Rule 21 goes over the specific scenarios where you could get kicked off. NONE of them apply here. He did absolutely nothing wrong and shouldn't have been targeted. He's going to leave with a hefty settlement after this fiasco.

Originally Posted by redaddiction (Post 818743)

All I can say is I wish it was me that got dragged off that flight! I could use a fat bank account!!!

Originally Posted by Feesherman (Post 818738)

Like I said, once on the plane the rules have changed and it's out of local PD's jurisdiction. It becomes Federal, as in TSA level at that point. Why you think United blamed the man at first and is now bending over backwards so far as to refund everyone on the plane. The realized what they did was illegal and is now gotten themselves in hot water.

Originally Posted by "W" (Post 818748)

Running back on a plane you were removed from is also a security risk and federal security risk at that !

So he broke the law by running back on a plane when removed by law!

Airline has 100% right to remove anyone from a plane anytime with out reason !




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Feesherman (Post 818738)

Like I said, once on the plane the rules have changed and it's out of local PD's jurisdiction. It becomes Federal, as in TSA level at that point. Why you think United blamed the man at first and is now bending over backwards so far as to refund everyone on the plane. The realized what they did was illegal and is now gotten themselves in hot water.

Originally Posted by "W" (Post 818751)

Clear as day !!
In United rules
Clear as DAY
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...69937b7cfa.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by mcjaredsandwich (Post 818753)

Yea, that's the policy. HOWEVER, all the passengers WERE ALREADY BOARDED. It's not like he jumped through the window. It also states that if no one voluntarily gives up their seats, they will deny further boarding.



You just posted a picture of rules contradicting your argument.

Originally Posted by "W" (Post 818754)

Then In my view it was a successful removal !



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Matt G (Post 818760)

I see reading comprehension isn't your strong point. The flight was not oversold because the 4 employees did not hold a confirmed reserved space, so BY LAW, United could not deny boarding to any passengers holding a confirmed reserved space to accommodate their own employees. It's really that simple.


Go read 14 CRF 250. That's the only rules that apply in this situation. Any policy by United contradicting this is in violations of the law and therefore not valid.
link: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/part-250

Originally Posted by Matt G (Post 818760)

I see reading comprehension isn't your strong point. The flight was not oversold because the 4 employees did not hold a confirmed reserved space, so BY LAW, United could not deny boarding to any passengers holding a confirmed reserved space to accommodate their own employees. It's really that simple.


Go read 14 CRF 250. That's the only rules that apply in this situation. Any policy by United contradicting this is in violations of the law and therefore not valid.
link: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/part-250