> "Airlines are allowed to oversell flights. When they do, they typically offer travel vouchers to encourage some people to give up their seats. They can also bump passengers - force them off the flight - but there are rules and necessary compensation."
> "Dao, who lost teeth and suffered a broken nose and a concussion."
I don't understand why we still allow overbooking when we regulate so much else in the flight industry.
Also, even with allowed overbooking, why is it not the responsibility of the airline — who initially offered travel vouchers per policy — to continually offer more until the offer is accepted? Why are they allowed to determine 'x' amount as justifiable, then forcefully remove people when the passengers disagree? Paying generously should be a penalty of overbooking, at the least.
> Also, even with allowed overbooking, why is it not the responsibility of the airline — who initially offered travel vouchers per policy — to continually offer more until the offer is accepted? Why are they allowed to determine 'x' amount as justifiable, then forcefully remove people when the passengers disagree? Paying generously should be a penalty of overbooking, at the least.
It's actually the federal government that has determined what is appropriate for forced bumping from a flight.
* No compensation for less than one hour delay.
* 200% reward in cash for one to two hours delay.
* 400% reward in cash for two or more hours delay.
* This is all in addition to retaining your original ticket, which the airlines must continue to honor with a new flight. Or you can request a refund, though I'm unsure how that interacts with the rewards.
The vouchers are the airlines attempts to get volunteers for cheaper than the federally-mandated compensation.
I thought there was something about how none of this applies once you've taken your seat. If you're seated, you can refuse to give up your seat (unless you're being removed because of your own behavior).
Some argued the contract of carriage only allows the airline to deny boarding, not to remove you after boarding. But that is a pretty narrow interpretation of the language. Plus, the airline can throw you off the plane for any reason at all, even if doing so is a breach of contract.
There is no explicit law that says you can't be asked to leave a plane you already boarded.
Incorrect. United has a contract of carriage that explicitly enumerates the circumstances in which they can remove you from the aircraft.[1] Overbooking is not one of those reasons, and there is no "catch-all".
A. You make it sound as if a common carrier violating its own contract of carriage is no big deal. Depending on how widespread and severe the violations are, there could be considerable repercussions from the DOT/FAA, in addition to civil damages.
B. It's no simple thing to forcibly remove someone. This is not "being asked to leave a plane you already boarded." but dragging someone out violently. If the airline is the one breaching their contract, why would the police assist in that breach?
Typically breach of contract is no big deal. It happens all the time. Certainly, if airlines are being deceptive it starts becoming a consumer fraud issue and the government should step in.
The police wouldn't be assisting the breach, they'd be removing a trespasser. Once your invitation is revoked, you have no right to stay in a location. Having a claim for breach of contract gives you no right to try to physically force performance.
1. For cheap flights, say a $200 flight, $800 compensation for possibly having to rebook for the next day is not really sufficient, particularly for business travelers, or people with time-sensitive itineraries
2. For people with expensive flights (say $1000) $1350 doesn't really cut the mustard at all.
Irrespective of the above, the airline is certainly allowed to offer more....and adding airline vouchers cost them almost nothing. They can and should do better.
Lets not forget the lobbyists that "asked" the Federal Government to put these limits in place, so the airlines could point their finger and say we're not allowed to offer more.
>I don't understand why we still allow overbooking when we regulate so much else in the flight industry.
Because it's a good thing that results in a much more optimal outcome in the majority of cases. Fuller flights and travelers with flexible schedules get vouchers for other flights.
It wasn't United staff who assaulted a customer, it was airport security staff. The article doesn't say the US won't punish O'Hare Airport over the incident.
> We did not review the actions of the security officers of the Chicago Department of Aviation because it is not DOT's role to investigate police conduct.
This to me seems like the major point. If we imagine we own a restaurant and a customer refused to leave, forcing us to call the police. Then the police show up, over react and shoot the customer. Surely the law enforcers doing the shooting are the responsible/guilty party?
Given your hypothetical restaurant scenario, what would ultimately happen (regardless of responsibility) is that your revenue would topple as guests flee the venue and avoid it like the plague in the future.
United is not a small concern, they have lawyers and PR folks that a small restaurant doesn't have access to.
If you hope to live, you should comply with $random_armed_thug, especially if they are not lawfully authorized. In fact, the less authorized, the more you should comply, unless you're saying you should start fighting an armed mugger in order to protect your wallet.
You comply if you think the request is reasonable and lawful, otherwise you don't.
Maybe you get your nose broken and United allegedly pays you $140 million in damages. Maybe the incident causes all warrantless police offices to be banned from hospital ER rooms.
Or maybe the law doesn't stand on your side and you wind up in jail and fined. Who knows.
Being denied your paid seat is a civil matter (and possibly allowed in the contract you signed when you bought it). The proper course of action is a request for compensation followed by a lawsuit if necessary. Or a complaint to relevant oversight bodies. Or making a stink in the court of public opinion.
But trespassing on someone's property after receiving a request from them to leave is a crime. Disobeying a lawful order from a police officer is another crime. This guy got stupid lucky that the affair went viral. Otherwise he'd just be sitting in jail.
" Disobeying a lawful order from a police officer is another crime" it's not clear that the order was lawful or even that the guard in question was a police officer.
Let me guess: You also think all those people getting shot/beaten/choked to death by police offers in the US were also all disobedient and/or resisting arrest.
> But trespassing on someone's property after receiving a request from them to leave is a crime.
I am not a lawyer, but I don't think it is that simple. 25 CFR 11.411 - Criminal trespass requires the person comitting the offense to "know that he or she is not licensed or privileged to" enter or remain [1].
What if you believe that you are "licensed or privileged" to do remain where you are, because you are in posession of a valid ticket and the demand that you to give up your seat is not consistent with the terms attached to the ticket? It seems that if you believe that you have a license to remain then you are not commiting a crime, even if you are actually mistaken in this belief.
Illinois state law also has a "Criminal trespass to vehicles" offense, but it applies only to entering, not remaining [2].
Being told by the employees, and then security and then police, that you must leave most certainly satisfies that requirement. You don't get a free pass on the law for being obtuse. And again, a contract for a plane ticket is a civil matter. Unless I misunderstand, it has no real bearing on your right to stay at the moment that you're asked to leave. It would only entitle you to recover damages after the fact.
51 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 41.5 ms ] threadI don't understand why we still allow overbooking when we regulate so much else in the flight industry.
Also, even with allowed overbooking, why is it not the responsibility of the airline — who initially offered travel vouchers per policy — to continually offer more until the offer is accepted? Why are they allowed to determine 'x' amount as justifiable, then forcefully remove people when the passengers disagree? Paying generously should be a penalty of overbooking, at the least.
It's actually the federal government that has determined what is appropriate for forced bumping from a flight.
* No compensation for less than one hour delay.
* 200% reward in cash for one to two hours delay.
* 400% reward in cash for two or more hours delay.
* This is all in addition to retaining your original ticket, which the airlines must continue to honor with a new flight. Or you can request a refund, though I'm unsure how that interacts with the rewards.
The vouchers are the airlines attempts to get volunteers for cheaper than the federally-mandated compensation.
https://www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/fly-rights#Overbo...
There is no explicit law that says you can't be asked to leave a plane you already boarded.
[1] https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriag...
B. It's no simple thing to forcibly remove someone. This is not "being asked to leave a plane you already boarded." but dragging someone out violently. If the airline is the one breaching their contract, why would the police assist in that breach?
You can read a bit more--
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/united-airlines-dr-dao-...
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43078.pdf
The police wouldn't be assisting the breach, they'd be removing a trespasser. Once your invitation is revoked, you have no right to stay in a location. Having a claim for breach of contract gives you no right to try to physically force performance.
Which causes two problems.
1. For cheap flights, say a $200 flight, $800 compensation for possibly having to rebook for the next day is not really sufficient, particularly for business travelers, or people with time-sensitive itineraries
2. For people with expensive flights (say $1000) $1350 doesn't really cut the mustard at all.
Irrespective of the above, the airline is certainly allowed to offer more....and adding airline vouchers cost them almost nothing. They can and should do better.
[1] https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2015/05/27/2015-12...
Because it's a good thing that results in a much more optimal outcome in the majority of cases. Fuller flights and travelers with flexible schedules get vouchers for other flights.
> We did not review the actions of the security officers of the Chicago Department of Aviation because it is not DOT's role to investigate police conduct.
- http://www.flyersrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/May-1...
United is not a small concern, they have lawyers and PR folks that a small restaurant doesn't have access to.
I paid for my seat on this flight.
From the Patriot Act, to Warrantless Wiretapping, to this.
Maybe you get your nose broken and United allegedly pays you $140 million in damages. Maybe the incident causes all warrantless police offices to be banned from hospital ER rooms.
Or maybe the law doesn't stand on your side and you wind up in jail and fined. Who knows.
But trespassing on someone's property after receiving a request from them to leave is a crime. Disobeying a lawful order from a police officer is another crime. This guy got stupid lucky that the affair went viral. Otherwise he'd just be sitting in jail.
I am not a lawyer, but I don't think it is that simple. 25 CFR 11.411 - Criminal trespass requires the person comitting the offense to "know that he or she is not licensed or privileged to" enter or remain [1].
What if you believe that you are "licensed or privileged" to do remain where you are, because you are in posession of a valid ticket and the demand that you to give up your seat is not consistent with the terms attached to the ticket? It seems that if you believe that you have a license to remain then you are not commiting a crime, even if you are actually mistaken in this belief.
Illinois state law also has a "Criminal trespass to vehicles" offense, but it applies only to entering, not remaining [2].
[1]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/25/11.411
[2]: http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/documents/072000050K21-...