re: United Attempted to Throw Another Passenger Off

quote:

---

All of UA’s flights are subject to overbooking which could result in UA’s inability to provide previously confirmed reserved space for a given flight or for the class of service reserved. In that event, UA’s obligation to the Passenger is governed by Rule 25.

---

Here's a good breakdown of rule 25 from another lawyer... Who thinks United is in trouble.

quote:

---

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.”

Rule 21, entitled “Refusal of Transport,” is very different because it clearly and expressly covers situations in which a passenger who has already boarded the plane can be removed. It states clearly: “Rule 21, Refusal of Transport, UA shall have the right to refuse to transport or shall have the RIGHT TO REMOVE FROM THE AIRCRAFT AT ANY POINT, any passenger for the following reasons.” [emphasis added]

The rule, which unlike the denied boarding rule does provide for removal “from the aircraft at any point,” lists some two dozen justifications including: unruly behavior, intoxication, inability to fit into one seat, medical problems or concerns, etc. But nowhere in the list of some two dozen reasons is there anything about over booking, the need to free up seats, the need for seats to accommodate crew members to be used on a different flight etc.

---

LINK

This happens multiple times a day for every airline and I'm judging the frick out of people who overreact to each "new" story. Tards.

quote:

---

Do you not understand that the more of these stories come out the less people will use united? It's bad fricking business.

---

All airlines do this. What happened on that plane would have happened on another airline if that Asian guy was on it and those particular cops were reported to the plane.

God damn it why did I post and keep this damn story going.

quote:

---

Goddamn right they wouldn't, cause they're scared of our primal instincts and our huge dicks.

---

Swing and a miss.

You could have highlighted our history of genocide.

quote:

---

actually that's their prerogative as well, typically it's when they need these company people down line for something they deem crucial to the operation of the airline, so overbooking/sales would apply because the seats would be blocked off for the employees

---

The contract on oversold states it has to have more tickets than seats available "at the prescribed check in time"

Do you have any insight as to what time they're referring to for a typical flight?

quote:

---

They paid for a contractual agreement that INCLUDES LANGUAGE ABOUT OVERBOOKING.

---

Not for long.

This crap is when the Feds, right or wrong, decide to get involved.

10 months from now, we will have regulations severely limiting this practice.

They've hired a new ad man.

quote:

---

10 months from now, we'll have lots of folks bitching about the cost of airfare

---

Agreed.

Unless, they just reform the cost of overboarding, and the manner in which you can remove people, without completely blocking it.

For example, you can't remove someone once their boarding pass has been scanned. And, an increase in the amounts required for involuntary boarding.

What do you think people care more about, paying the cheapest possible price or some overblown media event? 10 times out of 10 it's cheapest possible price. The next time these people that are bitching want to fly and United is cheaper than southwest, delta or whatever other airlines, they're going to fly United.

If an airline can survive crashing and killing 144 people, then it can survive a chinaman losing a few teeth.

United is typically a business person's airline anyways. Business people don't care about this BS, they just want to get on a plane with their award status, fly to their destination, get their hotel points that are also tied to their airline points and then fly home.

Anyone that thinks this is going to have a long term impact on United can go hang out with the other snowflakes.