Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Showing Original Post only (View all)

Pluvious

(5,403 posts)
Wed Apr 12, 2017, 11:40 AM Apr 2017

It was NOT an overbooked flight - lawyer explains [View all]

Too many ppl are confused by United's spinning, including the Governor of New Jersey...

A self-described lawyer explains the details on a post in Reddit...


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.
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.

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.

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.

https://np.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/64m8lg/why_is_rvideos_just_filled_with_united_related/dg3xvja/?context=3
49 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
There you have it...UA can twist and turn and churn - discredit the victim, oh my - asiliveandbreathe Apr 2017 #1
The whole thing seemed seriously messed up The Velveteen Ocelot Apr 2017 #2
Hope all the DU United Airlines Apologists read this... n/m bagelsforbreakfast Apr 2017 #3
United needs to be punished financially and legally so hard IronLionZion Apr 2017 #4
Lawyers should know better FBaggins Apr 2017 #5
Lawyers know how to read contracts. The ticket is a contract and this lawyer is correct. pnwmom Apr 2017 #8
That's nonsense FBaggins Apr 2017 #9
There was no lawyer involved in deciding to eject him from the airplane. pnwmom Apr 2017 #10
Dodging the question? FBaggins Apr 2017 #11
That situation IS specifically provided for in the contract. pnwmom Apr 2017 #12
Read it again FBaggins Apr 2017 #13
Those passengers are being involuntarily denied boarding to the new smaller plane pnwmom Apr 2017 #14
Sorry... nope FBaggins Apr 2017 #16
This was not an emergency situation. No seat was broken. No plane was damaged. Vilis Veritas Apr 2017 #38
When you get off the A321 you are no longer boarded. Sen. Walter Sobchak Apr 2017 #22
Right...your prior boarding has been denied FBaggins Apr 2017 #24
Who in their right mind is going to sit on a broken airplane? Sen. Walter Sobchak Apr 2017 #25
bingo bora13 Apr 2017 #37
+1 dalton99a Apr 2017 #44
There were no safety considerations here. DanTex Apr 2017 #19
There don't have to be FBaggins Apr 2017 #20
I don't see why that's true. DanTex Apr 2017 #21
+1. "The other flight is UA's business problem, not the problem of the people who had tickets..." uponit7771 Apr 2017 #27
The people who had tickets are on both ends of the flight FBaggins Apr 2017 #29
You're right there are a myriad of reasons but the one UA gave was bullshit and they're not going uponit7771 Apr 2017 #26
Except that isn't true either FBaggins Apr 2017 #28
Factually correct tavalon Apr 2017 #32
Agreed FBaggins Apr 2017 #36
That's an entirely different scenario. kcr Apr 2017 #46
I'd love to see him own the company and fire the president and all the security people involved. lark Apr 2017 #6
I usually abhor anyone taking corporations for millions .... BUT flying-skeleton Apr 2017 #7
Agree Meowmee Apr 2017 #15
Clearly the airline acted badly discntnt_irny_srcsm Apr 2017 #23
They have limits to what they can offer tavalon Apr 2017 #33
I really hope this is true and he takes them to the cleaners TNLib Apr 2017 #17
"Including the Governor Of New Jersey?" rocktivity Apr 2017 #18
That was my understanding.. in spite of so many "overbooked" Cha Apr 2017 #30
especially if he can prove libel nt WhiteTara Apr 2017 #31
Yeah, the libel is a lagnappe. tavalon Apr 2017 #34
What a great word! WhiteTara Apr 2017 #39
I don't get to use it much in the real world tavalon Apr 2017 #40
I'm looking for all kinds of ways WhiteTara Apr 2017 #45
I believe that is spelled "lagniappe," though. nt tblue37 Apr 2017 #42
See what happens when you never get to use a word! A special word, in fact the best word! tavalon Apr 2017 #43
Too many people just do NOT BlueMTexpat Apr 2017 #35
This "lawyer" sounds like an idiot Azathoth Apr 2017 #41
How did this passenger act wrongfully? kcr Apr 2017 #47
Because he bought a ticket for passage, not a seat and plane-specific ticket. randome Apr 2017 #49
I'm very curious to see where this goes legally. I have no idea if this self described lawyer is stevenleser Apr 2017 #48
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»It was NOT an overbooked ...