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)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
Lawyers know how to read contracts. The ticket is a contract and this lawyer is correct.
pnwmom
Apr 2017
#8
Those passengers are being involuntarily denied boarding to the new smaller plane
pnwmom
Apr 2017
#14
This was not an emergency situation. No seat was broken. No plane was damaged.
Vilis Veritas
Apr 2017
#38
+1. "The other flight is UA's business problem, not the problem of the people who had tickets..."
uponit7771
Apr 2017
#27
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
I'd love to see him own the company and fire the president and all the security people involved.
lark
Apr 2017
#6
See what happens when you never get to use a word! A special word, in fact the best word!
tavalon
Apr 2017
#43
I'm very curious to see where this goes legally. I have no idea if this self described lawyer is
stevenleser
Apr 2017
#48