3 ms·

https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriage.aspx?Mobile=1#sec25 https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriag...

hoodoof 10y ago
Clause 5C.2 "Your purchase of services from Corporation may be provided with a light to medium level beating. Additional fees may be charged for such beating."
dingaling 10y ago
From Rule 25: "When there is an Oversold UA flight that originates in the U.S.A. or Canada" This flight was not oversold. The passengers had been gate-checked and embarked[0], ready for departure. There was no shortage of revenue seats. However the airline realised that it needed to position a crew to another destination and to save a few dollars opted to remove four fare-paying passengers from the flight to make space for their non-rev crew. Regardless of that, it does show that when one party ( United ) subcontracts to another ( Republic Airways ) in order to save money, the blowback of adverse PR is onto the main brand and rightly so. [0] technically they weren't yet "boarded" because the doors were open, which interestingly also means that the aircraft wasn't "in flight" and therefore the airline can't appeal to concerns of flight safety.
t0mbstone 10y ago
An interesting comment I ran across... not sure if it's valid or not, though: "Lawyer here. This myth that passengers don't have rights needs to go away, ASAP. Here is how United illegally 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."

hoodoof 10y ago

Clause 5C.2 "Your purchase of services from Corporation may be provided with a light to medium level beating. Additional fees may be charged for such beating."

dingaling 10y ago

From Rule 25: "When there is an Oversold UA flight that originates in the U.S.A. or Canada" This flight was not oversold. The passengers had been gate-checked and embarked[0], ready for departure. There was no shortage of revenue seats. However the airline realised that it needed to position a crew to another destination and to save a few dollars opted to remove four fare-paying passengers from the flight to make space for their non-rev crew. Regardless of that, it does show that when one party ( United ) subcontracts to another ( Republic Airways ) in order to save money, the blowback of adverse PR is onto the main brand and rightly so. [0] technically they weren't yet "boarded" because the doors were open, which interestingly also means that the aircraft wasn't "in flight" and therefore the airline can't appeal to concerns of flight safety.

t0mbstone 10y ago

An interesting comment I ran across... not sure if it's valid or not, though: "Lawyer here. This myth that passengers don't have rights needs to go away, ASAP. Here is how United illegally 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."