3 ms·
Incidentally, according to one blog post I read[0], it's not actually so clear that they had the right to remove the customer. Apparently their contract reserve
by vilhelm_s 10y ago
Incidentally, according to one blog post I read[0], it's not actually so clear that they had the right to remove the customer. Apparently their contract reserves the right to refuse someone boarding if e.g. they are oversold. However, the contract also sets out a much more restricted set of circumstances for when a customer who _has_ boarded can be evicted, and none of those applies here. It seems like under a literal reading (he did board the plane, after all), he had the right to stay on the plane...
[0]: http://www.dorfonlaw.org/2017/04/united-airlines-own-contract-denied-it.html http://www.dorfonlaw.org/2017/04/united-airlines-own-contrac...
- mirimir 10y agoYes! This in particular: > One might argue that Dao had not completed “boarding” until the cabin door was closed. This argument would be wrong. The term “boarding” is not defined in the definition section of the contract, and absent an explicit definition in the contract, terms are to be afforded their plain meaning. “Boarding” means that the passenger presents a boarding pass to the gate agent who accepts or scans the pass and permits entry through the gate to the airplane, allowing the passenger to enter the aircraft and take a seat. > It is possible in this regard to distinguish between the collective completion of the plane’s boarding process, which is not complete until all passengers have boarded and the cabin door is closed. But that is different from each passenger’s boarding, which is complete for each individual once he or she has been accepted for transportation by the gate agent and proceeded to the aircraft and taken his or her assigned seat.