4 ms·

Ok, here it is, basically, as I heard it in some reasoned reporting the other day: The contract allows them to reschedule you. Period. You can be at the gate

Ok, here it is, basically, as I heard it in some reasoned reporting the other day: The contract allows them to reschedule you. Period. You can be at the gate -- or even boarded -- with your "normal" fare, and a passenger can show up and pay full fare -- say a grand or two versus your $200 ticket. It's economically advantageous for the airline to bump you and give your seat to the last-minute, full fare passenger. Even after comping you say $400 (and that's often in their script, not in actually, fungible dollars) for your inconvenience. And, per the report, they will! Big surprise. In short (in my words), you don't really have a ride until the plane is in the air. If you think this is "unfair", might I suggest... gasp, some regulation?

tyingq 10y ago
It's not that simple, as is usually the case when law and contracts are involved. I suspect this will take some actual legal proceeding for there to be broad agreement. Things that make it complex: - Airlines are "common carriers". So they are subject to laws above and beyond a mom-and-pop restaurant on issues like refusal of service. - They publish a "contract of carriage". - Overbooking didn't happen, so those laws don't offer any protection - They can't have multiple meanings of the term "boarded" and switch meanings to use it to their advantage depending on the sitation. Denied boarding has to happen before boarding. - The door wasn't shut, and the passenger did not assault or intimidate the crew. So "interfering with a flight crew" isn't on the table.
- pasbesoin 10y ago
  Well, then, looks like I have to pay attention to this again and update my understanding. At the same time, this sounds like... regulation! Some form of restriction on how the terms may be interpreted and executed. I am not entirely happy with the situation. I want to know that when I purchase a ticket to go somewhere, I'm going -- absent equipment failure or some act of God. (Or, the occasional drunken pilot...) But, it is what it is. And I get a bit tired of all the outcry when much of such is basically coming from the people who made it this way -- through the governments they've voted for, or not voted for, as the case may be.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - pasbesoin 10y ago
    I've now seen this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14116603 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14116603 https://www.yahoo.com/news/why-united-legally-wrong-deplane-134223391.html https://www.yahoo.com/news/why-united-legally-wrong-deplane-... which provides some more context. I still find it crappy that airlines can bump you if/when someone essentially outbids you at the last moment (prior to boarding) -- after you've already made all your plans and have gotten yourself to the airport. But, as with many things in this society, money takes precedence over all else.
  - kelnos 10y ago
    > And I get a bit tired of all the outcry when much of such is basically coming from the people who made it this way -- through the governments they've voted for, or not voted for, as the case may be. Not even so much that: we, as passengers, are in part responsible as well, due to the vast majority of us picking flights through only one metric: ticket price. Economy passengers are not willing to pay higher ticket prices for better service, and yet still complain about baggage, food, and entertainment fees, and fewer route choices and consolidation. Economy fares have been a race to the bottom for decades now. You get what you pay for. If you want to pay less, you'll get less. That doesn't excuse United breaking their contract, and it doesn't excuse the excessive use of force, but it does put it in context.
- notacoward 10y ago
  Well summarized, especially the last point. Terms like "crewmember" [sic] and "flight time" have very clear definitions in the relevant sections of USC and CFR. Using intuitive "common sense" definitions will lead to a wrong answer - is is often the case with anything legal. Legally, he didn't interfere with a flight crew and wasn't obligated to obey them as a flight crew. The only charge I could see sticking here is simple trespass. United/Republic, as the owners of the vehicle in which he was sitting, had the right to evict him regardless of whether any contract says otherwise. The contract issue has to be resolved separately. However, things like common-carrier laws might complicate even that. It's entirely possible that trespass doesn't apply either. United broke their contract. They also took action which led to violence. Those are two separate things in a legal sense, but United can and should be held accountable for both.

tyingq 10y ago

It's not that simple, as is usually the case when law and contracts are involved. I suspect this will take some actual legal proceeding for there to be broad agreement. Things that make it complex: - Airlines are "common carriers". So they are subject to laws above and beyond a mom-and-pop restaurant on issues like refusal of service. - They publish a "contract of carriage". - Overbooking didn't happen, so those laws don't offer any protection - They can't have multiple meanings of the term "boarded" and switch meanings to use it to their advantage depending on the sitation. Denied boarding has to happen before boarding. - The door wasn't shut, and the passenger did not assault or intimidate the crew. So "interfering with a flight crew" isn't on the table.

pasbesoin 10y ago
Well, then, looks like I have to pay attention to this again and update my understanding. At the same time, this sounds like... regulation! Some form of restriction on how the terms may be interpreted and executed. I am not entirely happy with the situation. I want to know that when I purchase a ticket to go somewhere, I'm going -- absent equipment failure or some act of God. (Or, the occasional drunken pilot...) But, it is what it is. And I get a bit tired of all the outcry when much of such is basically coming from the people who made it this way -- through the governments they've voted for, or not voted for, as the case may be.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- pasbesoin 10y ago
  I've now seen this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14116603 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14116603 https://www.yahoo.com/news/why-united-legally-wrong-deplane-134223391.html https://www.yahoo.com/news/why-united-legally-wrong-deplane-... which provides some more context. I still find it crappy that airlines can bump you if/when someone essentially outbids you at the last moment (prior to boarding) -- after you've already made all your plans and have gotten yourself to the airport. But, as with many things in this society, money takes precedence over all else.
- kelnos 10y ago
  > And I get a bit tired of all the outcry when much of such is basically coming from the people who made it this way -- through the governments they've voted for, or not voted for, as the case may be. Not even so much that: we, as passengers, are in part responsible as well, due to the vast majority of us picking flights through only one metric: ticket price. Economy passengers are not willing to pay higher ticket prices for better service, and yet still complain about baggage, food, and entertainment fees, and fewer route choices and consolidation. Economy fares have been a race to the bottom for decades now. You get what you pay for. If you want to pay less, you'll get less. That doesn't excuse United breaking their contract, and it doesn't excuse the excessive use of force, but it does put it in context.
notacoward 10y ago
Well summarized, especially the last point. Terms like "crewmember" [sic] and "flight time" have very clear definitions in the relevant sections of USC and CFR. Using intuitive "common sense" definitions will lead to a wrong answer - is is often the case with anything legal. Legally, he didn't interfere with a flight crew and wasn't obligated to obey them as a flight crew. The only charge I could see sticking here is simple trespass. United/Republic, as the owners of the vehicle in which he was sitting, had the right to evict him regardless of whether any contract says otherwise. The contract issue has to be resolved separately. However, things like common-carrier laws might complicate even that. It's entirely possible that trespass doesn't apply either. United broke their contract. They also took action which led to violence. Those are two separate things in a legal sense, but United can and should be held accountable for both.