5 ms·

From what I've understood, the problem is the United policy to never go above $800. Not ever, even if it means calling the cops. To me, such a policy appears

From what I've understood, the problem is the United policy to never go above $800. Not ever, even if it means calling the cops. To me, such a policy appears to be in direct violation of the DoT rules.

bb611 10y ago
Until United staff say "Your ticket is revoked", you are still a volunteer. You are in the negotiation phase for volunteering until they actually come tell you that your ticket has specifically been revoked for the flight, at which point the DoT minimum compensation rules take over. This particular policy does appear to be in line with DoT's requirements - you can get volunteers for any price you're willing to negotiate. Even if United has set a maximum price of $800 in some evil combination of travel vouchers that you'll never use, that is expressly legal. The required compensation only kicks in if you refuse that offer AND they still revoke your ticket for the flight.
- FireBeyond 10y ago
  Yeah, there's also a plausible argument that you're not really a volunteer, especially when United has released a statement saying "Police were called after the passenger refused to voluntarily deplane". "You can volunteer or be arrested" is an interpretation of "volunteer" that is neither the letter nor spirit of the definition.
  - bb611 10y ago
    It appears you're confused by the use of variations on volunteer in different The facts of the situation were this: 1. United offered vouchers up to $800 - this is the volunteer phase. 2. They received no volunteers. 3. Moving on from the volunteer phase, they selected 4 passengers to be removed from the flight. 4. They informed those passengers they needed to get off the flight (so now they're covered by the DoT minimum compensation, which is unrelated to #1). 5. Mr. Dao refused to VOLUNTARILY leave his seat, but 3 other passengers did. 6. Police were called, video was taken, lawsuits were started. "Voluntarily" in the sentence you're quoting doesn't refer to #1 above, it refers to the fact that Mr. Dao, after being told by a gate agent to leave the plane, did not do so. It does not have any relationship to the DoT "volunteer" rules, it has to do with whether he was willing to leave the plane after being told to do so by a person who was empowered by their employer to get people to leave the plane (although their exact legal right to do so remains somewhat grey). edit: your -> you're
    - FireBeyond 10y ago
      In your point 5, the word "voluntarily" is a misnomer, is the point. "5. Mr Dao refused to leave his seat." Refusing to voluntarily leave implies he ever had an option to reject the request, which he did not.
      - bdhess 10y ago
        I think that question is likely to be the basis of much of the litigation here, and from everything I read it's not exactly a settled matter.
    - logfromblammo 10y ago
      I would argue that Dr. Dao continued to have a legal right to be on the plane until at least after the purchase price of his ticket had been refunded in cash. At that time, he could possibly be trespassed off the aircraft. But until then, he remained boarded and seated, with a valid lease on that seat, with the default rights of all humans, plus any additional rights granted to airline passengers by US law. He didn't voluntarily leave, because he had no reasonable expectation that he wouldn't actually have a choice in the matter. You can't voluntarily do anything if not doing that thing is attached to the threat of force. He refused to be coerced out of his seat, and had to be forced. Voluntarism doesn't enter into it, if there is no meaningful choice. And then, the instant he's off the plane, they can either hand over another 4x multiple of his fare in cash, and tell the guy to sod off, or they can make a best effort to get the guy to his destination and possibly still pay him something when the alternate transportation arrives, according to how many hours of delay the passenger experienced. While the media have been quoting $1350 as a maximum, 14CFR250.5(e) mandated reviews in 2012 and every 2 years thereafter, that use the CPI-U index to adjust the maximums. The CPI-U of August 2011 was 226545, and the CPI-U of July 2016 was 240647. So the 1-to-2-hour-delay compensation cap should be $675 * 240647/226545, rounded to the nearest $25, which is $725, and the over-2-hour-delay compensation cap is twice that, or $1450. Inflation. Furthermore, the airline may offer vouchers and discounts only if their value equals or exceeds the cash value they would otherwise be required to pay, and the passenger is not required to accept them in lieu of cash. I would argue that an $800 travel voucher that expires in one year is worth much less than $800 in cash, especially when the average American travels by air only once per year. I would personally value $800 in expiring vouchers at around $200 cash.
- gnopgnip 10y ago
  Once you are seated it is too late for your ticket to be revoked.
  - rhino369 10y ago
    A lot of people are saying that, but it's based on a tenuous interpretation of the law. Even if revoking the ticket would be a breach of contract at that point, there doesn't appear to be a law against it.
    - 1024core 10y ago
      That's not a "tenuous interpretation of the law". That is the right interpretation of the law. Once you have been accepted as a passenger and boarded the plan and been seated, there's no legal reason for the airline to eject you without cause.
    - ubernostrum 10y ago
      You really should read the analyses people are posting about that. I don't know of any credible people saying it's flat-out always illegal to remove someone after allowing them onboard, but I do know of credible people saying the legally and contractually permitted reasons for it are few in number and the reason given in this situation (to make room for deadheading crew) is not one of those permitted reasons.
compsciphd 10y ago
a bit more complicated. I believe what I read was United knows the cheapest tickets on the flight are $200. They know DOT mandated compensation for involuntary bumping is 4x cost of ticket. Hence, its not worth it to them to offer more than $800 in compensation as they can just bump people involuntarily for the same value. Demonstrating why the DOTs rules for involuntary bumping create perverse market incentives re overbooking.
- rhino369 10y ago
  >Demonstrating why the DOTs rules for involuntary bumping create perverse market incentives re overbooking. Without the law, United wouldn't even have to pay 4x. The remedies for regular breach of contract aren't very good.
  - compsciphd 10y ago
    the law can be that overbooking is allowed but airlines also cant involuntary boot anyone. They have to incentivize someone to get off. I'm sure if they went up to $2k in cash someone would have taken them up on the offer and just ubered to ($400ish if I remember what my check showed me) to their destination. For me, $800 (even cash) wouldn't have been sufficient for me to convince me to uber to my destination, even if I wouldn't have lost money on the transaction. i.e. airlines are only allowed to purposefully overbook due to DOT rules, the same rules provide what I perceive as a perverse incentive when it comes to encouraging involuntary bumping.
    - rhino369 10y ago
      The part you are missing is that airlines don't need a law that lets them overbook. They absolutely can involuntary boot anyone for any reason (other than discriminatory reasons that are otherwise illegal). Booting a person would be a breach of contract, but breaches of contracts aren't illegal. Hell, they could update their contact and then it wouldn't even be a breach of a contract. The law was written to reign in their behavior. Without it, they have a lot more freedom.

bb611 10y ago

Until United staff say "Your ticket is revoked", you are still a volunteer. You are in the negotiation phase for volunteering until they actually come tell you that your ticket has specifically been revoked for the flight, at which point the DoT minimum compensation rules take over. This particular policy does appear to be in line with DoT's requirements - you can get volunteers for any price you're willing to negotiate. Even if United has set a maximum price of $800 in some evil combination of travel vouchers that you'll never use, that is expressly legal. The required compensation only kicks in if you refuse that offer AND they still revoke your ticket for the flight.

FireBeyond 10y ago
Yeah, there's also a plausible argument that you're not really a volunteer, especially when United has released a statement saying "Police were called after the passenger refused to voluntarily deplane". "You can volunteer or be arrested" is an interpretation of "volunteer" that is neither the letter nor spirit of the definition.
- bb611 10y ago
  It appears you're confused by the use of variations on volunteer in different The facts of the situation were this: 1. United offered vouchers up to $800 - this is the volunteer phase. 2. They received no volunteers. 3. Moving on from the volunteer phase, they selected 4 passengers to be removed from the flight. 4. They informed those passengers they needed to get off the flight (so now they're covered by the DoT minimum compensation, which is unrelated to #1). 5. Mr. Dao refused to VOLUNTARILY leave his seat, but 3 other passengers did. 6. Police were called, video was taken, lawsuits were started. "Voluntarily" in the sentence you're quoting doesn't refer to #1 above, it refers to the fact that Mr. Dao, after being told by a gate agent to leave the plane, did not do so. It does not have any relationship to the DoT "volunteer" rules, it has to do with whether he was willing to leave the plane after being told to do so by a person who was empowered by their employer to get people to leave the plane (although their exact legal right to do so remains somewhat grey). edit: your -> you're
  - FireBeyond 10y ago
    In your point 5, the word "voluntarily" is a misnomer, is the point. "5. Mr Dao refused to leave his seat." Refusing to voluntarily leave implies he ever had an option to reject the request, which he did not.
    - bdhess 10y ago
      I think that question is likely to be the basis of much of the litigation here, and from everything I read it's not exactly a settled matter.
  - logfromblammo 10y ago
    I would argue that Dr. Dao continued to have a legal right to be on the plane until at least after the purchase price of his ticket had been refunded in cash. At that time, he could possibly be trespassed off the aircraft. But until then, he remained boarded and seated, with a valid lease on that seat, with the default rights of all humans, plus any additional rights granted to airline passengers by US law. He didn't voluntarily leave, because he had no reasonable expectation that he wouldn't actually have a choice in the matter. You can't voluntarily do anything if not doing that thing is attached to the threat of force. He refused to be coerced out of his seat, and had to be forced. Voluntarism doesn't enter into it, if there is no meaningful choice. And then, the instant he's off the plane, they can either hand over another 4x multiple of his fare in cash, and tell the guy to sod off, or they can make a best effort to get the guy to his destination and possibly still pay him something when the alternate transportation arrives, according to how many hours of delay the passenger experienced. While the media have been quoting $1350 as a maximum, 14CFR250.5(e) mandated reviews in 2012 and every 2 years thereafter, that use the CPI-U index to adjust the maximums. The CPI-U of August 2011 was 226545, and the CPI-U of July 2016 was 240647. So the 1-to-2-hour-delay compensation cap should be $675 * 240647/226545, rounded to the nearest $25, which is $725, and the over-2-hour-delay compensation cap is twice that, or $1450. Inflation. Furthermore, the airline may offer vouchers and discounts only if their value equals or exceeds the cash value they would otherwise be required to pay, and the passenger is not required to accept them in lieu of cash. I would argue that an $800 travel voucher that expires in one year is worth much less than $800 in cash, especially when the average American travels by air only once per year. I would personally value $800 in expiring vouchers at around $200 cash.
gnopgnip 10y ago
Once you are seated it is too late for your ticket to be revoked.
- rhino369 10y ago
  A lot of people are saying that, but it's based on a tenuous interpretation of the law. Even if revoking the ticket would be a breach of contract at that point, there doesn't appear to be a law against it.
  - 1024core 10y ago
    That's not a "tenuous interpretation of the law". That is the right interpretation of the law. Once you have been accepted as a passenger and boarded the plan and been seated, there's no legal reason for the airline to eject you without cause.
  - ubernostrum 10y ago
    You really should read the analyses people are posting about that. I don't know of any credible people saying it's flat-out always illegal to remove someone after allowing them onboard, but I do know of credible people saying the legally and contractually permitted reasons for it are few in number and the reason given in this situation (to make room for deadheading crew) is not one of those permitted reasons.

compsciphd 10y ago

a bit more complicated. I believe what I read was United knows the cheapest tickets on the flight are $200. They know DOT mandated compensation for involuntary bumping is 4x cost of ticket. Hence, its not worth it to them to offer more than $800 in compensation as they can just bump people involuntarily for the same value. Demonstrating why the DOTs rules for involuntary bumping create perverse market incentives re overbooking.

rhino369 10y ago
>Demonstrating why the DOTs rules for involuntary bumping create perverse market incentives re overbooking. Without the law, United wouldn't even have to pay 4x. The remedies for regular breach of contract aren't very good.
- compsciphd 10y ago
  the law can be that overbooking is allowed but airlines also cant involuntary boot anyone. They have to incentivize someone to get off. I'm sure if they went up to $2k in cash someone would have taken them up on the offer and just ubered to ($400ish if I remember what my check showed me) to their destination. For me, $800 (even cash) wouldn't have been sufficient for me to convince me to uber to my destination, even if I wouldn't have lost money on the transaction. i.e. airlines are only allowed to purposefully overbook due to DOT rules, the same rules provide what I perceive as a perverse incentive when it comes to encouraging involuntary bumping.
  - rhino369 10y ago
    The part you are missing is that airlines don't need a law that lets them overbook. They absolutely can involuntary boot anyone for any reason (other than discriminatory reasons that are otherwise illegal). Booting a person would be a breach of contract, but breaches of contracts aren't illegal. Hell, they could update their contact and then it wouldn't even be a breach of a contract. The law was written to reign in their behavior. Without it, they have a lot more freedom.