5 ms·

You are wrong. The law permits denial of boarding in the event of oversold flights, however, the passenger was already boarded and the flight was not actually o

You are wrong. The law permits denial of boarding in the event of oversold flights, however, the passenger was already boarded and the flight was not actually oversold.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
masondixon 9y ago
If an airline says someone must leave the flight, the person must leave the flight. Simple as that. I can't imagine living in a society that does not allow the airline to do so. They can fight it out in court if they like afterwards.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- mikeash 9y ago
  Why is being able to remove paying customers such an important right, but not getting what you pay for? Kicking out a paying customer who has committed no wrongdoing is essentially theft. Airlines should be able to kick people off for actual good reasons, like if they're a safety threat. But "we want that seat more than you do" is not a good reason. For that, they should be required to secure the consent of the person in question by whatever means necessary, probably by paying them enough to make it worth their while.
  - masondixon 9y ago
    I see the difference between denied boarding and deplaned as legalistic. Its essentially the same thing. Overbooking is legislated. Don't like it, change the legislation. I have been in situations where I am offered $800 to be voluntarily bumped. This is okay with me. I would prefer not to be bumped off a flight, but the compensation is very generous, and I understand that it allows airlines to be more efficient and that they make really small margins and a lot are struggling. The free market is working and I pay a really low price for tickets. I don't think this is the argument though. Its about one passenger kicking and screaming instead of doing what every other passenger would have done, and then take it up with the courts if necessary which would create new precedent that could be used to justify modifying the legislation. I don't want to see people being dragged off planes, and the answer is not to "never drag people off planes". We live in a civil society where people are wronged, but they can pursue it in the courts.
    - mikeash 9y ago
      I agree that there's no fundamental difference between denying boarding and removing someone who has already boarded. If done involuntarily, both are effectively theft. When denying boarding or removing a passenger who has done nothing wrong, the airline should be required to secure their consent. Then the question of "drag people off planes" would never even come up. That, and the subsequent court case, can be reserved for people who actually do something wrong.
      - masondixon 9y ago
        > If done involuntarily, both are effectively theft. You sign a contract when you buy a ticket. You willingly agree to the terms. Can you make a contract that someone can steal from you? No. > When denying boarding or removing a passenger who has done nothing wrong, the airline should be required to secure their consent. Then the question of "drag people off planes" would never even come up. That, and the subsequent court case, can be reserved for people who actually do something wrong. In a civil society, we resolve disputes with civility in the courts or through arbitration. Not kicking and screaming. Simple. If this goes through the courts, then we will have some new precedent, that could be made law. The kicking and screaming don't help no one.
        mikeash 9y ago
        Why does "we go through the courts" not also apply to removing passengers? Based on what you're advocating, it seems like the airlines should let him stay and then sue him, rather than having him forcibly removed. I think I understand the principles you're espousing, but you seem to be applying them only to one side.
        masondixon 9y ago
        > but you seem to be applying them only to one side. I guess the principle I am arguing for is when one side is prepared to use physical force (which they believe is justified) to remove someone from their private property, then the "trespasser" should abide by that (for the time-being), and seek legal remedy. I see this as the only option to remaining civil. I don't see how society can function without violence without this being adhered to. Also, when someone is charge with private security or as law enforcement, they should be respected where they physically enforce something. Again, once they have made up their mind to enforce something physically, I don't see a way to maintain civility in any other way than respecting their wishes. In this case it was the airline's private property, and they felt justified to physically remove someone. Now whether or not this is justified, is a matter for the courts to decide.
  - danderino 9y ago
    >Why is being able to remove paying customers such an important right, but not getting what you pay for? Kicking out a paying customer who has committed no wrongdoing is essentially theft. No it isn't. The customer would have to be compensated for the damages. But you should have the right to break contracts. >Airlines should be able to kick people off for actual good reasons, like if they're a safety threat. But "we want that seat more than you do" is not a good reason. My guess is that the reason here was "If we dont kick you off, we have to cancel/delay another flight"
    - mikeash 9y ago
      That's probably what they thought, but that reason is BS. All they had to do to avoid canceling or delaying the flight was to increase their offered compensation until someone accepted it voluntarily.
- _-__--____-- 9y ago
  >I can't imagine living in a society that does not allow the airline to do so. I can't imagine living in a society where the airline is allowed to fix their fuckups by using a force towards a paying customer. They should let the passenger to stay on the plane and fight it out in court if they like afterwards.
  - masondixon 9y ago
    Interesting point. But I see the after boarding vs. before boarding to be essentially the same. Say the passenger forced his way on the plane after being bumped. Is this any different?

You are wrong. The law permits denial of boarding in the event of oversold flights, however, the passenger was already boarded and the flight was not actually oversold.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

masondixon 9y ago

If an airline says someone must leave the flight, the person must leave the flight. Simple as that. I can't imagine living in a society that does not allow the airline to do so. They can fight it out in court if they like afterwards.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
mikeash 9y ago
Why is being able to remove paying customers such an important right, but not getting what you pay for? Kicking out a paying customer who has committed no wrongdoing is essentially theft. Airlines should be able to kick people off for actual good reasons, like if they're a safety threat. But "we want that seat more than you do" is not a good reason. For that, they should be required to secure the consent of the person in question by whatever means necessary, probably by paying them enough to make it worth their while.
- masondixon 9y ago
  I see the difference between denied boarding and deplaned as legalistic. Its essentially the same thing. Overbooking is legislated. Don't like it, change the legislation. I have been in situations where I am offered $800 to be voluntarily bumped. This is okay with me. I would prefer not to be bumped off a flight, but the compensation is very generous, and I understand that it allows airlines to be more efficient and that they make really small margins and a lot are struggling. The free market is working and I pay a really low price for tickets. I don't think this is the argument though. Its about one passenger kicking and screaming instead of doing what every other passenger would have done, and then take it up with the courts if necessary which would create new precedent that could be used to justify modifying the legislation. I don't want to see people being dragged off planes, and the answer is not to "never drag people off planes". We live in a civil society where people are wronged, but they can pursue it in the courts.
  - mikeash 9y ago
    I agree that there's no fundamental difference between denying boarding and removing someone who has already boarded. If done involuntarily, both are effectively theft. When denying boarding or removing a passenger who has done nothing wrong, the airline should be required to secure their consent. Then the question of "drag people off planes" would never even come up. That, and the subsequent court case, can be reserved for people who actually do something wrong.
    - masondixon 9y ago
      > If done involuntarily, both are effectively theft. You sign a contract when you buy a ticket. You willingly agree to the terms. Can you make a contract that someone can steal from you? No. > When denying boarding or removing a passenger who has done nothing wrong, the airline should be required to secure their consent. Then the question of "drag people off planes" would never even come up. That, and the subsequent court case, can be reserved for people who actually do something wrong. In a civil society, we resolve disputes with civility in the courts or through arbitration. Not kicking and screaming. Simple. If this goes through the courts, then we will have some new precedent, that could be made law. The kicking and screaming don't help no one.
      - mikeash 9y ago
        Why does "we go through the courts" not also apply to removing passengers? Based on what you're advocating, it seems like the airlines should let him stay and then sue him, rather than having him forcibly removed. I think I understand the principles you're espousing, but you seem to be applying them only to one side.
        masondixon 9y ago
        > but you seem to be applying them only to one side. I guess the principle I am arguing for is when one side is prepared to use physical force (which they believe is justified) to remove someone from their private property, then the "trespasser" should abide by that (for the time-being), and seek legal remedy. I see this as the only option to remaining civil. I don't see how society can function without violence without this being adhered to. Also, when someone is charge with private security or as law enforcement, they should be respected where they physically enforce something. Again, once they have made up their mind to enforce something physically, I don't see a way to maintain civility in any other way than respecting their wishes. In this case it was the airline's private property, and they felt justified to physically remove someone. Now whether or not this is justified, is a matter for the courts to decide.
- danderino 9y ago
  >Why is being able to remove paying customers such an important right, but not getting what you pay for? Kicking out a paying customer who has committed no wrongdoing is essentially theft. No it isn't. The customer would have to be compensated for the damages. But you should have the right to break contracts. >Airlines should be able to kick people off for actual good reasons, like if they're a safety threat. But "we want that seat more than you do" is not a good reason. My guess is that the reason here was "If we dont kick you off, we have to cancel/delay another flight"
  - mikeash 9y ago
    That's probably what they thought, but that reason is BS. All they had to do to avoid canceling or delaying the flight was to increase their offered compensation until someone accepted it voluntarily.
_-__--____-- 9y ago
>I can't imagine living in a society that does not allow the airline to do so. I can't imagine living in a society where the airline is allowed to fix their fuckups by using a force towards a paying customer. They should let the passenger to stay on the plane and fight it out in court if they like afterwards.
- masondixon 9y ago
  Interesting point. But I see the after boarding vs. before boarding to be essentially the same. Say the passenger forced his way on the plane after being bumped. Is this any different?