9 ms·

I side with the airline here. What no one mentions, is that this guy bought a ticket where the fare rules clearly state your seat is conditional; it was a deep

I side with the airline here. What no one mentions, is that this guy bought a ticket where the fare rules clearly state your seat is conditional; it was a deeply discounted fare. If I have something important where I need to be somewhere, I buy a fare that guarantees me a seat. It’s an option you select in nearly every reservation system I’ve used (including the airlines websites). The airline was well within its rights. If he was a doctor, and it was that important, he should be buying a fare that reflects that and avoid these issues. He bought the cheapest fare that clearly stated the rules where he would lose his seat under certain conditions, then acted indignant when there were consequences. The airline asked him to leave, he refused. That’s trespassing, “plane” and simple. When the police came, he still refused. They arrested him, and he still refused. I’m not really sure how else you remove any trespasser that refuses to comply, without some use of force. I fly all the time, and I have to buy the more expensive fares because I’m an adult that has appointments. It would make me angry if the airline was prioritizing deeply discounted fares and bumping me instead because of someone’s self-important claims. Need to be there at a certain time? Buy a real ticket.

DannyBee 5y ago
This is totally and completely wrong, legally. They may deny boarding. This is the legal term even ("Denied boarding"). That is why they do it prior to boarding the aircraft. You will get "Denied Boarding compensation" (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/part-250 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/part-250) Once they have taken your ticket, you have boarded, and have sat down, you may no longer be denied boarding due to oversale. Heck, once they have taken your ticket and told you you can proceed to board, they can't remove you whether you've gotten on the plane or not. They may only remove you "due to a safety, security, or health risk, or due to a behavior that is considered obscene, disruptive, or otherwise unlawful" See, e.g., https://www.transportation.gov/individuals/aviation-consumer-protection/bumping-oversales https://www.transportation.gov/individuals/aviation-consumer... Scroll to "Can airlines involuntarily bump me after I have boarded the flight?"
- rgbrenner 5y ago
  Thats a rule change the FAA made because of David Dao https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/27/travel/airlines-bumping-rules.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/27/travel/airlines-bumping-r...
  - DannyBee 5y ago
    That article is actually a bit wrong. First, that particular change was part of the 2018 FAA reauthorization act (congress did it - see https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/PLAW-115publ254 https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/PLAW-115publ254), but they link to the DOT regulations done much later. It's true it was a response to David Dao. But it was actually never allowed, even before that. The airlines just liked to argue about it and be a pain in the ass, so they added a line to the law about it. In the case of David Dao specifically - the flight was not oversold, so they had zero leg to stand on. (Now, once they asked him to leave, he needs to leave, but they did not have a right to ask him to leave)
    - petre 5y ago
      Did he sue? I've grown tired of airline and car booking company abuse. I'll notify the appropriate authorites or maybe even sue when I can, thanx to WizzAir, Ryanair, Booking.com and other abusive companies. In the EU it's easier because there's all kinds of consumer protection laws. Vacating seats by force is pretty much unhead of.
      - DannyBee 5y ago
        His attorney said he intended to. They settled 3 days later. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Express_Flight_3411_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Express_Flight_3411_inc... Search for "confidential settlement"
- joshuaissac 5y ago
  Not only that, but the contract only allowed the airline to deny boarding on oversold flights, which the flight in question was not. So they would have been in breach even if they had only denied boarding instead of seating him and then dragging him out. https://www.forbes.com/sites/omribenshahar/2017/04/14/david-dao-versus-united-what-does-the-airline-contract-say/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/omribenshahar/2017/04/14/david-...
buran77 5y ago
Not referring to this case in particular, barring someone from ever using a service which may not have a decent or equivalent replacement always seems like an abuse especially when we're not talking about something criminal on a certain scale. Fine the person, increase the fine for every subsequent incident cause by the person, have them pay damages in court. The imbalance caused by these rules being applied one sided by a company in a strong position of power against an individual with no power whatsoever is not healthy. And the imbalance of power is core here. Boeing resolved the criminal charge related to the 737 MAX scandal by paying $2.5bn. The CEO isn't on a "no freedom list" despite his actions leading to the deaths of 346 people. The CEOs f airlines operating the 737 MAX who were informed by the pilots of the dangers but did not cease flying that plane, endangering tens of thousands. What kind of list should that land them on but didn't? If you do something on the internet that endangers someone's safety do you go on a national "no internet" list? If you cause an accident on a public road do you go on a "no car/no access to public roads" list?
- wang_li 5y ago
  - buran77 5y ago
    > Sometimes courts do order people not to use computers or electronic communications devices. Yes... a court, almost exclusively as a result of a major crime (hacking or child pornography/pedophilia), and almost always just restricted or supervised access. Delta is a private company looking to impose even harsher blanket bans arbitrarily. > Again, yes this happens. At least in terms of being a driver. So it happens but for a completely different use case. Where you just can't operate the vehicle yourself but are freely allowed to use it if operated by someone else or any of the many realistic alternatives. Being banned from any flight for being a nuisance is nothing like any of those cases. Sometimes there's no realistic alternative to flight due to price or conditions. > Instead there should be a multi-year ban on flying followed by a lifetime of only being able to fly in physical restraints. By restraints I mean, if not put in a coffin like box and shipped as cargo, then adult diaper, anti-spit hood, straight-jacket and ankle shackles. My God man, this is deranged! You spent 2 lines being completely wrong about the facts trying to contradict my opinion, and 80% of your comment with a deranged description of how someone should be abused, humiliated, punished, and almost guaranteed killed in case of an accident just for the "privilege" of being on a flight after doing something stupid. Surely if such punishments were applied every time you did something stupid we would be having a different conversation now. I know because I've seen too many people with "radical" ideas having a moment of enlightenment when being at the wrong end of them.
aseerdbnarng 5y ago
Someone housetrained you very well
ghaff 5y ago
>I fly all the time, and I have to buy the more expensive fares because I’m an adult that has appointments. I have status on the airline I usually fly on and don't buy "Economy minus" fares. But I certainly don't generally fly business or otherwise pay higher fares because "I'm an adult who has appointments" and my company almost certainly wouldn't reimburse me if I did. And I'm sure that's true for almost everyone.

DannyBee 5y ago

This is totally and completely wrong, legally. They may deny boarding. This is the legal term even ("Denied boarding"). That is why they do it prior to boarding the aircraft. You will get "Denied Boarding compensation" (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/part-250 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/part-250) Once they have taken your ticket, you have boarded, and have sat down, you may no longer be denied boarding due to oversale. Heck, once they have taken your ticket and told you you can proceed to board, they can't remove you whether you've gotten on the plane or not. They may only remove you "due to a safety, security, or health risk, or due to a behavior that is considered obscene, disruptive, or otherwise unlawful" See, e.g., https://www.transportation.gov/individuals/aviation-consumer-protection/bumping-oversales https://www.transportation.gov/individuals/aviation-consumer... Scroll to "Can airlines involuntarily bump me after I have boarded the flight?"

rgbrenner 5y ago
Thats a rule change the FAA made because of David Dao https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/27/travel/airlines-bumping-rules.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/27/travel/airlines-bumping-r...
- DannyBee 5y ago
  That article is actually a bit wrong. First, that particular change was part of the 2018 FAA reauthorization act (congress did it - see https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/PLAW-115publ254 https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/PLAW-115publ254), but they link to the DOT regulations done much later. It's true it was a response to David Dao. But it was actually never allowed, even before that. The airlines just liked to argue about it and be a pain in the ass, so they added a line to the law about it. In the case of David Dao specifically - the flight was not oversold, so they had zero leg to stand on. (Now, once they asked him to leave, he needs to leave, but they did not have a right to ask him to leave)
  - petre 5y ago
    Did he sue? I've grown tired of airline and car booking company abuse. I'll notify the appropriate authorites or maybe even sue when I can, thanx to WizzAir, Ryanair, Booking.com and other abusive companies. In the EU it's easier because there's all kinds of consumer protection laws. Vacating seats by force is pretty much unhead of.
    - DannyBee 5y ago
      His attorney said he intended to. They settled 3 days later. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Express_Flight_3411_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Express_Flight_3411_inc... Search for "confidential settlement"
joshuaissac 5y ago
Not only that, but the contract only allowed the airline to deny boarding on oversold flights, which the flight in question was not. So they would have been in breach even if they had only denied boarding instead of seating him and then dragging him out. https://www.forbes.com/sites/omribenshahar/2017/04/14/david-dao-versus-united-what-does-the-airline-contract-say/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/omribenshahar/2017/04/14/david-...

buran77 5y ago

Not referring to this case in particular, barring someone from ever using a service which may not have a decent or equivalent replacement always seems like an abuse especially when we're not talking about something criminal on a certain scale. Fine the person, increase the fine for every subsequent incident cause by the person, have them pay damages in court. The imbalance caused by these rules being applied one sided by a company in a strong position of power against an individual with no power whatsoever is not healthy. And the imbalance of power is core here. Boeing resolved the criminal charge related to the 737 MAX scandal by paying $2.5bn. The CEO isn't on a "no freedom list" despite his actions leading to the deaths of 346 people. The CEOs f airlines operating the 737 MAX who were informed by the pilots of the dangers but did not cease flying that plane, endangering tens of thousands. What kind of list should that land them on but didn't? If you do something on the internet that endangers someone's safety do you go on a national "no internet" list? If you cause an accident on a public road do you go on a "no car/no access to public roads" list?

wang_li 5y ago
- buran77 5y ago
  > Sometimes courts do order people not to use computers or electronic communications devices. Yes... a court, almost exclusively as a result of a major crime (hacking or child pornography/pedophilia), and almost always just restricted or supervised access. Delta is a private company looking to impose even harsher blanket bans arbitrarily. > Again, yes this happens. At least in terms of being a driver. So it happens but for a completely different use case. Where you just can't operate the vehicle yourself but are freely allowed to use it if operated by someone else or any of the many realistic alternatives. Being banned from any flight for being a nuisance is nothing like any of those cases. Sometimes there's no realistic alternative to flight due to price or conditions. > Instead there should be a multi-year ban on flying followed by a lifetime of only being able to fly in physical restraints. By restraints I mean, if not put in a coffin like box and shipped as cargo, then adult diaper, anti-spit hood, straight-jacket and ankle shackles. My God man, this is deranged! You spent 2 lines being completely wrong about the facts trying to contradict my opinion, and 80% of your comment with a deranged description of how someone should be abused, humiliated, punished, and almost guaranteed killed in case of an accident just for the "privilege" of being on a flight after doing something stupid. Surely if such punishments were applied every time you did something stupid we would be having a different conversation now. I know because I've seen too many people with "radical" ideas having a moment of enlightenment when being at the wrong end of them.

aseerdbnarng 5y ago

Someone housetrained you very well

ghaff 5y ago

>I fly all the time, and I have to buy the more expensive fares because I’m an adult that has appointments. I have status on the airline I usually fly on and don't buy "Economy minus" fares. But I certainly don't generally fly business or otherwise pay higher fares because "I'm an adult who has appointments" and my company almost certainly wouldn't reimburse me if I did. And I'm sure that's true for almost everyone.