# United airlines brutally removes passenger after overbooking flight **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [April 10, 2017, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/united-airlines-brutally-removes-passenger-after-overbooking-flight/784171 "2017-04-10T14:04:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 53
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2017, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/united-airlines-brutally-removes-passenger-after-overbooking-flight/784171/1041 "2017-04-13T19:51:30Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > I suspect something that will come out of all of this is an explicit definition from DOT as to what boarding is. Right, and how United chooses to define it might not even be relevant. It is the federal regulations that determine the way that “denied boarding” is handled, and so one would assume that the regulators would be the one to determine what actually constitutes the legal and regulatory definition of boarding. United might say, for example, something like: “Boarding is not complete until the plane’s doors are closed, and anyone can be removed up until this time.” The regulators, however, might decide to write something like: “For each individual passenger, boarding is deemed to have been completed once the passenger, in possession of a valid boarding pass, takes his or her assigned seat on the plane.” ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2017, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/united-airlines-brutally-removes-passenger-after-overbooking-flight/784171/1042 "2017-04-13T19:53:23Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > Emphasis mine. > > Do you have any evidence that this is the case? Read the thread. Delta, etc have been cited here as offering quite a bit more. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2017, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/united-airlines-brutally-removes-passenger-after-overbooking-flight/784171/1043 "2017-04-13T19:55:27Z")
> [@treis](#): > > An Uber driver can do that as well. Under certain circumstances, yes. But not just because he feels like it. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2017, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/united-airlines-brutally-removes-passenger-after-overbooking-flight/784171/1044 "2017-04-13T20:00:43Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > Right, and how United chooses to define it might not even be relevant. > > It is the federal regulations that determine the way that “denied boarding” is handled, and so one would assume that the regulators would be the one to determine what actually constitutes the legal and regulatory definition of boarding. > > United might say, for example, something like: “Boarding is not complete until the plane’s doors are closed, and anyone can be removed up until this time.” > > The regulators, however, might decide to write something like: “For each individual passenger, boarding is deemed to have been completed once the passenger, in possession of a valid boarding pass, takes his or her assigned seat on the plane.” I think it would make more sense to draw the line at passing through the airplane doors. That’s a much clearer line than whether or not the person really sat down or just stowed his luggage or didn’t fasten his seat belt or whatever. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2017, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/united-airlines-brutally-removes-passenger-after-overbooking-flight/784171/1045 "2017-04-13T20:06:44Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Under certain circumstances, yes. But not just because he feels like it. They can do it even if it’s solely because they just feel like it. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2017, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/united-airlines-brutally-removes-passenger-after-overbooking-flight/784171/1046 "2017-04-13T20:17:10Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > I think it would make more sense to draw the line at passing through the airplane doors. That’s a much clearer line than whether or not the person really sat down or just stowed his luggage or didn’t fasten his seat belt or whatever. Let’s assume for a moment that denying boarding and what happened to this guy are distinct things. What is the desired implication of that? Is it that the federal regulations on overbooking don’t apply? If so, you might want to rethink that. That regulation is a restraint, not an authorization. Airlines have the right to remove you for (virutally) any reason. Smell bad? Drunk? Wearing the wrong colored clothes? Doesn’t matter. The airline can kick you off and your only recourse is a civil suit. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2017, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/united-airlines-brutally-removes-passenger-after-overbooking-flight/784171/1047 "2017-04-13T20:30:16Z")
> [@treis](#): > > Let’s assume for a moment that denying boarding and what happened to this guy are distinct things. What is the desired implication of that? Is it that the federal regulations on overbooking don’t apply? If so, you might want to rethink that. That regulation is a restraint, not an authorization. Airlines have the right to remove you for (virutally) any reason. Smell bad? Drunk? Wearing the wrong colored clothes? Doesn’t matter. The airline can kick you off and your only recourse is a civil suit. Are we going to rehash the entire week’s worth of discussion here? My position is that an airline should not be allowed to involuntarily remove people from the aircraft once they have boarded _for the purpose of giving that seat to someone else_. It’s a perfectly common sense and easy to apply rule and it looks like that’s going to be the rule from now on. As for wearing the wrong clothes, United has already gotten into trouble over that, and for all practical purposes, that’s not going to be something it tries again very soon. Let United or some other airline mistreat customers in another way that outrages the public, and you might very well see an airline passengers’ bill of rights that puts strict limits on an airline’s ability to eject people once they’re on board. Safety issue? Fine. Misbehavior, threats, disturbing other passengers? Fine. Drunkenness? Fine. But just because they’ve suddenly decided they want your seat? That’s no longer going to be an option for them. And they had better be very careful trying to eject people for other frivolous reasons like dress codes. That’s going to go badly for them. ---
**Author:** ![Crazyhorse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crazyhorse/32/31_2.png) [@Crazyhorse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crazyhorse)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2017, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/united-airlines-brutally-removes-passenger-after-overbooking-flight/784171/1048 "2017-04-13T20:50:52Z")
> [@treis](#): > > Airlines have the right to remove you for (virutally) any reason. Smell bad? Drunk? Wearing the wrong colored clothes? Doesn’t matter. The airline can kick you off and your only recourse is a civil suit. No they can’t. The airline is regulated by the federal government. Unlike a private business they aren’t allowed to claim “we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason.” There is a very clear set of rules about why someone can be refused transport. Among them in United’s contract are smelling bad and not being dressed properly. Those are actually spelled out in their contract. Having to make room for employees so that the airline can save money or prevent another flight from being delayed are not among the contractual reasons to deny transport to anyone. Other than violating the terms of the contract there are only very few exceptions that allow a paid and confirmed passenger to be denied transportation. One of those is the case of an oversold flight. If more paid and confirmed passengers arrive than the plane can carry they have to first look for volunteers to accept compensation to take a different flight. If they can’t get enough volunteers they have to follow a documented process of selecting which passengers may be denied transportation. This was not an oversold flight. The loopholes that allow them to refuse transportation to a paid and confirmed passenger don’t apply. They were just trying to use those loopholes to make room for employees who were not paid and confirmed passengers. That is not only not spelled out in their contract but also may violate the federal regulation cited in this thread. Can you imagine if you could be seated on the plane, having paid your ticket and complied with all airline regulations, only to be told that you need to leave because a late comer has offered to pay triple fare for a seat on that plane? The regulations prevent the airlines from taking away your seat and giving it to the highest bidder on full flights. Following are two relevant sections of United’s contract of carriage, in addition to the federal regulation already cited in this thread: > [@](#): > > RULE 25 DENIED BOARDING COMPENSATION > Denied Boarding (U.S.A./Canadian Flight Origin) - When there is an Oversold UA flight that originates in the U.S.A. or Canada, the following provisions apply: > Request for Volunteers > UA will request Passengers who are willing to relinquish their confirmed reserved space in exchange for compensation in an amount determined by UA (including but not limited to check or an electronic travel certificate). The travel certificate will be valid only for travel on UA or designated Codeshare partners for one year from the date of issue and will have no refund value. If a Passenger is asked to volunteer, UA will not later deny boarding to that Passenger involuntarily unless that Passenger was informed at the time he was asked to volunteer that there was a possibility of being denied boarding involuntarily and of the amount of compensation to which he/she would have been entitled in that event. The request for volunteers and the selection of such person to be denied space will be in a manner determined solely by UA. > Boarding Priorities - If a flight is Oversold, no one may be denied boarding against his/her will until UA or other carrier personnel first ask for volunteers who will give up their reservations willingly in exchange for compensation as determined by UA. If there are not enough volunteers, other Passengers may be denied boarding involuntarily in accordance with UA’s boarding priority: > Passengers who are Qualified Individuals with Disabilities, unaccompanied minors under the age of 18 years, or minors between the ages of 5 to 15 years who use the unaccompanied minor service, will be the last to be involuntarily denied boarding if it is determined by UA that such denial would constitute a hardship. > The priority of all other confirmed passengers may be determined based on a passenger’s fare class, itinerary, status of frequent flyer program membership, and the time in which the passenger presents him/herself for check-in without advanced seat assignment. > Transportation for Passengers Denied Boarding - When UA is unable to provide previously confirmed space due to an Oversold flight, UA will provide transportation to such Passengers who have been denied boarding whether voluntarily or involuntarily in accordance with the provisions below. > UA will transport the Passenger on its own flight to the Destination without Stopover on its next flight on which space is available at no additional cost to the Passenger, regardless of class of service. > If space is available on another Carrier’s flight regardless of class of service, such flights may be used upon United’s sole discretion and the Passenger’s request at no additional cost to the Passenger only if such flight provides an earlier arrival than the UA flight offered in 3) a) above. > Compensation for Passengers Denied Boarding Involuntarily > For passengers traveling in interstate transportation between points within the United States, subject to the EXCEPTIONS in section d) below, UA shall pay compensation to Passengers denied boarding involuntarily from an Oversold Flight at the rate of 200% of the fare to the Passenger’s first Stopover or, if none, Destination, with a maximum of 675 USD if UA offers Alternate Transportation that, at the time the arrangement is made, is planned to arrive at the Passenger’s Destination or first Stopover more than one hour but less than two hours after the planned arrival time of the Passenger’s original flight. If UA offers Alternate Transportation that, at the time the arrangement is made, is planned to arrive at the Passenger’s Destination or first Stopover more than two hours after the planned arrival time of the Passenger’s original flight, UA shall pay compensation to Passengers denied boarding involuntarily from an Oversold Flight at the rate of 400% of the fare to the Passenger’s first Stopover or, if none, Destination with a maximum of 1350 USD. > For passengers traveling from the United States to a foreign point, subject to the EXCEPTIONS in section d) below, UA shall pay compensation to Passengers denied boarding involuntarily from an Oversold Flight originating at a U.S. airport at the rate of 200% of the fare to the Passenger’s first Stopover or, if none, Destination, with a maximum of 675 USD if UA offers Alternate Transportation that, at the time the arrangement is made, is planned to arrive at the Passenger’s Destination or first Stopover more than one hour but less than four hours after the planned arrival time of the Passenger’s original flight. If UA offers Alternate Transportation that, at the time the arrangement is made, is planned to arrive at the Passenger’s Destination or first Stopover more than four hours after the planned arrival time of the Passenger’s original flight, UA shall pay compensation to Passengers denied boarding involuntarily from an Oversold Flight at the rate of 400% of the fare to the Passenger’s first Stopover or, if none, Destination with a maximum of 1350 USD. > For passengers traveling from Canada to a foreign point, subject to the EXCEPTIONS in section d) below, UA shall pay compensation to Passengers denied boarding involuntarily from an Oversold Flight originating at a Canadian airport with a maximum of 200 CAD if UA offers Alternate Transportation that, at the time the arrangement is made, is planned to arrive at the Passenger’s Destination or first Stopover more than one hour but less than four hours after the planned arrival time of the Passenger’s original flight. If UA offers Alternate Transportation that, at the time the arrangement is made, is planned to arrive at the Passenger’s Destination or first Stopover more than four hours after the planned arrival time of the Passenger’s original flight, UA shall pay compensation to Passengers denied boarding involuntarily from an Oversold Flight with a maximum of 300 CAD. At the passenger’s request, compensation in the form of check, wire transfer, visa card, or a travel voucher will be made by UA, and if accepted by the Passenger, the Passenger will provide a signed receipt to UA. > EXCEPTIONS: A Passenger denied boarding involuntarily from an Oversold Flight shall not be eligible for denied boarding compensation if: > The flight is cancelled; > The Passenger holding a Ticket for confirmed reserved space does not comply fully with the requirements in this Contract of Carriage Requirements regarding ticketing, check-in, reconfirmation procedures, and acceptance for transportation; > The flight for which the Passenger holds confirmed reserved space is unable to accommodate the Passenger because of substitution of equipment of lesser capacity when required by operational or safety reasons or, on an aircraft with a designed passenger capacity of 60 or fewer seats, the flight for which the passenger holds confirmed reserved space is unable to accommodate that passenger due to weight/balance restrictions when required by operational or safety reasons; > The Passenger is offered accommodations or is seated in a section of the aircraft other than that specified on his/her ticket at no extra charge. Provided, if a Passenger is seated in a section for which a lower fare applies, the Passenger will be entitled to a refund applicable to the difference in fares; > The Passenger is accommodated on Alternate Transportation at no extra cost, which at the time such arrangements are made, is planned to arrive at the airport of the Passenger’s next Stopover, (if any), or at the Destination, not later than 60 minutes after the planned arrival time of the flight on which the Passenger held confirmed reserved space; > The Passenger is an employee of UA or of another Carrier or other person traveling without a confirmed reserved space; or > The Passenger does not present him/herself at the loading gate for boarding at least 15 minutes prior to scheduled domestic departures, and 30 minutes prior to scheduled international departures. See Rule 5 D) for additional information regarding boarding cut-off times. > Payment Time and Form for Passengers Traveling Between Points within the United States or from the United States to a Foreign Point > Compensation in the form of check will be made by UA on the day and at the place where the failure to provide confirmed reserved space occurs, and if accepted by the Passenger, the Passenger will provide a signed receipt to UA. However, when UA has arranged, for the Passenger’s convenience, Alternate Transportation that departs before the compensation to the Passenger under this provision can be prepared and given to the Passenger, the compensation shall be sent by mail or other means to the Passenger within 24 hours thereafter. > UA may offer free or reduced rate air transportation in lieu of a check payment due under this Rule, if the value of the transportation credit offered is equal to or greater than the monetary compensation otherwise due and UA informs the Passenger of the amount and that the Passenger may decline the transportation benefit and receive the monetary compensation. > Limitation of Liability - If UA’s offer of compensation pursuant to the above provisions is accepted by the Passenger, such payment will constitute full compensation for all actual or anticipatory damages incurred or to be incurred by the Passenger as a result of UA’s failure to provide the Passenger with confirmed reserved space. If UA’s offer of compensation pursuant to the above provisions is not accepted, UA’s liability is limited to actual damages proved not to exceed 1350 USD per Ticketed Passenger as a result of UA’s failure to provide the Passenger with confirmed reserved space. Passenger will be responsible for providing documentation of all actual damages claimed. UA shall not be liable for any punitive, consequential or special damages arising out of or in connection with UA’s failure to provide the Passenger with confirmed reserved space. > Denied Boarding Non-U.S.A./Canada Flight Origin - Where there is an Oversold UA flight that originates outside the U.S.A. or Canada, no compensation will be provided except where required by local or international laws regulating Oversold flights. > [@](#): > > RULE 21 REFUSAL OF TRANSPORT > UA shall have the right to refuse to transport or shall have the right to remove from the aircraft at any point, any Passenger for the following reasons: > > Breach of Contract of Carriage – Failure by Passenger to comply with the Rules of the Contract of Carriage. > Government Request, Regulations or Security Directives – Whenever such action is necessary to comply with any government regulation, Customs and Border Protection, government or airport security directive of any sort, or any governmental request for emergency transportation in connection with the national defense. > Force Majeure and Other Unforeseeable Conditions – Whenever such action is necessary or advisable by reason of weather or other conditions beyond UA’s control including, but not limited to, acts of God, force majeure, strikes, civil commotions, embargoes, wars, hostilities, terrorist activities, or disturbances, whether actual, threatened, or reported. > Search of Passenger or Property – Whenever a Passenger refuses to submit to electronic surveillance or to permit search of his/her person or property. > Proof of Identity – Whenever a Passenger refuses on request to produce identification satisfactory to UA or who presents a Ticket to board and whose identification does not match the name on the Ticket. UA shall have the right, but shall not be obligated, to require identification of persons purchasing tickets and/or presenting a ticket(s) for the purpose of boarding the aircraft. > Failure to Pay – Whenever a Passenger has not paid the appropriate fare for a Ticket, Baggage, or applicable service charges for services required for travel, has not paid an outstanding debt or Court judgment, or has not produced satisfactory proof to UA that the Passenger is an authorized non-revenue Passenger or has engaged in a prohibited practice as specified in Rule 6. > Across International Boundaries – Whenever a Passenger is traveling across any international boundary if: > The government required travel documents of such Passenger appear not to be in order according to UA’s reasonable belief; or > Such Passenger’s embarkation from, transit through, or entry into any country from, through, or to which such Passenger desires transportation would be unlawful or denied for any reason. > Safety – Whenever refusal or removal of a Passenger may be necessary for the safety of such Passenger or other Passengers or members of the crew including, but not limited to: > Passengers whose conduct is disorderly, offensive, abusive, or violent; > Passengers who fail to comply with or interfere with the duties of the members of the flight crew, federal regulations, or security directives; > Passengers who assault any employee of UA, including the gate agents and flight crew, or any UA Passenger; > Passengers who, through and as a result of their conduct, cause a disturbance such that the captain or member of the cockpit crew must leave the cockpit in order to attend to the disturbance; > Passengers who are barefoot or not properly clothed; > Passengers who appear to be intoxicated or under the influence of drugs to a degree that the Passenger may endanger the Passenger or another Passenger or members of the crew (other than a qualified individual whose appearance or involuntary behavior may make them appear to be intoxicated or under the influence of drugs); > Passengers wearing or possessing on or about their person concealed or unconcealed deadly or dangerous weapons; provided, however, that UA will carry law enforcement personnel who meet the qualifications and conditions established in 49 C.F.R. §1544.219; > Passengers who are unwilling or unable to follow UA’s policy on smoking or use of other smokeless materials; > Unless they comply with Rule 6 I), Passengers who are unable to sit in a single seat with the seat belt properly secured, and/or are unable to put the seat’s armrests down when seated and remain seated with the armrest down for the entirety of the flight, and/or passengers who significantly encroach upon the adjoining passenger’s seat; > Passengers who are manacled or in the custody of law enforcement personnel; > Passengers who have resisted or may reasonably be believed to be capable of resisting custodial supervision; > Pregnant Passengers in their ninth month, unless such Passenger provides a doctor’s certificate dated no more than 72 hours prior to departure stating that the doctor has examined and found the Passenger to be physically fit for air travel to and from the destination requested on the date of the flight, and that the estimated date of delivery is after the date of the last flight; > Passengers who are incapable of completing a flight safely, without requiring extraordinary medical assistance during the flight, as well as Passengers who appear to have symptoms of or have a communicable disease or condition that could pose a direct threat to the health or safety of others on the flight, or who refuse a screening for such disease or condition. (NOTE: UA requires a medical certificate for Passengers who wish to travel under such circumstances. Visit UA’s website, [united.com](http://united.com), for more information regarding UA’s requirements for medical certificates); > Passengers who fail to travel with the required safety assistant(s), advance notice and/or other safety requirements pursuant to Rules 14 and 15; > Passengers who do not qualify as acceptable Non-Ambulatory Passengers (see Rule 14); > Passengers who have or cause a malodorous condition (other than individuals qualifying as disabled); > Passengers whose physical or mental condition is such that, in United’s sole opinion, they are rendered or likely to be rendered incapable of comprehending or complying with safety instructions without the assistance of an escort. The escort must accompany the escorted passenger at all times; and > Unaccompanied passengers who are both blind and deaf, unless such passenger is able to communicate with representatives of UA by either physical, mechanical, electronic, or other means. Such passenger must inform UA of the method of communication to be used; and > Passengers who are unwilling to follow UA’s policy that prohibits voice calls after the aircraft doors have closed, while taxiing in preparation for takeoff, or while airborne. > Any Passenger who, by reason of engaging in the above activities in this Rule 21, causes UA any loss, damage or expense of any kind, consents and acknowledges that he or she shall reimburse UA for any such loss, damage or expense. UA has the right to refuse transport, on a permanent basis, to any passenger who, by reason of engaging in the above activities in this Rule 21, causes UA any loss, damage or expense of any kind, or who has been disorderly, offensive, abusive, or violent. In addition, the activities enumerated in H) 1) through 8) shall constitute a material breach of contract, for which UA shall be excused from performing its obligations under this contract. > UA is not liable for its refusal to transport any passenger or for its removal of any passenger in accordance with this Rule. A Passenger who is removed or refused transportation in accordance with this Rule may be eligible for a refund upon request. See Rule 27 A). As an express precondition to issuance of any refund, UA shall not be responsible for damages of any kind whatsoever. The passenger’s sole and exclusive remedy shall be Rule 27 A). ---
**Author:** ![Beren\_Erchamion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/90ced4/32.png) [@Beren\_Erchamion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beren_Erchamion)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2017, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/united-airlines-brutally-removes-passenger-after-overbooking-flight/784171/1049 "2017-04-13T21:15:15Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > Still not answering the rental car analogy? Correct, because I’m not interested in wasting my time on irrelevancies. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2017, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/united-airlines-brutally-removes-passenger-after-overbooking-flight/784171/1050 "2017-04-13T21:21:26Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > I think it would make more sense to draw the line at passing through the airplane doors. That’s a much clearer line than whether or not the person really sat down or just stowed his luggage or didn’t fasten his seat belt or whatever. Or how about not leaving a paying customer with a broken nose, concussion and two missing front teeth because of your piss poor planing. Airlines are acting like bullies, and abusing their hall monitor privileges purely for their financial gain. We have video evidence that the Doctor, while annoyed, was not acting in a way that put anyones safety at risk and is far more restrained than the airline originally claimed. The real question is what it will take before someone takes the airline to task for it’s grossly unequal bargaining power. “Compile or be arrested” seems like a good case for a claim of unconscionability for the entire contract. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2017, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/united-airlines-brutally-removes-passenger-after-overbooking-flight/784171/1051 "2017-04-13T21:39:54Z")
But United does provide you with free scorpions, so there’s that…😛 > **[Found: A Scorpion on an Airplane](https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/scorpion-airplane-united)** > > It's been a bad week for United Airlines. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2017, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/united-airlines-brutally-removes-passenger-after-overbooking-flight/784171/1052 "2017-04-13T22:35:26Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I’m not confident enough to announce it as established fact. I’m arguing that the CFR forbid United’s actions. But I’m basing that argument on a very brief read in an area of law I don’t know well. > > I’m not sure I understand the depth of your certainty. I agree. I’m not sure if the CFR overrules private property rights. Would it be different if this was not an overbooking situation? Say the agent of United in charge of the flight simply ordered a passenger off of a flight because he didn’t like people who wore green shirts. You would agree that is generally the right of any business, to refuse service to anyone, or even to breach contracts, subject to monetary penalties, correct? And would you also agree that if a United agent said “Leave ye green shirted bastard” that you must leave? The argument seems to be that the CFR overrides property rights, but like you, I don’t believe that is at all clear. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2017, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/united-airlines-brutally-removes-passenger-after-overbooking-flight/784171/1053 "2017-04-13T22:51:15Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > You would agree that is generally the right of any business, to refuse service to anyone, or even to breach contracts, subject to monetary penalties, correct? Yes, as a general proposition. But I think we’re flirting with a semantic issue that we ought to nail down. In one sense, it’s my right to rob a liquor store, subject to civil and criminal penalties. But few would speak of such a right. I’d say that a “right,” is the taking of an action for which there is no effective remedy in law. If we adopt that understanding, then we wouldn’t speak of the rights of businesses to take an action if the action incurs a penalty from the government. I think that’s a cleaner, clearer way of expressing the issue. > [@](#): > > And would you also agree that if a United agent said “Leave ye green shirted bastard” that you must leave? Absent some countervailing regulation, yes. > [@](#): > > The argument seems to be that the CFR overrides property rights, but like you, I don’t believe that is at all clear. I simply don’t know, so yes, I’m reluctant to endorse commentary that declares it does or commentary that declares it does not. My sense from reading the CFR is that United was acting outside the permissible scope of actions for an airline, but the question is how the CFR has been shaped by case law and agency interpretation. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Finn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dewey_finn/32/4222_2.png) [@Dewey\_Finn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Finn)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2017, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/united-airlines-brutally-removes-passenger-after-overbooking-flight/784171/1054 "2017-04-13T22:55:23Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > I agree. I’m not sure if the CFR overrules private property rights. Would it be different if this was not an overbooking situation? Say the agent of United in charge of the flight simply ordered a passenger off of a flight because he didn’t like people who wore green shirts. Actually, I don’t believe it was an overbooking situation. My understanding is that overbooking is defined to mean more paid passengers than there are seats, but in this case, the airline wanted to accommodate non-revenue passengers and the rules are different in that case. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2017, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/united-airlines-brutally-removes-passenger-after-overbooking-flight/784171/1055 "2017-04-13T23:13:58Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Read the thread. Delta, etc have been cited here as offering quite a bit more. LOL. I don’t know how you can type this with a straight face. I have, in fact, been reading the thread, and the only evidence i’ve seen of a large payout is one single instance, on one single airline, with one particular family. You say that “Delta, etc.” offer “quite a bit more,” but there really is no “etc.” in your evidence, is there? We have one particular case, from Delta, where a family received compensation of $11,000. Not only that, but even your actual example is NOT a case of offering more than the federally-mandated maximum. [Here’s the story again](https://www.forbes.com/sites/laurabegleybloom/2017/04/09/why-delta-air-lines-paid-me-11000-not-to-fly-to-florida-this-weekend/#68d360cc4de1), in case, you want to actually read it. This incident involved three passengers, and it involved being bumped on three separate occasions over a space of two days. That is nine total voluntary bumpings. And their total compensation for those nine bumpings (3 people x 3 flights) was $11,000, or about $1,220 per person, per flight. That is below the federal cap of $1,350 per person per flight for involuntary bumping. So, to review, we have one single, incredibly unusual case. In that case, the total compensation was $11,000, but the compensation per person per flight was still under the federal cap. And, based on this, you have concluded that: > [@DrDeth](#): > > …usually the airline does offer more. OK, Mr. Evidence. Whatever you say. Your claim is a bit like a student of political history looking at the election results for Minnesota and concluding that Walter Mondale won the 1984 election. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2017, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/united-airlines-brutally-removes-passenger-after-overbooking-flight/784171/1056 "2017-04-13T23:25:48Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > I agree. I’m not sure if the CFR overrules private property rights. In an _emergency_ they can override trespassing laws, so private property to that extent, but there’s no way this situation could be construed as an emergency. At least not before the customer was injured, but that injury was not the customer’s fault. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2017, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/united-airlines-brutally-removes-passenger-after-overbooking-flight/784171/1057 "2017-04-13T23:43:21Z")
The whole notion of property rights is a red herring in this situation. Commercial passenger airlines are in a heavily regulated industry. Property law and the concept of trespassing is not the base-line that governs the relationship between common carrier and public. The public interest in ensuring fair treatment of the public, as represented by regulation, is where you start from, not from property law principles. ---
**Author:** ![Raygun99](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Raygun99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Raygun99)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2017, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/united-airlines-brutally-removes-passenger-after-overbooking-flight/784171/1058 "2017-04-14T00:52:36Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > This incident involved three passengers, and it involved being bumped on three separate occasions over a space of two days. That is nine total voluntary bumpings. And their total compensation for those nine bumpings (3 people x 3 flights) was $11,000, or about $1,220 per person, per flight. That is below the federal cap of $1,350 per person per flight for involuntary bumping. My suspicion is that gate agents would have the authority to offer up to the fed max amount of $1350 in situations like this, or at the very least were at least temporarily granted that in this extreme circumstance of Delta’s system falling all to hell, and anything higher than that would need a call upstairs. Note that the person in the article started with a bid of $1500 on their first bump and was immediately met with $1350 from the agent - and the article writer doesn’t seem to know that’s the most they’re required to be offered. It would absolutely make sense to give your agents the power to solve these situations on the ground themselves up to a limit, and then in extreme circumstances make a call to someone with power to offer more. It may be that United didn’t have that policy in place, though. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2017, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/united-airlines-brutally-removes-passenger-after-overbooking-flight/784171/1059 "2017-04-14T01:35:27Z")
> [@Raygun99](#): > > My suspicion is that gate agents would have the authority to offer up to the fed max amount of $1350 in situations like this, or at the very least were at least temporarily granted that in this extreme circumstance of Delta’s system falling all to hell, and anything higher than that would need a call upstairs. Note that the person in the article started with a bid of $1500 on their first bump and was immediately met with $1350 from the agent - and the article writer doesn’t seem to know that’s the most they’re required to be offered. It would absolutely make sense to give your agents the power to solve these situations on the ground themselves up to a limit, and then in extreme circumstances make a call to someone with power to offer more. It may be that United didn’t have that policy in place, though. Fellow industry CEO blames the same thing, UAs policies. > [@](#): > > “If you have a situation where you have people on an airplane and you have to pull someone off, there’s a price” to get volunteers, Neeleman said in an interview." “It’s about giving control … [to] the gate agent to be able to bid a higher price to be able to get people to voluntarily to leave the airplane. It’s as simple as that.” ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2017, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/united-airlines-brutally-removes-passenger-after-overbooking-flight/784171/1060 "2017-04-14T02:15:15Z")
> [@Beren\_Erchamion](#): > > Correct, because I’m not interested in wasting my time on irrelevancies. Or is it that you can’t think of why they should legally be allowed to pull you out of the car? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/united-airlines-brutally-removes-passenger-after-overbooking-flight/784171.md?page=52) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/united-airlines-brutally-removes-passenger-after-overbooking-flight/784171.md?page=54)