# 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:** 63
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2017, 6:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/united-airlines-brutally-removes-passenger-after-overbooking-flight/784171/1241 "2017-04-15T06:52:42Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > Someone has to drive away in the car. So somebody has to choose. Yes, the parties involved in the dispute. If one of them tries to use force on the other, then it’s a criminal matter for the police, but if the guy asserting he’s leased the car just drives it away, it’s very hard for the police to get involved. He says he has a lease; the leasing company says he has a lease, but they need the car for their own purposes. How is a police officer supposed to decide if the lease gives the one guy absolute possession, or gives the leasing company the power to rescind the lease? That’s not a criminal law matter and the police have no power to interpret leases on the spot. ---
**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 15, 2017, 6:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/united-airlines-brutally-removes-passenger-after-overbooking-flight/784171/1242 "2017-04-15T06:54:02Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > That’s a solid argument, but I don’t think it has been proven. I’m not so sure that the general category of “passenger” is the same as denying service based upon race. And I’m not even sure that denying service based upon race would survive a property rights challenge to an on the spot ejection. Maybe it would. > > I simply do not believe that property rights are a red herring here. It is the only basis by which United could forcibly remove a passenger. It is certainly relevant. Most if not all of these regulations are intended to protect us from the airlines, who would happily remove you from any flight they could sell a ticket for at a higher price than you paid for yours. Why wouldn’t they if nothing prevented them from doing so? Once they have accepted payment for your ticket and confirmed your reservation no matter how full the flight gets and no matter how much higher tickets are selling closer to the flight, you have a government-regulated contract with them that you are going to fly at that price. There are exceptions like overselling that have been covered in this thread but this flight wasn’t oversold. Beyond breaking any airline rules, or any safety or security issues, they aren’t legally permitted to say “sorry, my plane, my property, get out.” This has been demonstrated in quite a few ways in this thread already - the entire relevant section of the UA contract has been posted. The CEO of UA has said "“To remove a booked, paid, seating passenger, we can’t do that” The relevant code of the federal regulation governing denied boarding has been cited as well. The fact that UA has already reversed this policy and publicly apologized even while facing almost certain litigation demonstrates that their legal counsel has already concluded they were in the wrong - not just in the eye of the public but legally. I’m not sure what additional evidence you or manson1972 need but if you need more wait for the news cycle when the lawsuits start and the DOT investigation has concluded. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2017, 6:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/united-airlines-brutally-removes-passenger-after-overbooking-flight/784171/1243 "2017-04-15T06:56:06Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > Yes, the parties involved in the dispute. If one of them tries to use force on the other, then it’s a criminal matter for the police, but if the guy asserting he’s leased the car just drives it away, it’s very hard for the police to get involved. No it isn’t. The rental company just reports the car stolen > [@](#): > > How is a police officer supposed to decide if the lease gives the one guy absolute possession, or gives the leasing company the power to rescind the lease? That’s not a criminal law matter and the police have no power to interpret leases on the spot. I would say they would look at the title and just give it back to the owner on the title. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2017, 6:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/united-airlines-brutally-removes-passenger-after-overbooking-flight/784171/1244 "2017-04-15T06:56:48Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > If that is the case, I can print a daily rental agreement with the local Lexus dealer right now, and just show it to the police when they show up 🙂 I’m not sure what you mean, but I believe you are suggesting that you could present false evidence to the police. If you did, you would win the battle, but lose the war. You would get away with my car for that day, but then lose the civil suit and possibly face criminal charges for obstructing the police investigation. Not a great long term strategy. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2017, 7:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/united-airlines-brutally-removes-passenger-after-overbooking-flight/784171/1245 "2017-04-15T07:01:55Z")
> [@Crazyhorse](#): > > This has been demonstrated in quite a few ways in this thread already - the entire relevant section of the UA contract has been posted. That does not make something illegal. > [@](#): > > The CEO of UA has said "“To remove a booked, paid, seating passenger, we can’t do that” That does not make something illegal > [@](#): > > The relevant code of the federal regulation governing denied boarding has been cited as well. Even if this was done correctly, it doesn’t make something illegal. > [@](#): > > The fact that UA has already reversed this policy and publicly apologized even while facing almost certain litigation demonstrates that their legal counsel has already concluded they were in the wrong - not just in the eye of the public but legally. That does not make something illegal > [@](#): > > I’m not sure what additional evidence you or manson1972 need but if you need more wait for the news cycle when the lawsuits start and the DOT investigation has concluded. Sorry, but I don’t depend on the news to tell me when something is illegal or not. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2017, 7:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/united-airlines-brutally-removes-passenger-after-overbooking-flight/784171/1246 "2017-04-15T07:03:03Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > I’m not sure what you mean, but I believe you are suggesting that you could present false evidence to the police. If you did, you would win the battle, but lose the war. > > You would get away with my car for that day, but then lose the civil suit and possibly face criminal charges for obstructing the police investigation. Not a great long term strategy. 🙂 My point being, I don’t think the police would just look at a contract presented by one party in the dispute. My guess is, the police would ask for the title, and give the car to the owner, regardless of what the contract said. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2017, 7:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/united-airlines-brutally-removes-passenger-after-overbooking-flight/784171/1247 "2017-04-15T07:03:47Z")
> [@Crazyhorse](#): > > Most if not all of these regulations are intended to protect us from the airlines, who would happily remove you from any flight they could sell a ticket for at a higher price than you paid for yours. Why wouldn’t they if nothing prevented them from doing so? > > Once they have accepted payment for your ticket and confirmed your reservation no matter how full the flight gets and no matter how much higher tickets are selling closer to the flight, you have a government-regulated contract with them that you are going to fly at that price. There are exceptions like overselling that have been covered in this thread but this flight wasn’t oversold. Beyond breaking any airline rules, or any safety or security issues, they aren’t legally permitted to say “sorry, my plane, my property, get out.” > > This has been demonstrated in quite a few ways in this thread already - the entire relevant section of the UA contract has been posted. The CEO of UA has said "“To remove a booked, paid, seating passenger, we can’t do that” The relevant code of the federal regulation governing denied boarding has been cited as well. The fact that UA has already reversed this policy and publicly apologized even while facing almost certain litigation demonstrates that their legal counsel has already concluded they were in the wrong - not just in the eye of the public but legally. I’m not sure what additional evidence you or manson1972 need but if you need more wait for the news cycle when the lawsuits start and the DOT investigation has concluded. I don’t dispute that their legal counsel has told them to get out in front of this situation and own it. It is an absolute shit show of a disaster for them, and it is better to pay and pay well than to litigate a mundane issue of private property rights that they might arguably be able to assert, but are nonetheless assholes for doing so. If I were their counsel, I would advise them to take the same tack. It doesn’t mean that we can’t debate the underlying issues on a message board. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2017, 7:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/united-airlines-brutally-removes-passenger-after-overbooking-flight/784171/1248 "2017-04-15T07:05:53Z")
The rental company can call the cops and say the car is stolen. The cops find the car and the driver shows them the contract, issued by the rental company, giving him the lease of the car for that day. Where do they get probable cause to believe there is a theft? ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2017, 7:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/united-airlines-brutally-removes-passenger-after-overbooking-flight/784171/1249 "2017-04-15T07:09:29Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > The rental company can call the cops and say the car is stolen. The cops find the car and the driver shows them the contract, issued by the rental company, giving him the lease of the car for that day. > > Where do they get probable cause to believe there is a theft? Because the rental company told them the lease is invalid and they have to give the car up. They said “Sorry, I already have a contract, so you can’t take it back” and just took off. So the rental company called the cop and told them that. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2017, 7:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/united-airlines-brutally-removes-passenger-after-overbooking-flight/784171/1250 "2017-04-15T07:11:49Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > The rental company can call the cops and say the car is stolen. The cops find the car and the driver shows them the contract, issued by the rental company, giving him the lease of the car for that day. > > Where do they get probable cause to believe there is a theft? Plus this just seems weird to me. I can steal a car from a rental lot, print out a fake lease agreement, and you think the cops should just take my word for it? Really? ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2017, 7:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/united-airlines-brutally-removes-passenger-after-overbooking-flight/784171/1251 "2017-04-15T07:16:53Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > Because the rental company told them the lease is invalid and they have to give the car up. They said “Sorry, I already have a contract, so you can’t take it back” and just took off. So the rental company called the cop and told them that. But it’s “he said - he said” - the rental company says he had a lease and he took off; he says he has a contract. He shows the police the contract, signed by the rental company. The police can’t just assume that the rental company is correct; they have to listen to both sides. And the driver is showing a lease issued by the rental company that day. And, the fact that the rental company says the lease is invalid is not binding on either the police or the guy renting the car. They say the lease is invalid; the guy says it’s valid. The rental company is admitting that they issued a lease, but now are disputing a term of it. This is a civil dispute about a contract. The police cannot just take the rental company’s word for it that the lease is invalid. They have no expertise in lease agreements, nor any legal power to adjudicate the lease. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2017, 7:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/united-airlines-brutally-removes-passenger-after-overbooking-flight/784171/1252 "2017-04-15T07:18:41Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > Plus this just seems weird to me. I can steal a car from a rental lot, print out a fake lease agreement, and you think the cops should just take my word for it? Really? You’re changing the hypothetical. In the first example, the leasing company agrees that there was a lease, but says it’s invalid. That’s different from calling the police and saying a car is missing that they didn’t lease out to anyone. ---
**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 15, 2017, 7:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/united-airlines-brutally-removes-passenger-after-overbooking-flight/784171/1253 "2017-04-15T07:19:25Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > That does not make something illegal. > > That does not make something illegal > > Even if this was done correctly, it doesn’t make something illegal. > > That does not make something illegal > > Sorry, but I don’t depend on the news to tell me when something is illegal or not. The news will tell you the results of the DOT investigation and any lawsuits. Not sure what else you might need beyond that. This really isn’t rocket science. The department of transportation has specific codes that regulate when and how airlines can deny boarding to passengers. If they wan’t to operate legally in the USA those codes supersede these imagined property rights that you believe airlines have to refuse service to anyone at any time for any reason. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2017, 7:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/united-airlines-brutally-removes-passenger-after-overbooking-flight/784171/1254 "2017-04-15T07:22:32Z")
> [@Crazyhorse](#): > > The department of transportation has specific codes that regulate when and how airlines can deny boarding to passengers You keep saying this, but you don’t prove it. ---
**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 15, 2017, 7:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/united-airlines-brutally-removes-passenger-after-overbooking-flight/784171/1255 "2017-04-15T07:24:07Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > You keep saying this, but you don’t prove it. Again read the thread. The code has been linked to at least 5 times. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2017, 7:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/united-airlines-brutally-removes-passenger-after-overbooking-flight/784171/1256 "2017-04-15T07:24:09Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > But it’s “he said - he said” - the rental company says he had a lease and he took off; he says he has a contract. He shows the police the contract, signed by the rental company. The police can’t just assume that the rental company is correct; they have to listen to both sides. And the driver is showing a lease issued by the rental company that day. > > And, the fact that the rental company says the lease is invalid is not binding on either the police or the guy renting the car. They say the lease is invalid; the guy says it’s valid. The rental company is admitting that they issued a lease, but now are disputing a term of it. > > This is a civil dispute about a contract. The police cannot just take the rental company’s word for it that the lease is invalid. They have no expertise in lease agreements, nor any legal power to adjudicate the lease. Fair enough, but what do you think they are going to do? I say they give the car back to rental company. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2017, 7:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/united-airlines-brutally-removes-passenger-after-overbooking-flight/784171/1257 "2017-04-15T07:25:20Z")
> [@Crazyhorse](#): > > Again read the thread. The code has been linked to at least 5 times. Not it has not. I’ve links to the CoC and I’ve seen links to a law that doesn’t apply. Perhaps you like to link to something different. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2017, 7:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/united-airlines-brutally-removes-passenger-after-overbooking-flight/784171/1258 "2017-04-15T07:26:27Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > Fair enough, but what do you think they are going to do? I say they give the car back to rental company. I’ve already said what I think they do. They do nothing, because it is a civil contract dispute and they have not power to decide a contract dispute. On what basis do they act? They have no power to adjudicate a contract dispute. If they don’t charge the guy with any offence, how do they take property away from him? ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2017, 7:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/united-airlines-brutally-removes-passenger-after-overbooking-flight/784171/1259 "2017-04-15T07:26:40Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > You’re changing the hypothetical. In the first example, the leasing company agrees that there was a lease, but says it’s invalid. > > That’s different from calling the police and saying a car is missing that they didn’t lease out to anyone. Yes, you are correct. My answer is above, but it is, what do you think the cops would do? I say they give the car back to rental company. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2017, 7:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/united-airlines-brutally-removes-passenger-after-overbooking-flight/784171/1260 "2017-04-15T07:28:06Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > On what basis? They have no power to adjudicate a contract dispute. If they don’t charge the guy with any offence, how do they take property away from him? Because it’s not his property. The rental company has the title. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/united-airlines-brutally-removes-passenger-after-overbooking-flight/784171.md?page=62) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/united-airlines-brutally-removes-passenger-after-overbooking-flight/784171.md?page=64)