# United airlines brutally removes passenger after overbooking flight

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/united-airlines-brutally-removes-passenger-after-overbooking-flight/784171>\
**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:** 64

<div class="post-metadata">

**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, 7:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/united-airlines-brutally-removes-passenger-after-overbooking-flight/784171/1261 "2017-04-15T07:35:59Z")

</div>

And he has a lease, which if he is correct, trumps their title for the term of the lease. That’s the nature of a lease, as I suggested upthread to **UltraVires**. A property holder can temporarily alienate some of his property rights by means of a lease. The lessor then has contractual rights which trump the property owner’s proprietorial rights.

But the basic point is that the police only enforce the criminal law. They don’t do civil law, precisely because the civil law is outside their area of expertise and legal authority.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**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, 8:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/united-airlines-brutally-removes-passenger-after-overbooking-flight/784171/1262 "2017-04-15T08:15:46Z")

</div>

> [@Slash1972](#):
>
> 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.

Whether or not it applies will be up to the DOT investigation and any lawsuits to decide.

But here are a few recent exmaples of enforcement actions taken by DOT for violations of 14 CFR 250 and other relevant codes.

> **[JetBlue Airways - Consent Order 2016-12-4 | US Department of Transportation](https://www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/eo-2016-12-4)**
>
> JetBlue Airways - Consent Order 2016-12-4

> **[Southwest Airlines Co. Order 2016-8-33 | US Department of Transportation](https://www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/eo-2016-8-33)**
>
> About this OrderThis order concerns violations of the notification provisions of the Department’s oversales rule, 14 CFR Part 250, and the notification provisions of the Department’s domestic baggage liability rule, 14 CFR Part 254 by Southwest...

> **[Alaska Airlines, Inc. Order 2016-8-32 | US Department of Transportation](https://www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/eo-2016-8-32)**
>
> Alaska Airlines, Inc. Order 2016-8-32 

> **[Alaska Airlines, Inc. Order 2016-8-32 | US Department of Transportation](https://www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/eo-2016-8-32)**
>
> Alaska Airlines, Inc. Order 2016-8-32 

> **[American Airlines, Inc. Order 2016-8-30 | US Department of Transportation](https://www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/eo-2016-8-30)**
>
> American Airlines, Inc. Order 2016-8-30 

> **[American Airlines, Inc. Order 2015-9-10 | US Department of Transportation](https://www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/eo-2015-9-10)**
>
> American Airlines, Inc. Order 2015-9-10

> **[Delta Air Lines, Inc. 2013-6-18 | US Department of Transportation](https://www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/eo-2103-6-18)**
>
> This order concerns the failure of Delta Air Lines, Inc., (Delta) to comply with the Department’s oversales rule, 14 CFR Part 250. Violations of Part 250 also constitute unfair and deceptive practices and unfair methods of competition in violation of...

> **[American Airlines, Inc. 2011-2-14 | US Department of Transportation](https://www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/eo-2011-2-14)**
>
> This consent order concerns violations of 49 U.S.C. § 41712, which prohibits unfair and deceptive trade practices and unfair methods of competition, by American Airlines, Inc., (American) for failure to disclose the amount of fees and use...

> **[Comair, Inc. 2010-7-18 | US Department of Transportation](https://www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/eo-2010-7-18)**
>
> This consent order concerns violations by Comair, Inc., (Comair)1 of the Department’s oversales rule (14 CFR Part 250), the statutory provision requiring carriers to report oversales and other data to the Department (49 U.S.C. § 41708), and the...

> **[Southwest Airlines Co. 2010-4-14 | US Department of Transportation](https://www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/eo-2010-4-14)**
>
> This consent order concerns violations by Southwest Airlines Co. (Southwest) of the Department’s oversales rule, 14 CFR Part 250, and the statutory prohibition against unfair and deceptive practices, 49 U.S.C. § 41712. The violations stem from the...

> **[Spirit Airlines, Inc. 2009-9-8 | US Department of Transportation](https://www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/eo-2009-9-8)**
>
> This consent order concerns violations by Spirit Airlines, Inc., (Spirit) of the Department’s oversales rule, 14 CFR Part 250; accounting and reporting requirements, 14 CFR Part 241; record retention requirements, 14 CFR 249.20 and 14 CFR 382.70;...

> **[Delta Air Lines, Inc. 2009-7-7 | US Department of Transportation](https://www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/eo-2009-7-7)**
>
> This Consent Order concerns violations by Delta Air Lines, Inc., (Delta) of the Department’s oversales rule, 14 CFR Part 250, and the statutory prohibition against unfair and deceptive practices, 49 U.S.C. § 41712. The violations stem from the...

> **[US Airways, Inc. 2008-12-13 | US Department of Transportation](https://www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/eo-2008-12-13)**
>
> This Consent Order concerns violations by US Airways, Inc., (US Airways) of the Department's oversales rule, 14 CFR Part 250, and the statutory prohibition against unfair and deceptive practices, 49 U.S.C. 5 41712. The violations stem from the...

Here is an example of one recent enforcement action against United for violating this code. This is not related to property rights or whatever other ideas you’re imagining apply here, so you won’t find a black and white citation supporting my argument in this specific action. It is just illustrative of the way this possible violation will be investigated and if warranted prosecuted, regardless of your theory of property rights.

> [@](#):
>
> UNITED STATES OF AMERICA  
> DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION  
> OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY  
> WASHINGTON, D.C.  
> Issued by the Department of Transportation  
> on the 26th day of August, 2016  
> United Airlines, Inc.  
> Docket DOT-OST-2016-0002  
> Violations of 49 U.S.C. § 41712 and  
> 14 CFR Parts 250 and 259 Served August 26, 2016
> 
> CONSENT ORDER  
> This order concerns violations of the Department’s oversales rule, 14 CFR Part 250 by United  
> Airlines, Inc., (United). Violations of Part 250 also constitute failures to adhere to the carrier’s  
> Customer Service Plan in violation of 14 CFR 259.5 and are unfair and deceptive practices in  
> violation of 49 U.S.C. § 41712. The order directs United to cease and desist from further similar  
> violations of 49 U.S.C. § 41712 and 14 CFR Parts 250 and 259, and assesses United $35,000 in  
> civil penalties.
> 
> Applicable Law  
> The Department’s Oversales Rule  
> The Department’s oversales rule reflects a carefully crafted balance between the right of  
> individual passengers to obtain the services they purchase on the one hand, and the ability of  
> carriers to market their services effectively and efficiently on the other hand. Part 250 permits  
> airlines to sell more tickets for a flight than there are seats on the aircraft to be used for that  
> flight. This allows carriers to fill seats that would otherwise have gone empty due to “no shows,”  
> thereby achieving operational efficiencies including revenue enhancement for carriers, and  
> resulting in benefits for passengers as a whole by enabling carriers to offer them lower fares.  
> In exchange for the ability to overbook flights (a practice that would otherwise be an unfair and  
> deceptive practice within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. § 41712), 14 CFR Part 250 mandates  
> compensation and other protections for passengers who hold “confirmed reserved space” on a  
> flight, have complied with the carrier’s contract of carriage, have met the carrier’s requirements  
> 2  
> with respect to check-in time and appearance at the gate, and have been involuntarily denied  
> boarding because their flight was oversold (“eligible passengers”). Specifically, under most  
> circumstances, Part 250 mandates that a carrier pay Denied Boarding Compensation (DBC) to  
> eligible passengers “on the day and [at the] place the denied boarding occurs,” with “cash or an  
> immediately negotiable check for the appropriate amount of compensation.” 14 CFR 250.8. The  
> appropriate amount of DBC varies for each passenger depending on the planned arrival time of  
> substitute transportation arranged (or offered to be arranged) by the carrier, the value of the  
> unused portion of the passenger’s fare to the destination or first stopover, and whether the flight  
> segment on which the bumping occurred was between U.S. points, or from the U.S. to a foreign  
> point. 14 CFR 250.5. In addition, section 250.5(e) requires the Department to review the  
> maximum denied boarding compensation amounts every two years and to revise the limit to  
> reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U).  
> 1  
> Further, under section 250.9(a), airlines must “furnish passengers who are denied boarding  
> involuntarily from flights on which they hold confirmed reserved space immediately after the  
> denied boarding occurs, a written statement explaining the terms, conditions, and limitations of  
> denied boarding compensation, and describing the carriers’ boarding priority rules and criteria”  
> (denied boarding statement). The regulation also requires that carriers “furnish the statement to  
> any person upon request at all airport ticket selling positions which are in the charge of a person  
> employed exclusively by the carrier, or by it jointly with another person or persons, and at all  
> boarding locations being used by the carrier.” The denied boarding statement must contain the  
> language identified in section 250.9(b).  
> The Department’s Customer Service Plan Rule  
> In April 2011, the Department issued a set of rules designed to enhance protections for air travel  
> consumers. Among these rules, 14 CFR 259.5 requires that carriers adopt and adhere to a  
> Customer Service Plan that includes commitments that carriers will handle “bumped” passengers  
> with fairness and comply with the requirements of 14 CFR Part 250. Failure to adhere to the  
> requirements of Part 250 also constitutes a violation of Part 259.2
> 
> 1 The minimum DBC for travel occurring on or after August 25, 2015, increased to 200 percent of the fare to the  
> passenger’s destination or first stopover, with a maximum of $675 (from $650), if the carrier offers alternate  
> transportation that 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; and 400 percent of the fare to the  
> passenger’s destination or first stopover, with a maximum of $1,350 (from $1,300), if the carrier does not offer  
> alternate transportation that is planned to arrive at the airport of the passenger’s destination or first stopover less than  
> two hours after the planned arrival time of the passenger’s original flight for domestic flights. For international  
> flights departing from a U.S. airport, the amount of denied boarding compensation shall be no less than 200 percent  
> of the fare to the passenger’s destination or first stopover, with a maximum of $675 (from $650), if the carrier offers  
> alternate transportation that 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; and 400 percent of the fare to  
> the passenger’s destination or first stopover, with a maximum of $1,350 (from $1,300), if the carrier does not offer  
> alternate transportation that is planned to arrive at the airport of the passenger’s destination or first stopover less than  
> four hours after the planned arrival time of the passenger’s original flight. (80 Fed. Reg. 30144.)  
> 2  
> See, e.g., American Airlines, Inc., Violations of 14 CFR Parts 250 and 259, and 49 U.S.C. §§ 41708 and 41712,  
> Order 2015-9-10 (Sept. 15, 2015).  
> 3  
> Facts and Conclusions  
> During compliance inspections by the Department’s Office of Aviation Enforcement and  
> Proceedings (Enforcement Office) at several airports across the country, United Airlines agents  
> at boarding locations and ticket counters being used by the carrier failed to produce proper  
> copies of United’s written denied boarding statement in response to specific requests by  
> Enforcement Office staff. In some situations, United agents were not able to produce a copy of  
> the denied boarding statement at either the ticket counter or the boarding gate, or both. In other  
> circumstances, United agents produced outdated copies of the denied boarding statement, with  
> compensation amounts below the minimum value stated in § 250.5.  
> We conclude that by failing to produce complete and accurate copies of the required denied  
> boarding statement upon request at both airport ticket selling positions and boarding locations,  
> United violated 14 CFR 250.9(a). Additionally, by failing to adhere to the requirements of Part  
> 250, United violated 14 CFR 259.5(b)(8) and 49 U.S.C. § 41712.  
> Response  
> In response, United states that it takes its obligation to provide accurate involuntary denied  
> boarding statements seriously and is committed to providing its passengers with a positive travel  
> experience, including in the rare instances that passengers are involuntarily denied  
> boarding. United notes that none of the alleged violations occurred during an actual involuntary  
> denied boarding situation nor is there any evidence that any passenger was  
> undercompensated. United also notes that, for nearly half of the alleged failures, United  
> provided the correct involuntary denied boarding statement but with outdated maximum  
> compensation limits – specifically United provided $650 and $1,300 instead of the updated $675  
> and $1,350 maximums. The increase to the involuntary denied boarding compensation  
> maximums occurred on August 25, 2015, just a few weeks prior to the DOT inspections in  
> September 2015. United notes that updated involuntary denied boarding maximum  
> compensation was available on United’s website, in resources to employees, in its contract of  
> carriage, and to United’s gate agents and that it has increased training and review of involuntary  
> denied boarding documents in recent months.  
> Moreover, United respectfully disagrees with the Enforcement Office’s use of Part 259, to the  
> extent applicable, as a basis to increase the civil penalty and believes that such use is contrary to  
> federal law. However, in the interest of settling this matter, and without conceding or waiving its  
> legal position on that question, United has agreed to this compromise settlement.  
> Decision  
> The Enforcement Office views seriously United’s violations of 49 U.S.C. § 41712 and 14 CFR  
> Parts 250 and 259. Accordingly, after carefully considering all the facts in this case, including  
> those set forth above, the Enforcement Office believes that enforcement action is warranted and  
> is in the public interest. In order to avoid litigation, and without admitting or denying the  
> violations described above, United consents to the issuance of this order to cease and desist from  
> future similar violations of 49 U.S.C. § 41712 and 14 CFR Parts 250 and 259, and to the  
> 4  
> assessment of $35,000 in compromise of potential civil penalties otherwise due and payable  
> pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 46301. This compromise assessment is appropriate considering the  
> nature and extent of the violations described herein and serves the public interest. It establishes a  
> strong deterrent against future similar unlawful practices by United, and other carriers.  
> This order is issued under the authority contained in 49 CFR Part 1.  
> ACCORDINGLY,
> 
> 1. Based on the above discussion, we approve this settlement and the provisions of this  
> order as being in the public interest;
> 2. We find that United Airlines violated 14 CFR 250.9 by failing to produce proper copies  
> of the required denied boarding statement upon request at both boarding locations and ticket  
> selling counters being used by the carrier;
> 3. We find that by engaging in the conduct described in ordering paragraph 2 above, United  
> Airlines failed to adhere to its Customer Commitment in violation of 14 CFR Part 259;
> 4. We find that, by engaging in the conduct described in ordering paragraphs 2 and 3 above,  
> United Airlines engaged in unfair and deceptive practices in violation of 49 U.S.C. § 41712.
> 5. We order United Airlines and its successors and assigns to cease and desist from further  
> violations from similar violations of 49 U.S.C. § 41712 and 14 CFR 250.9 and 259.5 as  
> described in ordering paragraphs 2, 3, and 4, above;
> 6. United Airlines is assessed $35,000 in compromise of civil penalties that might otherwise  
> be assessed for the violations found in ordering paragraphs 2, 3, and 4, above. Of that amount,  
> $17,500 shall be due and payable within 30 days after the service date of this order. The  
> remaining amount, $17,500, shall become due and payable if, within one year of the date of  
> issuance of this order, United Airlines violates the order’s cease and desist provisions or fails to  
> comply with the order’s payment provision, in which case United Airlines may be subject to  
> additional enforcement action for violation of this order; and
> 7. We order United Airline to pay within 30 days of the issuance of this order the penalty  
> assessed in Ordering Paragraph 7, above, through [Pay.gov](http://Pay.gov) to the account of the U.S. Treasury.  
> Payment shall be made in accordance with the instructions contained in the Attachment to this  
> order. Failure to pay the penalty as ordered shall subject United Airlines to the assessment of  
> interest, penalty, and collection charges under the Debt Collection Act, and to possible  
> enforcement action for failure to comply with this order.  
> This order will become a final order of the Department 10 days after its service date unless a  
> timely petition for review is filed or the Department takes review on its own motion.  
> 5  
> BY:  
> BLANE WORKIE  
> Assistant General Counsel for  
> Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings

Whether this incident is determined to have violated this or any other code will depend on the facts as the DOT and/or a civil court sees them but there is no question that in such an investigation, “Well, it’s our plane so we can do whatever we want.” will not be an acceptable defense.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**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, 8:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/united-airlines-brutally-removes-passenger-after-overbooking-flight/784171/1263 "2017-04-15T08:32:30Z")

</div>

> [@Northern\_Piper](#):
>
> And he has a lease, which if he is correct, trumps their title for the term of the lease. That’s the nature of a lease, as I suggested upthread to **UltraVires**. A property holder can temporarily alienate some of his property rights by means of a lease. The lessor then has contractual rights which trump the property owner’s proprietorial rights.
> 
> But the basic point is that the police only enforce the criminal law. They don’t do civil law, precisely because the civil law is outside their area of expertise and legal authority.

Right. The question that needs answered is does my ticket that I purchased through United or their agents, give me a property interest in that seat for that plane ride?

If if does, then United has no right to eject me or use any sort of force, reasonable or otherwise. It’s my seat.

If it does not, then United may enforce their possessory interest in the plane by asking me to leave, and using reasonable force if I refuse. Any contractual duty to fly me to destination X can be litigated in court.

So, does a contract to use an airplane seat grant a passenger a possessory right to that seat?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**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 15, 2017, 12:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/united-airlines-brutally-removes-passenger-after-overbooking-flight/784171/1264 "2017-04-15T12:08:09Z")

</div>

> [@Slash1972](#):
>
> Well, its the same passage, so sue me. Let me quote the LAW again: “In the event of an oversold flight, every carrier shall ensure that the smallest practicable number of persons holding confirmed reserved space on that flight are denied boarding involuntarily.”
> 
> Now, how you can get “The airline acted illegally when it asked a passenger to leave the airplane” escapes any sort of logic that I can comprehend. Perhaps you can explain it better to the masses?

The argument being used by some people is that Dr. Dao _was already boarded_ and that denial of boarding has to occur prior to the completion of boarding.

If you’re at the gate, you can be denied a seat.

If you are IN your seat you can no longer be forced to give up the seat.

That’s one of the arguments being used. I just wish to emphasize that I personally am not making that argument.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**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 15, 2017, 12:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/united-airlines-brutally-removes-passenger-after-overbooking-flight/784171/1265 "2017-04-15T12:15:40Z")

</div>

> [@UltraVires](#):
>
> Right. The question that needs answered is does my ticket that I purchased through United or their agents, give me a property interest in that seat for that plane ride?
> 
> If if does, then United has no right to eject me or use any sort of force, reasonable or otherwise. It’s my seat.
> 
> If it does not, then United may enforce their possessory interest in the plane by asking me to leave, and using reasonable force if I refuse. Any contractual duty to fly me to destination X can be litigated in court.
> 
> So, does a contract to use an airplane seat grant a passenger a possessory right to that seat?

Whether the passenger has a right not to be yanked off a plane is not a property law question. You won’t find the right answer by asking whether he holds a Property right.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![enipla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/54ee81/32.png) [@enipla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enipla)\
**Post date:** [April 15, 2017, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/united-airlines-brutally-removes-passenger-after-overbooking-flight/784171/1266 "2017-04-15T14:14:14Z")

</div>

> [@Slash1972](#):
>
> \<snip\>Like I asked before, if I sign a contract with a guy to mow my grass, can the police make him come and cut it if he decides he doesn’t want to do it?

Ummm…got any more straw?

You are trying to cut a very fine line of what is defined as illegal. And you have even put “illegal” in the air quotes.

This will almost certainly be settled out of court, so in that context, the legality may not be proven. No way UAL thinks they could win, and at some point they will know what is best for their bottom line.

But, if this did go to court, and Dr. Dao won based on UAL’s failure to follow DOT regulations, would you, manson1972 agree that what UAL did was illegal?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\
**Post date:** [April 15, 2017, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/united-airlines-brutally-removes-passenger-after-overbooking-flight/784171/1267 "2017-04-15T14:29:10Z")

</div>

> [@Slash1972](#):
>
> I’m keeping up 🙂 I appreciate you having an actual discussion about the topic. But, no, apparently we can’t all agree because people in this thread think that, not only can he NOT eject you in those circumstances, but it is in fact ILLEGAL for him to do so. That is what I am arguing against.
> 
> Again, thanks for you willingness to have a cool discussion on that matter 🙂

Sorry, I went home for the night, you are still going on about this? I pointed out what law they were breaking yesterday, if not pointing to the specific statute.

So, anyway, the specific law that they broke was [intimidation/extortion](http://codes.findlaw.com/il/chapter-720-criminal-offenses/il-st-sect-720-5-12-6.html), in that they used intimidation and threats of penalties, force, violence, and presecution to get him to comply with orders that they had no right to give.

The same as any of the scenarios of a landlord or a car rental reversing their decision to rent you the property, after things have been signed giving you the right to use the property under the circumstances described in the contract, and removing the owner’s right to demand the property back before the contract is up. If your landlord showed up and ordered you out of the house with the threats of lawsuits, criminal actions, and police involvement, he would be illegally extorting you, the same as when this flight crew was using intimidation tactics to unlawfully (in that they had no legal right) force him off the plane.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**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 15, 2017, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/united-airlines-brutally-removes-passenger-after-overbooking-flight/784171/1268 "2017-04-15T14:38:29Z")

</div>

> [@DrDeth](#):
>
> Read the cite. Rule 25 “Denied Boarding Compensation”= DOT regs. Uniteds CoC follow DOT regulations.
> 
> [14 CFR Part 250 - PART 250—OVERSALES | Electronic Code of Federal Regulations (e-CFR) | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute](https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/part-250)
> 
> 14 CFR Part 250 - OVERSALES
> 
> Do you know what “CFR” means?

It seems to me that this situation was not covered by this law; the passengers had already boarded, so there was no question of denying boarding, the plane was not oversold and the seats were needed for non-revenue passengers. That may be part of the reason why the company caved so quickly. (Well that, and the absolute firestorm in the media.)

So when some in the thread keep asking, “What is the law?”, I think the answer is there is no law in such cases. (And I don’t think it’s necessary that one needs to drawn up, as long as people act reasonably in the future.)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![bordelond](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bordelond/32/150_2.png) [@bordelond](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bordelond)\
**Post date:** [April 15, 2017, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/united-airlines-brutally-removes-passenger-after-overbooking-flight/784171/1269 "2017-04-15T15:00:45Z")

</div>

> [@Dewey\_Finn](#):
>
> It seems to me that this situation was not covered by this law; the passengers had already boarded, so there was no question of denying boarding, the plane was not oversold and the seats were needed for non-revenue passengers. That may be part of the reason why the company caved so quickly. (Well that, and the absolute firestorm in the media.)
> 
> So when some in the thread keep asking, “What is the law?”, I think the answer is there is no law in such cases. (And I don’t think it’s necessary that one needs to drawn up, as long as people act reasonably in the future.)

Took all night and most of this morning … what you posted is correct. The game is totally different when there is NOT an overbooking/oversale situation.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![bordelond](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bordelond/32/150_2.png) [@bordelond](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bordelond)\
**Post date:** [April 15, 2017, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/united-airlines-brutally-removes-passenger-after-overbooking-flight/784171/1270 "2017-04-15T15:44:12Z")

</div>

nm

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**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 15, 2017, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/united-airlines-brutally-removes-passenger-after-overbooking-flight/784171/1271 "2017-04-15T15:47:27Z")

</div>

> [@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.

You’re probably right that the police would pull over the rental car driver, and might force them to bring the car back.

But what then? You’ve told the cops that the lease is invalid, but a contract generally cannot, by its nature, be rendered invalid after it commences by the unilateral decision of one party to the contract. What happens when it turns out that the lease is not, in fact, invalid? When it turns out that it’s just like every other rental car lease, and has been properly signed and paid for, with all of the appropriate t’s crossed and i’s dotted?

You say, in a later post that “The rental company has the title,” and you have been making your argument on the basis of a fundamental belief in the rights of private property. But one of the basic principles that goes along with private property rights is the principle of contract. While private property rights give you the authority to do as you will with your own possessions, the principle of contract also allows people to make voluntary agreements that are binding on both parties. And if you make a contract, voluntarily and for consideration, for the use of your private property, then the function of the contract is basically one that requires you to cede your private property rights (in whole or in part) for the duration of that contract.

I admit that i’m not sure how a police officer would deal with this situation. My guess is that it might depend less on the minutiae and arcana of the law than on the experience and temperament of the particular police officer involved.

But if i were the officer, knowing no more about the law than i do now, but understanding the basic principles of private property and contract, i would look at the title and at the rental contract. And then i would ask you whether you had, in fact, drawn up the rental contract and provided it to the renter, with the intention of renting him a car. And i would ask whether you had accepted a form of payment, such as a credit card, from the renter. And if you were truthful, and answered yes, i would say something like this to you:

“Yes, it appears that you are, indeed, the legitimate owner of this car. But it also appears that you have entered into a contract to rent this car out to this particular individual for a period of X days. The contract itself appears to be valid, and has all the signatures and provisions of a typical rental car contract. The renter has provided you with a form of payment sufficient to cover the agreed-upon terms of the contract. I’m afraid that i can’t treat this like a case of a stolen vehicle. The person in possession of the car has a document that provides him a legal claim to the car for the duration of the contract, and absent a violation of traffic or criminal law while in possession of the car, i have no authority to take it from him. You wil have to seek remedies later, through a civil procedure.”

I’m sure there will be a lawyer along soon to tell me that i don’t know what the hell i’m talking about, but that’s the set of principles that i believe \*\*\*should \*\*\*apply in this situation.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\
**Post date:** [April 15, 2017, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/united-airlines-brutally-removes-passenger-after-overbooking-flight/784171/1272 "2017-04-15T16:28:34Z")

</div>

> [@Slash1972](#):
>
> I’m going to make it easy for you and quote the 3 instances that the numeral 25 is used in your cite:
> 
> 1. Like all airlines, United has a very specific (and lengthy!) contract for carriage outlining the contractual relationship between the airline and the passenger. It includes a familiar set of provisions for when a passenger may be denied boarding (Rule 25 “Denied Boarding Compensation”).
> 
> This references the CoC, which is not US law.
> 
> 1. Analysis makes sense to this layman but you might also want to consider that United - in addition to their civil liability - also apparently have a more criminal kind of liability for breaking federal regulations - specifically 14 CFR 250.2a:
> 
> [14 CFR § 250.2a - Policy regarding denied boarding. | Electronic Code of Federal Regulations (e-CFR) | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute](https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/250.2a)
> 
> “In the event of an oversold flight, every carrier shall ensure that the smallest practicable number of persons holding confirmed reserved space on that flight are denied boarding involuntarily.”
> 
> And 1 person is the smallest practicable number of persons
> 
> 1. Analysis makes sense to this layman but you might also want to consider that United - in addition to their civil liability - also apparently have a more criminal kind of liability for breaking federal regulations - specifically 14 CFR 250.2a:
> 
> [14 CFR § 250.2a - Policy regarding denied boarding. | Electronic Code of Federal Regulations (e-CFR) | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute](https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/250.2a)
> 
> “In the event of an oversold flight, every carrier shall ensure that the smallest practicable number of persons holding confirmed reserved space on that flight are denied boarding involuntarily.”
> 
> And 1 person is the smallest practicable number of persons  
> Well, its the same passage, so sue me. Let me quote the LAW again: “In the event of an oversold flight, every carrier shall ensure that the smallest practicable number of persons holding confirmed reserved space on that flight are denied boarding involuntarily.”
> 
> Now, how you can get “The airline acted illegally when it asked a passenger to leave the airplane” escapes any sort of logic that I can comprehend. Perhaps you can explain it better to the masses?

I linked to the law not once but twice.

The smallest number of person in this case is= 0 \*since the flight was not overbooked. \*

Next they have to pay cash not vouchers. Next they have to read the passenger their right.

And finally they can only DENY boarding, not drag someone out of their seat once boarded.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\
**Post date:** [April 15, 2017, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/united-airlines-brutally-removes-passenger-after-overbooking-flight/784171/1273 "2017-04-15T16:30:06Z")

</div>

> [@Slash1972](#):
>
> No it isn’t. The rental company just reports the car stolen
> 
> I would say they would look at the title and just give it back to the owner on the title.

Guys the rental car thing is a side issue and a bit of a hijack, can we get back to the actual issue, please?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\
**Post date:** [April 15, 2017, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/united-airlines-brutally-removes-passenger-after-overbooking-flight/784171/1274 "2017-04-15T16:31:27Z")

</div>

> [@Slash1972](#):
>
> 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.

> **[14 CFR Part 250 - PART 250—OVERSALES](https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/part-250)**

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\
**Post date:** [April 15, 2017, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/united-airlines-brutally-removes-passenger-after-overbooking-flight/784171/1275 "2017-04-15T16:36:38Z")

</div>

> [@Dewey\_Finn](#):
>
> It seems to me that this situation was not covered by this law; the passengers had already boarded, so there was no question of denying boarding, the plane was not oversold and the seats were needed for non-revenue passengers. That may be part of the reason why the company caved so quickly. (Well that, and the absolute firestorm in the media.)
> 
> So when some in the thread keep asking, “What is the law?”, I think the answer is there is no law in such cases. (And I don’t think it’s necessary that one needs to drawn up, as long as people act reasonably in the future.)

Yes, in that case, as the Cornell Law Professor said- they have _no right_ to deplane the passenger.  
United _had stated t_hey denied boarding to Dr Dao based upon the flight being “oversold”. But they were lying. The flight was not overbooked and they also removed him after boarding.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**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, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/united-airlines-brutally-removes-passenger-after-overbooking-flight/784171/1276 "2017-04-15T17:01:23Z")

</div>

> [@DrDeth](#):
>
> Guys the rental car thing is a side issue and a bit of a hijack, can we get back to the actual issue, please?

But it is NOT a side issue. You would agree that if Dr. Dao was a trespasser then United would have the right to use reasonable force to eject him, right?

How do we determine if he is a trespasser? We look at whether his contract with United gave him an irrevocable possessory interest in his seat for the duration of the flight.

We look at analogous agreements to see if they are similar or different. Hence the rental car. I think it has been pretty clearly established that a lessee of a rental car has the right to possess the car for the term of the lease. Does a passenger on an airplane have that same possessory interest?

I think he does. He purchased a ticket and was allowed on the plane. The terms of this CoC are revocable, only if the statutory and administrative procedures are followed. It seems as if they were not followed, and United’s revocation of his right to be on the plane was invalid. Therefore, he was not a trespasser and no force may be legally employed against him.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**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, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/united-airlines-brutally-removes-passenger-after-overbooking-flight/784171/1277 "2017-04-15T17:09:41Z")

</div>

But the reason that I keep flip-flopping is the other side of the coin. Rule 25 only applies to an overbooking situation that was not present here. Does that mean that passengers may not be involuntarily bumped in other situations?

Is the purchase of a ticket an absolute guarantee of space on an airplane no matter what? I don’t think it is. We all understand that we may be involuntarily bumped. The flight might be cancelled due to weather or other mechanical problems.

Imagine if I showed up at the gate with my ticket, and when told that the flight was cancelled due to snow, would I be allowed to walk on the plane and sit in “my” seat because I had a possessory interest in it?

If we accept the premise that involuntary bumping can happen in these situations, and the course of dealing and usage of trade allows these bumpings, then they become terms of the contract when a passenger purchases a ticket. If he is legally denied boarding or asked to leave under a legitimate way of involuntarily bumping a passenger, then he must leave, IS a trespasser and can be ejected with force.

I know I’m on every side of this issue. 🙂

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\
**Post date:** [April 15, 2017, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/united-airlines-brutally-removes-passenger-after-overbooking-flight/784171/1278 "2017-04-15T17:19:37Z")

</div>

> [@UltraVires](#):
>
> But the reason that I keep flip-flopping is the other side of the coin. Rule 25 only applies to an overbooking situation that was not present here. Does that mean that passengers may not be involuntarily bumped in other situations?
> 
> Is the purchase of a ticket an absolute guarantee of space on an airplane no matter what? I don’t think it is. We all understand that we may be involuntarily bumped. The flight might be cancelled due to weather or other mechanical problems.
> 
> Imagine if I showed up at the gate with my ticket, and when told that the flight was cancelled due to snow, would I be allowed to walk on the plane and sit in “my” seat because I had a possessory interest in it?
> 
> If we accept the premise that involuntary bumping can happen in these situations, and the course of dealing and usage of trade allows these bumpings, then they become terms of the contract when a passenger purchases a ticket. If he is legally denied boarding or asked to leave under a legitimate way of involuntarily bumping a passenger, then he must leave, IS a trespasser and can be ejected with force.
> 
> I know I’m on every side of this issue. 🙂

The CoC has specific provisions about cancellations due to weather or maintenance issues as well. Those situations have specific guidelines for them. If you tried to board, or refused to leave in those situations, you are in the wrong according the the contract, and you can be removed in whatever way is necessary to remove a trespasser.

There are also specific provisions for when (situation) a passenger can be bumped, but it is a bit vague in when (in the timeline) they can be bumped.

They were clearly in the wrong on the first, as it was not an overbooked flight, so involuntary bumping is not allowed, and probably in the wrong on the second, as being denied boarding is not (in the opinion of some, including myself) the same as being removed from the plane.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**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 15, 2017, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/united-airlines-brutally-removes-passenger-after-overbooking-flight/784171/1279 "2017-04-15T17:20:06Z")

</div>

> [@UltraVires](#):
>
> But the reason that I keep flip-flopping is the other side of the coin. Rule 25 only applies to an overbooking situation that was not present here. Does that mean that passengers may not be involuntarily bumped in other situations?

No. I think all you can conclude is that law does not apply in this specific case. I have no opinion as to its applicability in other cases. (Although of course, IANAL.)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**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, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/united-airlines-brutally-removes-passenger-after-overbooking-flight/784171/1280 "2017-04-15T17:40:05Z")

</div>

> [@k9bfriender](#):
>
> The CoC has specific provisions about cancellations due to weather or maintenance issues as well. Those situations have specific guidelines for them. If you tried to board, or refused to leave in those situations, you are in the wrong according the the contract, and you can be removed in whatever way is necessary to remove a trespasser.
> 
> There are also specific provisions for when (situation) a passenger can be bumped, but it is a bit vague in when (in the timeline) they can be bumped.
> 
> They were clearly in the wrong on the first, as it was not an overbooked flight, so involuntary bumping is not allowed, and probably in the wrong on the second, as being denied boarding is not (in the opinion of some, including myself) the same as being removed from the plane.

I guess my question is whether the CoC contains the sole and exclusive methods for bumping passengers. IOW, does the contract simply outline the methods for solving overbooking issues and is silent on how they resolve other overcapacity issues, or does its silence on other overcapacity issues mean that there shall be no involuntary bumping for those reasons?

A good argument could be made for either position, and that’s why I keep making them both. 🙂

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/united-airlines-brutally-removes-passenger-after-overbooking-flight/784171.md?page=63)

[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/united-airlines-brutally-removes-passenger-after-overbooking-flight/784171.md?page=65)