Please cite this Law.
The CoC follow DOT regulations. DOT regulations are, indeed, US law.
The DOT has even started a investigation and has announced so publicly.
Let’s say you pay me $50 to use my car tomorrow. You come to my house at 8am and pick up the car. The car is not “mine” tomorrow. The car is “yours” tomorrow. I can no more eject you from “my” car than any other car that you own. Why? Because you legally paid to use my car tomorrow and I agreed to forego my right to use the car tomorrow. Note that you can’t sell my car or deliberately destroy it. But you paid for a limited property right in my car that I cannot unilaterally take back. I cannot eject you from property that YOU own.
Much like this airline passenger paid to use a seat to Louisville, KY and that piece of United’s plane was now his for the duration of the flight. (If true. I am not yet convinced that the CoC did not allow for an involuntary bumping).
Now I wonder: Suppose an airline offers a hefty compensation deal to get passengers to yield their seats - say, $2,000 per passenger on a $350 flight - and a lot more passengers volunteer than are needed - then the airline can only pick a few out of many, and might it get accused of discrimination in the way that it chooses those “lucky” passengers or passes over other passengers?
Please cite that they did have said right.
We have shown cites by lawyers and even Law professors saying United was acting outside DOT regulations. DOT regulations spell out carefully step by step what has to be done. United did not follow those regs. Thus, they had no right to deplane him.
Well, then you should have no problem citing these “DOT regulations” should you?
Read the cite. Rule 25 “Denied Boarding Compensation”= DOT regs. Uniteds CoC follow DOT regulations.
14 CFR Part 250 - OVERSALES
Do you know what “CFR” means?
The cite you provided was someone showing how United violated their CoC.
Let’s say at that point, you say “Sorry, my sister has to use my car. Here’s your $50 back”
You are honestly saying that is ILLEGAL? Not unethical, not against some contract we signed, but ILLEGAL?
Read the cite. Rule 25 “Denied Boarding Compensation”= DOT regs. Uniteds CoC follow DOT regulations.
14 CFR Part 250 - OVERSALES
Do you know what “CFR” means?
And this is why I am having such trouble with this thread. I keep flip flopping. 
You are right. If I understand the scenario, I have walked into a restaurant, sat down, ordered a cobb salad and diet coke. The waitress takes my order and goes to the kitchen. The owner comes up and asks me to leave because he needs the table for his friends.
Your position would be that its the owners property and he can toss me if he wants.
My most recent position (keep up!) is that by opening his business to the public, he has invited me to come in, take a seat, order food, and eat the food at my table. I have made an offer and his agent accepted my offer by taking my order. Therefore, the owner has given me a limited property right in that table for however long is customary to eat my food and therefore cannot eject me.
However, I think we would all agree that he could eject me in those circumstances. I guess the basic question that needs answered is whether a contract or statute actually transfers a limited property right or if it only a legally enforceable promise that can be enforced by monetary damages. Hell if I know, but this is a very interesting legal issue.
Sorry, but “Rule 25” refers to the rules in the CoC. Try again.
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
Let’s try to make this simple.
If I have a contract to buy a car, I am agreeing to uphold my side of the contract by paying a certain amount.
If I break that contract, the owner of the car can legally take it back. And can use the courts and their enforcement (this would be the Sheriff, typicaly) involved to do so. Fine, great, that works.
If I uphold my side of the contract, the courts and their enforcement cannot take the car back. If they did, that would be called theft.
Now those in support of UAL in this instance will say that the airline pilot is the rule of law, but THEIR OWN CoC says he/she does not in this circumstance.
I’m not trying to be some sort of civil/social rights warrior here. A perfect storm of fuck ups may have happened (that’s what I suspect), or it may have been a simple case of an employee of UAL or the Chicago Airport Police having a bad day.
READ THE CITE
**CFR= Code of Federal Regulations. **
I think the base question that needs to be answered is when does one become a trespasser so that reasonable force can be used. That is really the subject of this thread, and not whether United violated a contract.
In our car analogy, it would be fact intensive. If you paid your money, had the keys, and were in my car, I don’t believe I could drag you out of it. You are there legally and are not trespassing. I don’t see how I could legally use force.
If before you got in the car, I handed you a $50 bill and said, “Sorry, the deal is off. I need to transport a large quantity of heroin out of state today,” then I have certainly breached our contract, but would you now have the right to be “lawyer on the spot” and argue that you have a possessory interest in the car for that day and use force against me to take it?
That is the question that needs to be answered, and I’m not so sure now.
I’m going to make it easy for you and quote the 3 instances that the numeral 25 is used in your cite:
- 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.
- 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:
“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
- 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:
“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?
Yes, I agree with everything you’ve said. Holy shit, a poster who thinks! Thank you for that!
My thought is, if after you’ve paid money, got the keys, and started to drive off with a contract signed, and then I said “Hold on, I need this car back” and you didn’t give it back, I would call the police. And the police would say “It’s his car, give him the keys back, take it up with civil court” What do you think they (the police) would say? Any police here that want to chime in?
It was not an oversold flight.
Nope, you’re wrong. Contractually I could rent your car and have the keys in my pocket and never drive it.:smack: Not sure why this is hard to understand.