American Airlines 'standard Operating Procedure'?

[chris]

Davidglen77, You may be right but I'd very surprised if UA does not settle with the passenger for a large sum. UA have already said that all the other passengers will be compensated and the CEO of the company has gone on TV admitting UA's guilt in allowing this to happen.

Anyway, there is more to the story:

Passenger claims he lost two teeth, has a broken nose, suffered a concussion and needs reconstructive surgery.

I sure hope the four UA employees who got those seats had a pleasant trip. It will certainly close UA a fortune.

http://abcnews.go.co...ory?id=46773630

 

[Gringoboy]

Yes but did you watch the CEO's interview? The so called apology? It was a PR disaster.

 

[EJLarson]

What Jury?? This is a civil case which falls under contract law / and the commercial code. In the rare case it were to get past arbitration, a judge would rule. I guarantee you that United Airlines (just like any major company) states in their fine print that by entering into a contract with the airline which in this case is the act of purchasing a ticket, you agree to be bound by their rules, furthermore, there is certainly an arbitration waiver where you agree to waive your right to litigate and are bound to an arbitrator which YOU the passenger must pay for. This case will go nowhere, maybe some don't agree here but there is no breach of contract except on the part of the passenger....time to look at the facts here. Many may not agree with the airlines actions, I personally don't either, however the law is the law and don't forget to read the fine print!!

You raise some significant points so, if you have a spare couple of hours, here's United's Contract of Carriage:

https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriage.aspx#sec1

Interesting thing is that, unless I missed it in my unlawyerly reading, there is no arbitration clause, so civil lawsuits are not ruled out. Also, Rule 21, "Refusal of Transport," does not specifically include the need to accommodate airline employees' travel requirements as a reason to remove a fare-paying passenger.

Your guarantee may require modification.

Look it over and see if you agree.

 

[gracielle]

6 Ways to Avoid Being Bumped on an Overbooked Flight



https://www.thriftytraveler.com/6-ways-avoid-bumped-overbooked-flight/

 

[EJLarson]

6 Ways to Avoid Being Bumped on an Overbooked Flight

https://www.thriftyt...rbooked-flight/

The media have been back and forth on this, but now it seems that UA3411 was not overbooked, just full - not that it makes any difference now.

This is from AviationWeek, a post from "PL." This summarizes the facts of this case better than anything else I've seen (and I, too, have read United's Contract of Carriage): https://www.united.c...f-carriage.aspx

(I apologize in advance if I'm not supposed to cut and paste this quote, but I'll call it fair use):

"[background=rgb(241, 241, 241)]From Mr Flottau's piece: "And to play United’s advocate for one more moment, airlines are within their rights to remove a passenger who has already boarded: It is the carrier’s equipment, the captain is in charge and can, within certain limits, decree removal."[/background]
[background=rgb(241, 241, 241)]No. This is plain and simply wrong. Worse, it demonstrates the "I'm in charge here" mentality that plagues aviation.[/background]
[background=rgb(241, 241, 241)]There is a law governing what conditions airlines sell tickets under. (I'm having trouble as the commenting system doesn't like hyperlinks, but Google "14 CFR 253 and you can see it.)[/background]
[background=rgb(241, 241, 241)]This law dictates that airlines must spell out their contract of carriage. United does, and more conveniently, provides that contract online for us to view.[/background]
[background=rgb(241, 241, 241)]United's Contract of Carriage is found at United's web site (google "United contract of carriage).[/background]
[background=rgb(241, 241, 241)]More importantly, United defines multiple situations that would involve not allowing a passenger to take a given flight that they hold a ticket for.[/background]
[background=rgb(241, 241, 241)]One set of rules is in Rule 25, "Denied Boarding Compensation".[/background]
[background=rgb(241, 241, 241)]That rule lays out that an airline can deny boarding to someone, that they can choose randomly who that person is based on fare class, frequent flier mileage plan membership and status, all that stuff.[/background]
[background=rgb(241, 241, 241)]BUT... the important thing is that this is about *denying someone boarding*.[/background]
[background=rgb(241, 241, 241)]They didn't deny the guy boarding. They let him get on board and take his assigned seat.[/background]
[background=rgb(241, 241, 241)]So at that point, it becomes a question of when United can refuse someone transport. Again, there's a rule for that; it's Rule 21.[/background]
[background=rgb(241, 241, 241)]In this rule are many different reasons why United may refuse to transport someone- which would plainly entail removing them from the aircraft. In fact, the rule begins: "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:"[/background]
[background=rgb(241, 241, 241)]But "we need the seat to move crew members to another city" is NOT in that list of reasons.[/background]
[background=rgb(241, 241, 241)]And, despite Mr Flottau's blustering about how it's the captain's right to remove someone, it's actually not. If the captain or the airline removes someone, it MUST be for one of these reasons.[/background]
[background=rgb(241, 241, 241)]If the removal isn't for one of those reasons, the airline is in violation of the terms of the contract it entered into with the customer when the airline sold the ticket.[/background]
[background=rgb(241, 241, 241)]United (or, perhaps more correctly, Republic, since it was their plane) was in the wrong here. They had no right whatsoever to remove the passenger and frankly, the hubris that is continually expressed in the industry publications trying to justify United's action is precisely why the law exists and why airlines are required to have these Contracts of Carriage rules in the first place."[/background]

[background=rgb(241, 241, 241)]And that, folks, pretty much wraps this up. Oh yeah, United announced the other day that they've changed their rules: they will no longer bump passengers who have already boarded - they'll only be "re-accomodated" during pre-boarding at the gate. [/background]

[background=rgb(241, 241, 241)]Now wouldn't that have prevented a lot of trouble for United - and probably $10-50M or so?[/background]