United - Who is ready to fly?

[mcjaredsandwich]

Taken from a Reddit thread. I take no credit for this and these are not my words.

"Ok, because people keep missing that I do not claim to be an expert nor did I write the material I quoted, I have to emphasize I copy-pasted from and left a link to the original Reddit comment, which is itself a copy of a comment from off-site. I do not claim it's correct, I just put it forward as a perspective. Remainder of my original comment follows.

It doesn't seem like this situation went off as it should have though. From /u/deskreference's comment taken from https://www.thepointsguy.com/2017/04...luntary-bumps/

Lawyer here. This myth that passengers don't have rights needs to go away, ASAP. You are dead wrong when saying that United legally kicked him off the plane.

1. First of all, it's airline spin to call this an overbooking. The statutory provision granting them the ability to deny boarding is about "OVERSALES", specifically defines as booking more reserved confirmed seats than there are available. This is not what happened. They did not overbook the flight; they had a fully booked flight, and not only did everyone already have a reserved confirmed seat, they were all sitting in them. The law allowing them to denying boarding in the event of an oversale does not apply.

2. Even if it did apply, the law is unambiguously clear that airlines have to give preference to everyone with reserved confirmed seats when choosing to involuntarily deny boarding. They have to always choose the solution that will affect the least amount of reserved confirmed seats. This rule is straightforward, and United makes very clear in their own contract of carriage that employees of their own or of other carriers may be denied boarding without compensation because they do not have reserved confirmed seats. On its face, it's clear that what they did was illegal-- they gave preference to their employees over people who had reserved confirmed seats, in violation of 14 CFR 250.2a.

3. Furthermore, even if you try and twist this into a legal application of 250.2a and say that United had the right to deny him boarding in the event of an overbooking; they did NOT have the right to kick him off the plane. Their contract of carriage highlights there is a complete difference in rights after you've boarded and sat on the plane, and Rule 21 goes over the specific scenarios where you could get kicked off. NONE of them apply here. He did absolutely nothing wrong and shouldn't have been targeted. He's going to leave with a hefty settlement after this fiasco.

[Feesherman]

Originally Posted by mcjaredsandwich

Taken from a Reddit thread. I take no credit for this and these are not my words.

"Ok, because people keep missing that I do not claim to be an expert nor did I write the material I quoted, I have to emphasize I copy-pasted from and left a link to the original Reddit comment, which is itself a copy of a comment from off-site. I do not claim it's correct, I just put it forward as a perspective. Remainder of my original comment follows.

It doesn't seem like this situation went off as it should have though. From /u/deskreference's comment taken from https://thepointsguy.com/2017/04/you...luntary-bumps/)

Lawyer here. This myth that passengers don't have rights needs to go away, ASAP. You are dead wrong when saying that United legally kicked him off the plane.

1. First of all, it's airline spin to call this an overbooking. The statutory provision granting them the ability to deny boarding is about "OVERSALES", specifically defines as booking more reserved confirmed seats than there are available. This is not what happened. They did not overbook the flight; they had a fully booked flight, and not only did everyone already have a reserved confirmed seat, they were all sitting in them. The law allowing them to denying boarding in the event of an oversale does not apply.

2. Even if it did apply, the law is unambiguously clear that airlines have to give preference to everyone with reserved confirmed seats when choosing to involuntarily deny boarding. They have to always choose the solution that will affect the least amount of reserved confirmed seats. This rule is straightforward, and United makes very clear in their own contract of carriage that employees of their own or of other carriers may be denied boarding without compensation because they do not have reserved confirmed seats. On its face, it's clear that what they did was illegal-- they gave preference to their employees over people who had reserved confirmed seats, in violation of 14 CFR 250.2a.

3. Furthermore, even if you try and twist this into a legal application of 250.2a and say that United had the right to deny him boarding in the event of an overbooking; they did NOT have the right to kick him off the plane. Their contract of carriage highlights there is a complete difference in rights after you've boarded and sat on the plane, and Rule 21 goes over the specific scenarios where you could get kicked off. NONE of them apply here. He did absolutely nothing wrong and shouldn't have been targeted. He's going to leave with a hefty settlement after this fiasco.

Yes most everyone gets it but W. I suspect he won't get it either.

[Pat Babaz]

Originally Posted by mcjaredsandwich

Taken from a Reddit thread. I take no credit for this and these are not my words.

"Ok, because people keep missing that I do not claim to be an expert nor did I write the material I quoted, I have to emphasize I copy-pasted from and left a link to the original Reddit comment, which is itself a copy of a comment from off-site. I do not claim it's correct, I just put it forward as a perspective. Remainder of my original comment follows.

It doesn't seem like this situation went off as it should have though. From /u/deskreference's comment taken from https://www.thepointsguy.com/2017/04...luntary-bumps/

Lawyer here. This myth that passengers don't have rights needs to go away, ASAP. You are dead wrong when saying that United legally kicked him off the plane.

1. First of all, it's airline spin to call this an overbooking. The statutory provision granting them the ability to deny boarding is about "OVERSALES", specifically defines as booking more reserved confirmed seats than there are available. This is not what happened. They did not overbook the flight; they had a fully booked flight, and not only did everyone already have a reserved confirmed seat, they were all sitting in them. The law allowing them to denying boarding in the event of an oversale does not apply.

2. Even if it did apply, the law is unambiguously clear that airlines have to give preference to everyone with reserved confirmed seats when choosing to involuntarily deny boarding. They have to always choose the solution that will affect the least amount of reserved confirmed seats. This rule is straightforward, and United makes very clear in their own contract of carriage that employees of their own or of other carriers may be denied boarding without compensation because they do not have reserved confirmed seats. On its face, it's clear that what they did was illegal-- they gave preference to their employees over people who had reserved confirmed seats, in violation of 14 CFR 250.2a.

3. Furthermore, even if you try and twist this into a legal application of 250.2a and say that United had the right to deny him boarding in the event of an overbooking; they did NOT have the right to kick him off the plane. Their contract of carriage highlights there is a complete difference in rights after you've boarded and sat on the plane, and Rule 21 goes over the specific scenarios where you could get kicked off. NONE of them apply here. He did absolutely nothing wrong and shouldn't have been targeted. He's going to leave with a hefty settlement after this fiasco.

Looks like if they had refused him before he got on the plane they possibly could have used 250.a for legal justification but since he already boarded and did not violate rule 21 than it was United that violated the contract of carriage and not the passenger.


Seems to me that United was legally wrong.

[redaddiction]

All I can say is I wish it was me that got dragged off that flight! I could use a fat bank account!!!

[Feesherman]

Originally Posted by redaddiction

All I can say is I wish it was me that got dragged off that flight! I could use a fat bank account!!!

You and me both pudnah!!

[Matt G]

Seems legit Sammich. The employees did not have confirmed reserved space and should have never been factor in the "overbooking." United was clearly in violation of the law........ Sorry W.

? 250.2a Policy regarding denied boarding.
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.

? 250.1 Definitions.
Confirmed reserved space means space on a specific date and on a specific flight and class of service of a carrier which has been requested by a passenger, including a passenger with a ?zero fare ticket,? and which the carrier or its agent has verified, by appropriate notation on the ticket or in any other manner provided therefore by the carrier, as being reserved for the accommodation of the passenger


Zero fare ticket means a ticket acquired without a substantial monetary payment such as by using frequent flyer miles or vouchers, or a consolidator ticket obtained after a monetary payment that does not show a fare amount on the ticket. A zero fare ticket does not include free or reduced rate air transportation provided to airline employees and guests.

["W"]

Originally Posted by Feesherman

Like I said, once on the plane the rules have changed and it's out of local PD's jurisdiction. It becomes Federal, as in TSA level at that point. Why you think United blamed the man at first and is now bending over backwards so far as to refund everyone on the plane. The realized what they did was illegal and is now gotten themselves in hot water.

Running back on a plane you were removed from is also a security risk and federal security risk at that !

So he broke the law by running back on a plane when removed by law!

Airline has 100% right to remove anyone from a plane anytime with out reason !




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Feesherman]

Originally Posted by "W"

Running back on a plane you were removed from is also a security risk and federal security risk at that !

So he broke the law by running back on a plane when removed by law!

Airline has 100% right to remove anyone from a plane anytime with out reason !




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm goin turkey huntin, good luck on the lake comrade W!!

["W"]

Originally Posted by Feesherman

Like I said, once on the plane the rules have changed and it's out of local PD's jurisdiction. It becomes Federal, as in TSA level at that point. Why you think United blamed the man at first and is now bending over backwards so far as to refund everyone on the plane. The realized what they did was illegal and is now gotten themselves in hot water.

That's false is not just TSA
A Local PD can board any plane with permission from airline in its jurisdiction

It does not have to be the TSA to remove him !
Local PD can remove anyone who is a threat , or not obeying the rules of airline!

Which the Dr didn't read his "fine print "

Again bad look for United because of the 15secs of video

But at end of the day they accomplished what they went to do !

Solve a problem!




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

["W"]

Clear as day !!
In United rules
Clear as DAY



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

["W"]

Another note
It has not been stated anywhere other than "opinions " who don't matter
Any laws were broken

Zero conformation from TSA or United , or O Hare


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mcjaredsandwich]

Originally Posted by "W"

Clear as day !!
In United rules
Clear as DAY



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yea, that's the policy. HOWEVER, all the passengers WERE ALREADY BOARDED. It's not like he jumped through the window. It also states that if no one voluntarily gives up their seats, they will deny further boarding. If that's their policy, they should have denied boarding for the employees as all seats were filled and no one volunteered to give up their seat.

You just posted a picture of rules contradicting your argument.

["W"]

Originally Posted by mcjaredsandwich

Yea, that's the policy. HOWEVER, all the passengers WERE ALREADY BOARDED. It's not like he jumped through the window. It also states that if no one voluntarily gives up their seats, they will deny further boarding.



You just posted a picture of rules contradicting your argument.

Does not matter ... they had the right to refuse him by the Radom selection process
Which United did correctly

Again no one has prove anything was done illegally yet

Until TSA or United says that it was done illegally
Then In my view it was a successful removal !



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Feesherman]

Originally Posted by "W"

Then In my view it was a successful removal !



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

LMAO there is no denying that it was a "successful removal" You finally got one right dude!!! HOORAY W!!!!!!!!!!!!


Wait nevermind, you're still wrong. It was a "successful re-accommodation"

["W"]

What was FFA report ?
Can you please post me some facts of illegal doings by United
Need a legal source
From
FFA
TSA
United
CPD
FBI
Etc


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mcjaredsandwich]

I think he's just trolling now.

[Matt G]

I see reading comprehension isn't your strong point. The flight was not oversold because the 4 employees did not hold a confirmed reserved space, so BY LAW, United could not deny boarding to any passengers holding a confirmed reserved space to accommodate their own employees. It's really that simple.


Go read 14 CRF 250. That's the only rules that apply in this situation. Any policy by United contradicting this is in violations of the law and therefore not valid.
link: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/part-250

[Feesherman]

Originally Posted by Matt G

I see reading comprehension isn't your strong point. The flight was not oversold because the 4 employees did not hold a confirmed reserved space, so BY LAW, United could not deny boarding to any passengers holding a confirmed reserved space to accommodate their own employees. It's really that simple.


Go read 14 CRF 250. That's the only rules that apply in this situation. Any policy by United contradicting this is in violations of the law and therefore not valid.
link: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/part-250

Well since he cannot comprehend, ur wasting ur time. He's posting policies that support my argument lmao

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

["W"]

Originally Posted by Matt G

I see reading comprehension isn't your strong point. The flight was not oversold because the 4 employees did not hold a confirmed reserved space, so BY LAW, United could not deny boarding to any passengers holding a confirmed reserved space to accommodate their own employees. It's really that simple.


Go read 14 CRF 250. That's the only rules that apply in this situation. Any policy by United contradicting this is in violations of the law and therefore not valid.
link: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/part-250

So
Where is the
FFA or FBI charges against United ?
You break a federal law your getting charged ?

Has United been charged ?
I keep up with news and markets by the hour

Have seen ZERO info where United was charged by breaking Federal laws of the FFA?

Are you getting some news I'm not ?

To say it's was illegal there must be some charges or atleast filed ?

["W"]

Love how you say they broke the law

Lmao

Not 1 of you can show proof they have broken any laws where the FFA has charged them with breaking Federal laws

I'll keep waiting

In mean time Trump Bombing the **** out of ISIS