[BlackFly]

That is a fantastic link. Summary of the points:

CFR 250.2a covers overbooking but only applies before boarding. Since the United employees had no confirmed reserved seats on the aircraft, they cannot be given priority over a customer with a confirmed reserved seat.

The passenger was already boarded, so they cannot rely on oversales rules to refuse service. Instead they need to rely on their Contract of Carriage which does not allow them to eject customers for any reason whatsoever. The most circular thing they could eject him for was failure to follow the terms of the contract of carriage for refusing to disembark. They publicly stated that their reason for asking him to leave was because he was selected by a computer, but this is not allowed by their rule 21.

They had no legal right to refuse him service at that point.

[valuearb]

"which does not allow them to eject customers for any reason whatsoever. The most circular thing they could eject him for was failure to follow the terms of the contract of carriage for refusing to disembark"

You should go back to law school. They can eject anyone at any time for any reason.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/757712/passengers-rejoic...

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/wayne-county/201...

[cmurf]

You're wrong.

Both of your examples would violate Rule 21, H, 1, and therefore removal is allowed.

In the case under discussion, the passenger was not in breach of rule 21 for any of the listed reasons.

[true_religion]

Yep, and in order to exercise his legal rights in this entirely civil case, he ought to have left the plane called his lawyer then gone before a judge.

This whole act of struggling with the police is never going to get a good outcome. It will only escalate things from a civil matter to a criminal one.

[dragonwriter]

Given that either the police were acting illegally or United must have falsely asserted facts that made the removal legal, it seems to me that it must have become criminal, either on the part of the police or, more likely, United's false police report, before any struggle.

[true_religion]

I think it's still up in the air as to if he had any kind of right to his seat.

United asserts, they prioritise their employees gaining seats on the flight because their employees are actually necessary to the operation of this flight and others.

It makes business sense, and its logical.

There's no law on any book that will force someone to serve you, whether it be transportation wise or by letting you have use of their mobile property (land/residences are a special case). United can pick random people at any time to get off the flight, for any reason, and at worst it will be a contractural breach or a violation of a civil statue (like the overbooking clause).

Once he was told to get off, he should have gotten off.

[p49k]

Absolutely not. In order for United to exercise THEIR civil rights in this entirely civil case and sue for lost revenue related to not being able to get their crew to Louisville, they should have let him fly after confirming his refusal to leave and then later pleaded their case before a judge. If United indeed had the right to reject him, they would have been compensated by the doctor.

It was United, not the passenger, who escalated to violence in a purely civil matter. He did not force himself onto the plane, he simply declined to give up the seat he had already been given.