[patpending]

Are there any lawyers around who can explain the $1350 limit? Some sites like DailyKOS[1] have claimed that the $1350 "limit" has been misinterpreted. What it really means is that $1350 (or four times the fare, whichever is less) is the maximum amount the airlines are required to pay. It does not mean that they cannot pay more, nor that it is illegal for them to do so.

[1] http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/4/11/1652290/-The-Widely-...

[scott00]

Not a lawyer, but it's really very simple. The law defines the minimum compensation an airline must offer a passenger denied boarding. It does not define a maximum amount. As is generally true for most entities, there is nothing preventing airlines from paying anybody they want as much money as they want, for anything or for nothing. So they are perfectly free to offer more money than that. But in a practical sense, it is ALSO the maximum that any airline will actually offer. Why offer someone $1500 to give up their seat voluntarily when you can boot them involuntarily for $1350? They're not in the airline business out of love, they're going to solve problems for the least amount of money possible. Imagine if Comcast put on your bill "Please pay at least $74.99, or more if you think it's fair." Sure, a few crazy people might send $200 out of their unadulterated love of their cable service, but the vast vast majority of people are gonna send exactly $74.99. It's both the minimum allowed legally, and the maximum expected in practice.

[patpending]

I think I understand. To be fair, I haven't heard United claim that $1350 was the limit, but I've heard people on CNN and elswhere claim that (in effect) the airline's hands were tied and they could not offer more than $1350.

I suppose an excellent reason for an airline to offer more than $1350 would be to avoid losing $1.6 billion off its stock price.

[tyingq]

At the very least, the law is applicable only to "Involuntary Denied Boarding". They can offer whatever they want for volunteers.

[markdown]

Delta has just announced they will pay up to 10k.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/delta-offer-10000-to-flyers-give...

[bzbarsky]

The _airline's_ hands were not tied. But the hands of the agents on the spot might have been tied, by airline policy. Because said policy may well have said they can't offer more than the required legal thing.

[RyanCavanaugh]

You can read the law and it's quite clear.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/250.2b

Carriers to request volunteers for denied boarding.

In the event of an oversold flight, every carrier shall request volunteers for denied boarding before using any other boarding priority. A “volunteer” is a person who responds to the carrier's request for volunteers and who willingly accepts the carriers' offer of compensation, in any amount, in exchange for relinquishing the confirmed reserved space. Any other passenger denied boarding is considered for purposes of this part to have been denied boarding involuntarily, even if that passenger accepts the denied boarding compensation

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/250.5

Amount of denied boarding compensation for passengers denied boarding involuntarily.

Compensation shall be 400% of the fare to the passenger's destination or first stopover, with a maximum of $1,350, if the carrier does not offer alternate transportation that, at the time the arrangement is made, is planned to arrive at the airport of the passenger's first stopover, or if none, the airport of the passenger's final destination less than two hours after the planned arrival time of the passenger's original flight.

(c) Carriers may offer free or reduced rate air transportation in lieu of the cash or check due under paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, if - (1) The value of the transportation benefit offered, excluding any fees or other mandatory charges applicable for using the free or reduced rate air transportation, is equal to or greater than the cash/check payment otherwise required;

---

There's a section about volunteers, which may be compensated in any amount (literally the phrase "in any amount" appears), and a completely separate section for how much you have to pay people involuntary denied boarding, which specifies something that looks like a fixed amount. And even if you're involuntarily denied boarding, you may accept non-cash compensation that equals or exceeds the statutory minimum.

There is simply no basis for the claim that an airline can't offer more than $1,350 in vouchers during a search for a volunteer. It's plainly refuted by the text of the law.

[jacquesm]

They should get rid of the vouchers / credit options, just cold hard cash on the spot, no 'gotchas' because they'll stand there yelling $800 but when you want to collect they hand you a bunch of monopoly money with all kinds of restrictions.

[aidenn0]

To clarify what jacquesm is talking about (since I've gotten said monopoly money from United when voluntarily being bumped) I ended up with something like 4 $100 vouchers that must be used for a flight within 1 year and cannot be combined for a single flight.

They also said they'd put us on first-class for our flight the next day, but didn't.

So when they say "$400" they really mean 4 $100-off coupons that expire in 1 year.

[georgemcbay]

I am not a lawyer, but the $1350 is like a cap on the 4x amount. If the fare is $200 they must offer up to $800 ($200x4). If the fare is $400, they must offer up to $1350.

$400x4 = $1600, so without that $1350 cap they would have to offer $1600 using the 4x rule, but because that cap exists they can offer just $1350. Basically any fare above $337.5 can be treated as the same amount by the airlines, which is kind of silly since that's a really low fare relative to any kind of average flight cost.

The way people seem to be getting confused is assuming that cap is the maximum they can legally pay.. it isn't, it is the capped minimum they have to pay when following the 4x rule.

[tyingq]

I'd watch this space too. Congress likes to find ways to be heroes during this sort of PR storm. So I bet you see a bill bumping that compensation number up, and maybe making the terms more friendly overall. Who would vote against it?