[DannyBee]

This is totally and completely wrong, legally.

They may deny boarding. This is the legal term even ("Denied boarding"). That is why they do it prior to boarding the aircraft. You will get "Denied Boarding compensation" (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/part-250)

Once they have taken your ticket, you have boarded, and have sat down, you may no longer be denied boarding due to oversale.

Heck, once they have taken your ticket and told you you can proceed to board, they can't remove you whether you've gotten on the plane or not.

They may only remove you "due to a safety, security, or health risk, or due to a behavior that is considered obscene, disruptive, or otherwise unlawful"

See, e.g., https://www.transportation.gov/individuals/aviation-consumer...

Scroll to "Can airlines involuntarily bump me after I have boarded the flight?"

[joshuaissac]

Not only that, but the contract only allowed the airline to deny boarding on oversold flights, which the flight in question was not. So they would have been in breach even if they had only denied boarding instead of seating him and then dragging him out.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/omribenshahar/2017/04/14/david-...

[rgbrenner]

Thats a rule change the FAA made because of David Dao

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/27/travel/airlines-bumping-r...

[DannyBee]

That article is actually a bit wrong.

First, that particular change was part of the 2018 FAA reauthorization act (congress did it - see https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/PLAW-115publ254), but they link to the DOT regulations done much later.

It's true it was a response to David Dao.

But it was actually never allowed, even before that. The airlines just liked to argue about it and be a pain in the ass, so they added a line to the law about it.

In the case of David Dao specifically - the flight was not oversold, so they had zero leg to stand on.

(Now, once they asked him to leave, he needs to leave, but they did not have a right to ask him to leave)

[petre]

Did he sue?

I've grown tired of airline and car booking company abuse. I'll notify the appropriate authorites or maybe even sue when I can, thanx to WizzAir, Ryanair, Booking.com and other abusive companies. In the EU it's easier because there's all kinds of consumer protection laws. Vacating seats by force is pretty much unhead of.

[DannyBee]

His attorney said he intended to. They settled 3 days later.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Express_Flight_3411_inc...

Search for "confidential settlement"

[greenbcj]

I agree… Republic screwed up here in allowing the passengers to board before sorting out the crew seats.

But, would this passenger have acted any differently if they had to ask him to leave under one of the acceptable conditions? Based on his reasoning, I highly doubt it.

It’s not uncommon on the type of aircraft operated by Republic that after boarding, they need to vacate a few seats based on fuel requirements (changing weather). I’ve had times we taxi, then return to the gate to offload passengers because the wind changed directions. I’ve many times seen passengers get upset, but the system the airlines use to select passengers is fairly objective. Based on fare type, when you purchased, etc.

Also, from a legal perspective, once the airline asked him to leave, even if they broke the rules it’s still trespassing. If the airline asks me to leave, I’m not arguing. I leave and handle the situation with customer service. I’ve had this happen. And I’ve been “bumped” incorrectly before, and well compensated after.

Also… I agree with the airlines reasoning that they needed to move a crew. If they can’t position a crew, that’s 150 bumped passengers with a significant domino effect (potentially four or five doctors… that did the right thing and bought the appropriate fares) rather than just four.

[buran77]

> I agree with the airlines reasoning that they needed to move a crew

A company should deal with its internal processes without making them the client's problem. Put that crew on a different flight, hire a charter for them, plan better next time.

Are you OK with your ISP cutting your internet because the company needs to transfer some important company data? Buy a car but never have it delivered because the company needed to give it to an important person who couldn't wait? A hotel kicks you out of your room because an employee is tired and needs to rest there?

[DannyBee]

It's true that once they asked him to leave, he needed to leave. I also sympathize with the need to move crew (they should add it to the TICKETS act exceptions)

I'm just pointing out he did nothing wrong - the airline retained no right to remove him, and deserves all the ire and lawsuits it gets when it does ;)

[op00to]

> once the airline asked him to leave, even if they broke the rules it’s still trespassing

Being right but getting your head beat in is .. not winning. Being right but getting on the no fly list is .. not winning. Being right but getting involved in a lawsuit after flying is .. not winning.

How hard was it for Dao to realize there’s no way to come out on top in this immediate situation, and the only logical next move is to comply and use the inconvenience to get something out of the airline?

[wwtrv]

So if the airline asked him to leave mid flight he’d also be trespassing? They let him board the plane and that’s it, if the airline can’t figure out how many people the can fit on a plane before everyone is seated that’s entirely their problem.

[himinlomax]

> But, would this passenger have acted any differently if they had to ask him to leave under one of the acceptable conditions?

He would have been wrong to act the same way had the circumstances been different, but then the circumstances were what they were and not something else. People usually behave differently in different circumstances. Unless you are suggesting that he might actually be a primitive automaton, I'm not sure what you are arguing here.

[jancsika]

> I agree… Republic screwed up here in allowing the passengers to board before sorting out the crew seats.

That severely softens your previous line (if not changing the meaning altogether):

> The airline was well within its rights.

It's ok to simply write, "Gee, I didn't consider that. Thanks."

[kortilla]

The article says they can bump you. “Generally, no” is not “no”.

> Generally, no. If you have met the following conditions, airlines are not allowed to deny you permission to board, or remove you from the flight if you have already boarded the flight: You have checked-in for your flight before the check-in deadline set by the airlines; and

>A gate agent has accepted your paper boarding pass or electronically scanned your boarding pass and let you know that you may proceed to board. However, airlines may deny boarding or remove you from a flight even after accepting your boarding pass and informing you that you may proceed to board if the denial or removal is due to a safety, security, or health risk, or due to a behavior that is considered obscene, disruptive, or otherwise unlawful.

They can easily use safety under “weights and balances” as the reason.

[DannyBee]

You seem very defeatist in all of your comments on this thread.

You are right that they can lie and claim lots of things to say the person needs to be removed.

It's pretty easy to hold them to account, and consumers have had no trouble suing airlines successfully when necessary.

In the case of "weights and balances", if they falsely remove you for that reason and put some other crew member they need to move on instead, that seems like it would be pretty easy to show is bullshit.

[kortilla]

>You seem very defeatist in all of your comments on this thread.

Because you are posting ridiculous comments implying that people have a bunch of rights to do things on a airplane that will end up landing them in jail or with big fines.

Step back and remember that you’re still on private property and the government has taken obscene steps in the industry to protect safety at all costs. There are very narrow rights you have with regard to monetary renumeration which you should leverage whenever you get the chance.

However, refusing to leave a plane when being asked to by the staff is always a losing move. There are no clear punishments for the airline and there are significant outs (“passenger was being unruly”).

> remove you for that reason and put some other crew member they need to move on instead, that seems like it would be pretty easy to show is bullshit.

Not if they bring the crew on, get them seated in jump seats, and then state that some people need to be removed.

This can happen even without manifest changes. If a significant storm pushes into the arrival airport when getting ready to depart it may delay the flight and alter fuel requirements for alternate airports. I’ve been on flights where they had to ask people to deplane in exchange for vouchers just to fly with the seats empty to offset weather range requirements.

[DannyBee]

I have not once claimed that they should not leave once asked, and in fact repeatedly said the opposite. Not leaving will get you dragged out for sure.

The correct answer, as I’ve said repeatedly in this thread, is to hold them to account in court

The rest of your claims and game playing loopholes have not faired well for airlines (or airport security) in court. That is why they settle, often for significant money. Have you bothered to look at the cases? I have.

[addingnumbers]

> They can easily use safety under “weights and balances” as the reason.

How would it play out for them to invoke that law disingenuously?

They won't use it to fly with an empty seat, nobody wants that except maybe a couple adjacent passengers who might enjoy the elbow room. The airline certainly doesn't want an empty seat.

If they stated out loud to someone that weight in that seat puts the passengers' lives at risk, then seats another person there, I'd hope the backlash would be instant and severe.

[subpixel]

Flying on a plane you don't own is a privilege, not a right.

[DannyBee]

True but it is highly regulated on both sides.

[sowbug]

Is it the same as living in a home you don't own but only rent?

[subpixel]

Actually, it is more like that than you may think, while not an apples-to-apples comparison. There is neither a right to fly around in the air nor a right to a place to live in the US.

It's only fungible regulation that interferes with an airline's ability to make their own decisions in cases like this.

As a landlord, I can get you out of a building I own at any time (with a court order), unless I have entered into a contract with you, and I am not require to do so.