[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."