I’m pretty damn sure that it’s THE calculation. That, combined with whether or not you are traveling with other folks.
The person who paid the least for their ticket get bumped first, because it will cost the airlines the least amount of money.
They have preferences for people in mileage programs and those programs do not relate to how much you paid for a ticket at that moment. The credit cards, mileage programs, who you’re traveling with, connecting flights, military status, standby status… after all these things there is a price component.
This guy was going home. He had no connecting flight. He doesn’t seem like he travels well but being a nervous flyer is not a crime; it’s not even uncommon. And let’s keep in mind, he claims he was booted because he is Chinese. Why he was chosen is absolutely relevant. It will probably be brought up in a court case assuming they can get this to court.
Just don’t sigh and tell me it’s irrelevant when you don’t know because you don’t know.
Interesting counterpoint: the guy was trespassing, and got exactly what he deserved. If a homeless man refuses to leave your business, you call the police and he gets dragged out.
When you buy a ticket, you agree to the terms of the contract. The terms of the contract are very clear - you can get bumped and you are entitled to some compensation for that.
United should sue this guy for lost income.
When you operate as a carrier in the US, you agree to the terms of the governing laws and regulations in place. As noted above, it’s apparently a bit more complicated than “This is our plane, get out!”
I think you have what it takes to be their next CEO.
This is the opposite of that. United has repeatedly apologized and is now vowing to never again use police to de-plane bumped passengers. No reasonable human being equates this with a homeless person refusing to leave a business.
This was a paying customer. So maybe a better analogy would be someone who is kicked out of their hotel room in the middle of their stay in order to make room for another guest. And yes, I’m sure you wouldn’t hesitate to wave your contract at him and call the cops if necessary. Just don’t expect to remain #1 on TripAdvisor.
I wouldn’t attribute that motive to the press. The press knows that people are curious about the guy. He could be a former Eagle Scout and the press would play up that angle too.
Oh, all those smears in the media about Dr Dao? I noticed another one in the Daily Mail today, well apparently the medical files that United are sending out are about a different Dr Dao so let’s hope our good doctor can sue the living fuck out of those vermin journalists and papers too.
I heard he vomited in the plane bathroom. That would indicate a pretty severe concussion.
Source -
Eyewitness accounts say he hit his head on the arm of the chair, are you saying otherwise?
No, and I have no idea why you would think what I wrote suggested otherwise.
The seems pretty clear from some posts upthread - the carrier is legally allowed to bump you, and you are entitled to some compensation.
It’s an example of trespassing. Any other example of trespassing is equally valid and reasonable. But it’s not too far either because when he refused to leave, he became an illegal squatter.
This is the real bottom line - it is bad for public relations on the part of the airline, and that’s about the end of it.
Well… you posted a video of Family Guy. It’s kind of hard to know if you’re being serious when you follow your statement with a cartoon.
Sure, but within limitations. For instance, this article was posted upthread and may be germane;
Trespassing is typically entering someone’s property without their permission. He entered with their permission (and even paid for it). IANAL so I make no assertions of authority on what’s correct or not, but from these layman’s eyes it seems like you’re reaching perhaps for the sake of a Devil’s advocate position or just to have some fun. Still, it’s a stretch.
No it’s not “equally valid and reasonable” to anyone with a brain. The passengers were invited into the plane and their ticket is a contract of carriage between them and United. According to the contract’s Refusal of Transport section, a passenger can only be removed for specific reasons, mostly safety or acts beyond the airline’s control like weather or acts of terrorism . Note that none of the reasons in the contract for forcibly removing a passenger include “because we overbooked”.
They do remove people all the time under the generic safety reasons stated - unruly, drunk, violent folks gotta go - but in this case, by all accounts, the violence was all perpetrated on the United side.
Legally you are absolutely correct. Morally, it’s abhorrent that a paying customer could be declared a squatter and ejected with violence.
Sometimes the law is wrong and we need to fix it.
Not really. Anyone with a brain (especially in the US) would say that private property rights would trump an omission in a ‘contract of carriage’ of a specific airline. You think the guy had a fundamental human right to fly on someone else’s airplane because he bought a ticket? Of course not.
If I invite someone to my house and ask them to leave, the invitation is no longer valid, the judge will side with me every time.
United had the right to invalidate the ticket. It then made it invalid. The guy was then trespassing, and his presence was a safety hazard (more people on the aircraft than seats).
By the way, yes a bit of a devil’s advocate position - a friendly debate on the internet can come across as angry post nearing Godwin’s rule.
Dude if you invited someone over for dinner then beat them up and threw them out of your house, I’d expect people would not want to eat dinner with you anymore.
You’re legally allowed to do that but then people are legally allowed to believe you’re an asshole and not come over anymore.