Dean of Cornell Law School weighs in: why United Airlines was NOT legally justified in "deplaning"

[pnwmom]

the doctor.

Despite what numerous media reports have claimed, and many here on DU have echoed, UA did not have the right to remove the doctor from his seat.

http://www.newsweek.com/why-united-were-legally-wrong-deplane-dr-dao-583535

When a flight is oversold, UA can deny boarding to some passengers, who then receive compensation under specific guidelines. However, Dao was not denied boarding. He was granted boarding and then involuntarily removed from the airplane. What does the contract say about that?

It turns out that the contract has a specific rule regarding “Refusal of Transport” (Rule 21), which lays out the conditions under which a passenger can be removed and refused transport on the aircraft. This includes situations where passengers act in a “disorderly, offensive, abusive, or violent” manner, refuse to comply with the smoking policy, are barefoot or “not properly clothed,” as well as many other situations.

There is absolutely no provision for deplaning a seated passenger because the flight is oversold.

SNIP

One might argue that Dao had not completed “boarding” until the cabin door was closed. This argument would be wrong. The term “boarding” is not defined in the definition section of the contract, and absent an explicit definition in the contract, terms are to be afforded their plain meaning.

“Boarding” means that the passenger presents a boarding pass to the gate agent who accepts or scans the pass and permits entry through the gate to the airplane, allowing the passenger to enter the aircraft and take a seat.

[PoliticAverse]

1. Article speaks directly to the issue some DUers have raised concerning the term "boarding"...

One might argue that Dao had not completed “boarding” until the cabin door was closed. This argument would be wrong. The term “boarding” is not defined in the definition section of the contract, and absent an explicit definition in the contract, terms are to be afforded their plain meaning.

“Boarding” means that the passenger presents a boarding pass to the gate agent who accepts or scans the pass and permits entry through the gate to the airplane, allowing the passenger to enter the aircraft and take a seat.

It is possible in this regard to distinguish between the collective completion of the plane’s boarding process, which is not complete until all passengers have boarded and the cabin door is closed. But that is different from each passenger’s boarding, which is complete for each individual once he or she has been accepted for transportation by the gate agent and proceeded to the aircraft and taken his or her assigned seat.

Bottom line is that if the airline wants to bump you from the aircraft, it must deny you boarding. After the crew grant you boarding, the number of conditions under which they may deplane you substantially decreases.

[pnwmom]

2. Yes, and further down it addresses the question of liability. Since the airline didn't follow its

own contracted "rules" it could be liable for damages to the doctor.

"Presumably the police had the authority to remove him (but only with an appropriate level of force), but even so, there is a plausible argument that Dao’s injuries and damages suffered during that process were caused by the airline’s breach of contract, which specifically defines the circumstances when it can refuse transport, none of which applied in this case.

SNIP

"In contrast, the object and purpose of the contract of carriage is, among other things, to require the airline to transport the passenger from location A to location B aboard aircraft C. Being on the aircraft is the whole point of the contract, and it specifically lists the situations when the airline may deny transport to a ticketed customer.

"Since the airline did not comply with those requirements, it should be liable for the damages associated with their breach."

[Angry Dragon]

3. many talk show hosts should read your post .............

[yardwork]

4. Even if the deplaning WAS legal, the force used was not.

I'm certain that it is illegal to forcibly remove a passenger as was done to Dr. Dao. His attorney said so during the press conference today. There are always lawyers willing to argue any angle, but I'm sure that United realizes that they are in big trouble.

[PoliticAverse]

7. Even if it was legal to remove him, the use of "excessive force" isn't. n/t

[yardwork]

10. Exactly. He was not a threat to anybody's safety.

[napi21]

5. So WHO called the cops? I bet they're sorry now. Offering a volunteer $10,000 would have gotten

people falling over themselves to say "PICK ME! and it sould hane been a LOT cheaper than this is going to be!

[PoliticAverse]

8. Apparently someone offered their seat for $1,800. n/t

[pnwmom]

11. Really? How dumb the UA people were not to take them up on it. nt

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

16. I think the law says $1350 is the most they have to offer

[pnwmom]

17. It's the most they are REQUIRED to pay for an involuntary bump. However,

there is no limit to what they could offer for a voluntary bump. They should have given the other passenger the $1800 he asked for.

[mcar]

6. I tend to believe this guy

over folks here and in the media. Thanks.

[dalton99a]

9. That's why lawyers couldn't wait to take his case

[klook]

12. Well, let's see what some other skeptical non-experts have to say

before we believe some guy from Cornell.


Thanks for posting this!

[pnwmom]

13. You're welcome!

[Honeycombe8]

14. The flight wasn't oversold. How could he not know that? nt

[pnwmom]

15. He does know that, but I only posted 4 paragraphs.

There was a lot more, including this:

"An added complication here is that the flight wasn’t even oversold.

SNIP

"In any event, this point is largely moot, because neither employee transportation nor oversold situations is listed as among the reasons that a passenger may be refused transport."

[canetoad]

18. I've read most of a thread

on the PPRUNE (Professional Pilots Rumour Network) dealing with this incident. Someone defined 'Boarded' as 'having passed through the gate check-in, which made sense. Here's the thread if anyone's interested. It's dozens of pages long but interesting to read the opinions of airline professionals.

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/593329-usa-today-ua-forcibly-remove-random-pax-flight.html

[jimjc]

19. doesn't matter

whether UA had the right or not to remove the passenger (which I believe they did not) it's going to cost them 7 figures and it will set pressident how airlines deal with passengers in the future...

[pnwmom]

20. It's true that they've already lost in the court of public opinion. I'm sure they'll make

a hefty settlement.

Welcome to Du, jimjc!

[tblue37]

21. The flight was not overbooked. nt

[pnwmom]

22. He talks about that, too, but says the point is moot -- since neither Rule 21 nor Rule 25

apply to this situation.