TSA

United Did a Bad Thing, But the TSA Has 'Re-Accommodated' Airline Passengers for Years

This horrific incident is a reminder that flying is miserable because safety paranoia overshadowed human rights.

|

TSA
Phil Masturzo/TNS/Newscom

The latest wrinkle in the United debacle is that the airline's CEO, Oscar Munoz, sent a letter to company employees laying most of the blame on the victim: the doctor who was dragged off his flight by Chicago aviation police. This passenger "defied" officers after being "politely asked to deplane" and became "disruptive and belligerent," according to the letter.

Munoz struck a similar tone in his public statement, which claimed that United personnel were merely trying to "re-accommodate" the passenger—an example of Orwellian doublespeak if ever there was one.

In the wake of the incident, United has been met with something approaching universal condemnation—and it's well-deserved, writes Reason's Brian Doherty: "Shame on both United for calling the cops on a passenger to make the lives of their employees and business easier, and shame on the police for having any part of it."

He's right, of course. But while United's treatment of the passenger in the video was stunning and uniquely awful, let's not forget that the entire airport experience is oriented toward misery—and that's the fault of government policies that treat every passenger like a potential security threat. Paying customers aren't people with rights and dignity, according to this model: they are nails to be hammered into place.

We live in an age of transportation security theater, and the party responsible for much of the flying-related misery is the Transportation Security Administration. Created in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, this federal agency is solely responsible for screening passengers for contraband and dangerous items as they enter airport terminals. In practice, this means subjecting people to intrusive pat-downs and body scans while rifling through their personal items. There is no boundary too private for the TSA to cross. That this incredibly inconvenient, dehumanizing system routinely fails to prevent illicit items from actually entering the airport is almost beside the point, since the TSA provides little actual security. Indeed, the dirty secret of airport safety is that the materials necessary to construct an explosive can be found inside the terminal, beyond the security checkpoint.

Making matters more frustrating, the TSA habitually touts its own importance—even though, as Reason's Ron Bailey and C.J. Ciaramella, and Vox's Dylan Matthews, have argued, its complete abolition would put no one in danger and might actually save lives. As customers wait in endless security lines, TSA agents incessantly claim that the extraordinary measures are necessary precautions. Constant reminders to remove shoes and belts, empty pockets, and separate laptops from backpacks are justified on grounds that they make everyone safer, even though this is a lie.

United's claim that assaulting a passenger and dragging him out of a seat he paid for constitutes mere "re-accommodation" is a clear continuation of this approach. Agents of the state make similar re-accommodations all the time. For your safety. You are welcome.

United is not the TSA. And many airlines have better customer service track records than United. But it's no accident that flying has become one of the most stressful and uncomfortable recurring experiences for millions of Americans. It's the result of policy choices, enacted by government agents, and propelled by overwhelming safety paranoia. Until and unless some basic level of sanity prevails, customers should expect further "re-accommodations" at the hands of overzealous police officers and security officials, no matter which airline they fly.

Advertisement

NEXT: Data as History: Charting the Last 2000 Years of Human Progress

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. This will end when all passengers are stripped naked and handcuffed to their seats.
    Probably the only reason this has not been done yet is the union will not allow the “cabin attendant” staff to be reduced.
    Airports – the constitution free zone.

    1. How about being heavily sedated and packed in a little compartment?

      I think I’d go for that option. Especially for long hauls. The longest flight I’ve been on was 16 hours and that was awful.

      1. Me too – LA to Beijing. Unbelievably awful. The nick fit alone was torture.

    2. They’ll probably make you pay for the storage if your clothing and a rental fee on the handcuffs

  2. I just want to sneak up to the piano bar on the top deck on a 747 and buy a drink for a gal I cannot afford.

  3. RIGHT, n. Legitimate authority to be, to do or to have; as the right to be a king, the right to do one’s neighbor, the right to have measles and the like. The first of these rights was once universally believed to be derived directly from the will of God; and this is still sometimes affirmed in partibus infidelium outside the enlightened realms of Democracy; as in the well-known lines of Sir Abednego Bink, following:

    By what right, then, do royal rulers rule?
    Whose is the sanction of their state and pow’r?
    He surely were as stubborn as a mule
    Who, God unwilling, could maintain an hour
    His uninvited session on the throne, or air
    His pride securely in the Presidential chair.

    Whatever is is so by Right Divine;
    Whate’er occurs, God wills it so. Good land!
    It were a wondrous thing if His design
    A fool could baffle or a rogue withstand!
    If so, then God, I say (intending no offence)
    Is guilty of contributory negligence.

  4. Re-accomodating a passenger or passengers is one thing, but United Airlines went more than just a bit too far in this instance.

    The guy was a Senior citizen, and the fact that they forcibly removed him, in any event, was disgusting enough, but the guy was also a surgeon, on duty the next morning at a hospital to perform early-morning, possibly life-saving surgeries, and there was absolutely no excuse for the “swing first–ask questions later or not at all” tactics that United Airlines, along with the police officers involved, exhibited here. None..what.so.ever.

  5. In the wake of the incident, United has been meant with something approaching universal condemnation

    Funny you mention this because not moments ago I heard the right-wing radio duo of Walton & Johnson completely defending United.

    1. I’ll defend them, too. As a company, they’re free to mark their paying customers as trespassers and have said customers ejected from their property. They’re free to risk litigation by breaking their contracts. They’re free to make themselves so toxic that the market will force them to come to Jesus.

      Come to think of it, maybe I won’t defend them.

    2. Not familiar with this duo, but if they defended United, they are certainly not right wing – even if they claim to be. On top of that, if they truly did support United, they are completely clueless of the rights of the passenger (a man) and the trespass by the police officer and the contractual obligation of United. IMO, United and the police officer completely effed up this situation.

    3. Memory Hole|4.11.17 @ 8:56AM|#
      “Funny you mention this because not moments ago I heard the right-wing radio duo of Walton & Johnson completely defending United.”

      And then there’s a lefty twit somewhat like yourself grasping at straws:

      “Displaying impeccable logic, actor John Cho @JohnTheCho (Mr. Sulu on the Star Trek reboot movies) blames the airline’s brutish behavior on Trump. Cho tweets:
      It’s hard not to see a connection between the environment Trump has created and what happened on that @united flight.”

      1. I didn’t grasp at straws El Sevo. My comment is 100% objective fact. I observed and reported easily verifiable information relevant to the article. I didn’t even give an opinion on United. Maybe I support Unite? You’ll never know now because you hurt my feelings.

    4. I am sympathetic towards United here.

      I presume they did what they did because they know darn well they have every right to. The CEO doubling down on their side reinforces this. And yes I’ve seen the amateur lawyering; not convinced.

      I also am not a fan of the idea that a passenger that wants to get obstinate and scream like a child should be allowed to keep his seat despite being bumped due to overbooking. Or that everyone rates him, being a surgeon or whatever, as more important than the rest of us when it comes to suffing from bad luck with flights.

      1. Was it really overbooking though?

      2. I agree that the surgeon shouldn’t be special. I have a job to get to as well. The big question is how he got on the flight if there wasn’t a seat for him. And that’s the big problem here. If he’d snuck on the plane and taken a paying passenger’s seat, I’d be all for dragging him off. But that’s not what happened here. What happened is he was already on the flight and ready to go when United realized that oops, they needed more crew seats. The question here is who screwed up, forgot about the crew seats and then used the cops to clean up after their mistake. You’d think United would have some way for accounting for crew needing seats if they’re willing to drag people off planes over it.

        1. “And that’s the big problem here.”

          Do you have any appreciation at all for what time frames airlines are operating on… like at all?

          I’ve heard of flight-crews geting diverted to run other flights twice in ten minutes. They’re literally working minute to minute at times.

          It’s entirely possible that when the guy was boarded they still thought they had a flight crew for the plane in Louisville and in the intervening time that option dissappeared. We’re talking at times having to adapt to changing conditions minute by minute.

          This isn’t people being bumped for shits and giggles, this is literally people being bumped so that United can keep people moving. You can criticize them because this stuff tends to happen more on United than other airlines, but criticizing them for bumping a customer to keep many others from having a worse day isn’t exactly abnormal.

  6. The fact that stuff like this, and other horrific stuff happens on the airlines is why I no longer fly. If I go to another part of the country, I just throw my stuff into the trunk or the back of my car and just take off. It’s way easier that way, imho.

    1. other horrific stuff like not being able to travel with your bong.

    2. If you have the time. And it’s hard to drive over oceans.

      1. Only foreigners need to cross oceans. And Hawaiians I guess.

        1. only ignorant american born won’t travel outside U.S.

    3. Also, it’s pretty easy for the cops to fuck with you when you are driving too. But at least you are mostly in control.

  7. This horrific incident is a reminder that flying is miserable because safety paranoia overshadowed human rights.

    Maybe this is just me, but I don’t think ‘horrific’ is the right word. That’s going a bit overboard.

    1. The man was beaten and dragged out of a plane that he paid to be on. By government employees. Not to mention the fact that he claims to be a doctor who needed to be on that plane to see patients. That ain’t exactly sunshine and rainbows. Sound pretty “horrific” to me.

      1. Sound pretty “horrific” to me.

        That’s great. It still doesn’t sound ‘horrific’ to me.

      2. maybe he deserved the beating, maybe he wasn’t a doctor just played one on TV…

    2. The man was beaten and dragged out of a plane that he paid to be on. By government employees. Not to mention the fact that he claims to be a doctor who needed to be on that plane to see patients. That ain’t exactly sunshine and rainbows. Sound pretty “horrific” to me.

      1. He didn’t pay to be on a plane, he paid to be transported from point a to point b with the provision that you can be denied transport for any reason with the only resolution you’re guaranteed being a refund.

        If you want some immunity from being bumped, you buy a full fare ticket. Sorry, this is only a United problem because their name is linked to it and the cop was a brute of his own accord.

        Again, the fair weather liberrarians forget about property rights as soon as the entity exercising them is unpopular.

        1. Actually United’s contract of carriage does not provide that the customer “can be denied transport for any reason with the only resolution you’re guaranteed being a refund.” It says you can be denied boarding if your flight is oversold. Problem for United is that the flight wasn’t oversold (they were trying to ferry 4 crew members to Louisville, not accommodate additional paying customers) and they didn’t deny him boarding (he was in the seat that he paid for). In other words, United was violating its own contract.

          This is also not “only a United problem because their name is linked to it and the cop was a brute of his own accord.” United implemented a stupid policy that was bound to lead to this eventually. If you’re going to bump people who have already boarded, regardless of whether you have a legal right to do so, eventually someone is going to refuse to comply, and there’s no delicate way to get someone off an airplane who doesn’t want to leave. United made this mess, and they could easily have avoided it.

          1. Uhh yeah… Actually they can.. In two places they point this out. RULE 21 b being one of them.

            They can remove you from a flight at any time for pretty much any reason.

      2. Face it, he got beaten and dragged off because he refused to “volunteer”.

        1. But UAL are not military. They cannot say “We need FOUR volunteers.. YOU, You, you and YOOOOO.

          Nope. United muffed it big time.

  8. In my experience (which is somewhat limited, most of my flying has been international) all American airlines suck ass when it comes to service. Somehow most foreign airlines still manage to be polite and attentive and provide some complementary cocktails to coach passengers for around the same price.

    1. ^this all Domestic travel sucks donkey balls. First class seating/service is barely tolerable compared to back in the day. Coach is about shoving as much cattle into the cars as possible. Overseas Upper class travel can be decent. The last bastion and all that…..

    2. Well subsidies will do that for you…

    3. My guess is it’s because america is such a massive country that our airlines are basically busses for common people. For other countries they’re tend to be more luxury transport for rich people and vacationers.

    4. All of these frills add to the cost, but not enough to make that noticeable of a difference. Let’s look at a $400, four hour flight.

      How many drinks (at $7) does an airline sell per four hour flight with an average of 100 people per flight? Let’s be liberal and estimate 50. Add another 50 snack boxes at $4. Let’s say each of those costs $2.00 for the airline, including labor. So $600 in profit. If those things are free, probably safe to say everyone will take the snack box and maybe 100 drinks will be served, for a cost of $400. That’s a $1,000 swing, or $10 bucks a ticket.

      Then add 15% more leg room, and say that reduces the number of seats by 10%. Few flights are fully booked, so it doesn’t impact prices by the full 10%, so let’s say 6% on average. About $25 a ticket.

      Let’s subsidize wi-fi from $15 a flight to $5, which decreases profit and expands the need for infrastructure due to increased users. Call this, what, $600 per flight? Another $6 per ticket.

      So now that flight costs $441. Not enough to make you cancel vacation plans, but it doesn’t look nearly as good as that $400 flight.

      In other words, American passengers make their decision based on price to an absurd degree, opting for a horrendous flying experience in exchange for saving a few dollars. People will do multiple layovers to save $40 a flight.

      That, more than anything, is why flying is so terrible.

      1. The CEO of Spirit Airlines said as much… the quote was something along the lines of “we have a lot of complaints but people keep coming back”.

  9. This passenger “defied” officers after being “politely asked to deplane” and became “disruptive and belligerent,” according to the letter.

    Remarkably tone deaf, even for airline folk. Customers identify more with Doctor Scarequotes than they do with anyone else in this scenario.

    1. in all fairness to the cast & crew from United, I’ve seen some egregiously douche baggy behavior from passengers, to the point that I think they should be publicly beaten and then tossed out the door at altitude.

  10. ” let’s not forget that the entire airport experience is oriented toward misery”

    I will not fly commercial airlines unless it takes six hours or more to drive.

    I really don’t understand why anybody would fly commercial from Dallas to Houston, or the like. It makes no sense to me, but the flights are full.

    1. Maybe they read the comments here and figure avoiding one douchebag is worth the price.

  11. “it’s no accident that flying has become one of the most stressful and uncomfortable recurring experiences for millions of Americans”

    If it is not an accident, then it is intentional. CAGW alarmists rejoice!

  12. It’s the result of policy choices, enacted by government agents, and propelled by overwhelming safety paranoia.

    It is arguably also the outcome of allowing airline mergers and takeovers to proceed. NYMag tells an interesting story of one such merger.

    http://nymag.com/daily/intelli…..onomy.html

    Three years ago, the Obama Justice Department sued to block a merger between American Airlines and U.S. Airways, after concluding that “increasing consolidation among large airlines has hurt passengers ? The major airlines have copied each other in raising fares, imposing new fees on travelers, reducing or eliminating service on a number of city pairs, and downgrading amenities.”

    Then the airlines hired former Obama administration officials and well-connected Democrats to lobby on their behalf. Three months later, the DOJ cleared the merger for takeoff.

    Corporate interests speak louder than the public’s interest.

    Reducing the number of airlines reduces the choices available to passengers dissatisfied with the practices, policies, or prices of one or more of those airlines.

    1. I understand that libertarians are wary of anti-trust laws, but that’s for (at least relatively) free markets, which airline travel isn’t. Every landing site is government owned and regulated, so, although airlines are free to compete on price and service, they aren’t free to compete on destinations.
      The result is that, for Detroit, there are only really three airlines available (Delta, American, United), with the toy airline Southwest sorta there too, and they don’t do service at all–boarding is a cattle call). But for most destinations around the US, Delta is it. Fortunately, Delta service is pretty good, especially if you’re a Gold member. And, given United seems to be shooting itself in the foot these days, and American is dying, that doesn’t leave much.
      I fly a lot because I like to travel and hate long car drives and it’s always a hassle. And don’t get me started on the six months I spent on the TSA ‘selectee’ list…

      1. Actually those landing/gate slots are precisely where gummint (the owner of that property) should exert their property rights in the only way that United understands. Confiscate United’s ‘rights’ to that slot – and give it to whatever other airline will pay for it. If United sends its lawyers/CEO to the airport to protest that action, then rough them up a bit and drag them off the grounds of the airport.

    2. “The major airlines have copied each other in raising fares…”

      Uh huh, because in a capitalist system, prices are arbitrarily set based on imitation or collusion.

      In my experience all mergers are actually acquisitions. And acquisitions happen because the leadership of the smaller company thinks the future looks bleak and so want to cash out for what they can get now.

    3. Mergers have nothing to do with it. There are plenty of alternative airlines that fly that route.

      Heavy regulation and onerous security measures basically level the playing field in terms of what the flight experience is going to be like, meaning everyone books on price first, loyalty club second.

      The last thing this calls for is government getting even more involved with the industry.

      1. Kevin47: “The last thing this calls for is government getting even more involved with the industry.

        So in other words what you’re saying is airlines need fewer laws and regulations governing them, not more.

        Which in turn is basically a plea to allow airlines to do whatever they damn well please to whomever they please. If they want to overbook a flight, or drag a paying passenger off a plane so they can give their seat to an employee flying free, what you are saying is they should be free to do so.

        That latter practice when it happens in the real estate industry is known as “gazumping”. (It typically happens when you’ve put a down a deposit to buy a house or apartment but then somebody comes along who offers the agent a higher price for that same property. The agent then gives you the boot and allows the other party to buy the property.)

  13. Congressional democrats already calling for hearings on the United incident.

    So, the obviousl solution to a problem caused by government is ….. MORE GOVERNMENT HEARINGS!

    1. Well, we could really use another government agency to put the TSA in check!

  14. Photo shows an unrealistically thin TSA lout.

  15. The best analogy that I’ve heard is this: a contractor takes front money from you to do a job, sets up, and then walks off saying he’ll be back at some time in the future. It’s not that what he has done is illegal or necessarily broken the contract, but it’s damned poor business.

    1. Is it good business to start a cascade of flight cancellations and delays affecting humdreds of passengers because one dude decided he was special.

    2. The story is cop roughs up citizen after United asks police ro enforce property rights… Not united beats up passenger.

    3. A better analogy is the practice known as “gazumping”. That’s where somebody has put down a deposit to buy a house, apartment, or block ot land. But then, while you’re of arranging a loan from a bank somebody comes along who offers the real estate agent a higher price for that same property. The agent then gives you the boot and allows the other party to buy the house, apartment, or block.

      You have essentially been cheated out of that property. Some jurisdictions ban the practice. Others prefer to allow the free market to rule. (The idea, I guess, that if you don’t like being cheated you should go find somewhere else to live.)

      1. I can’t speak to the law in every jurisdiction but I sold real estate in Illinois and I think you misunderstand the process. A deposit is not a contract nor is a purchase offer, even at full price. Only the seller can sign a proposed purchase offer(or their designated agent) at which point it becomes a binding contract. If the buyer satisfies all contingencies within the specified time frame (home sale, financing etc) the seller is bound by the contract and cannot sign another one at any price. If not, the parties can still close the transaction but the seller is free to accept other offers in the meantime because the buyer failed to perform.
        What you seem to be describing is a straight forward breach of contract which creates civil liability in every jurisdiction. I would also point out that a free market requires that contracts be enforced so it’s the opposite of “allow(ing) the free market to rule”. And I would add that any real estate agent that participates in a sellers breach of contract is also liable for damages and likely to lose their license. The vast majority would drop that client in a heartbeat.

  16. United Airlines wants to kick a passenger off a plane.

    So, United Airlines calls the cops.

    Public is outraged that United Airlines resorted to violence.

    Public engages absolutely zero self-reflection in that.

    1. Oh but that would require people to defend entities they hate, glad to know my Libertarian bretheren are also subject to the “rights only for the right people” disease.

  17. Hey, airlines: instead of some $400 voucher good only on Mondays when Jupiter aligns with Mars, hold up four $100 bills, booking on next flight to your destination or hotel and meal if having to stay overnight. I’ll bet virtually every flight has a half dozen or more retirees, college kids, or others who would jump at the chance to give up their seat.

    1. That would be cheaper than a $255,000,000 loss in stock value.

  18. Hope the passenger sues both the airline and the rent-a-cops at the airport. Ought to get a fund going for his lawyers.

    1. No worry, two magic words: Contingency fee”

  19. The TSA is certainly evil and needs to be abolished yesterday. But flying was a pain even before 9/11, both because there are too few airlines and they don’t compete enough to make policies reasonable, and because the law lets them get away with out-and-out fraud, and the practice of overbooking is exactly that. Enough is enough.

    Privatize airports and the ATC system — and all the decision making power needed to expand both — and the problem should go away on its own. Until then, screw them, I’m driving.

    1. Privatize airports and the ATC system…

      That only allows different kinds of injustices to be perpetrated upon the flying public. Australia has privatised many of its major airports including Sydney’s Kingsford-Smith Airport. That airport has large car park for passenger or their families to park in. Back when the government owned parking there was at a reasonable cost. After the airport was privatised, the new owner jacked up the car park prices, to the point where unless you’re desperate or a millionaire nobody in their right mind would park there (half an hour is $A9, more than six times what you’d pay to park on a typical metered Sydney street for the same period, while 3-24 hours is $A60.50).

      Such is what happens when you allow a private company to run what is essentially a monopoly.

  20. Can anyone explain what exactly you think the airline should have done? You make this out like there is some magical perfect solution to this issue. What you seem to want is:
    a. United to control how police do their job.
    b. United to inconvenience potentially hundreds of other customers because I guess once your butt is in a seat it’s some inalienable right to ride on the flying sky tube.

    What exactly do you want them to do beyond change the whole model of the travel industry (hotels and restaurants overbook too) because you don’t like it?

    Keep in mind if you want one ticket one seat you’re likely giving up being re-booked without buying another ticket if you miss a flight, changing your flight without paying full price, ever flying on standby and super cheap tickets.

    1. Ugh, United Airlines is not same thing as the United States of America. We have no right to say what they ‘should have done.’ If we disagree with what they did in this situation (I don’t,) and we think it is either a) symptomatic of the airline’s attitude in gerneral or b) a boycott will be effective (I don’t,) then we would be right in boycotting United Airlines.

      Whatever occurs, as long as the punishment is not given by the FAA (or any thing fed-related,) I’m fine.

      1. Clearly I was asking the monday morning quarterbacks what their imaginary “correct solution” is… Right now I see all bluster and rage and zero reason.

        Meanwhile the d-bag cop that we actually should be talking about walks away scott free. This is like a homeowner calling the police to remove a tresspasser and everyone bitching at the homeowner because the cops hurt the guy as they forcibly remove him.

  21. “Reason’s Brian Doherty: “Shame on both United for calling the cops on a passenger to make the lives of their employees and business easier, and shame on the police for having any part of it.”

    He’s right, of course.”

    Oh? he is, is he?

    So you’d prefer to inconvenience an ENTIRE plane-ful of passengers, than four? I’m afraid I don’t follow your logic, Robby.

    1. So you’d prefer a passenger be brutalised to avoid that inconvenience?

      Shame on you!

      What about United’s incompetence for not reserving four seats on that plane for those employees BEFORE anybody showed up at the airport, let alone got onboard? That’s called planning.

      What about United’s incompetence for not asking passengers to give up their seats BEFORE anybody actually boarded the plane?

      What about United’s penny-pinching for not offering more money than the $800 (some say $1000) they limited their inducements too? (And what about the incompetence of capping those inducements to $1350.

  22. “Reason’s Brian Doherty: “Shame on both United for calling the cops on a passenger to make the lives of their employees and business easier, and shame on the police for having any part of it.”

    He’s right, of course.”

    Oh? he is, is he?

    So you’d prefer to inconvenience an ENTIRE plane-ful of passengers, than four? I’m afraid I don’t follow your logic, Robby.

  23. I keep seeing people referring to a “contractual obligation” that the passenger had to be on the plane. Part of the terms and conditions of buying a ticket, is being subject to the airlines overbooking policy. Airlines have every right to make such stipulations when selling a ticket on their plane whether anyone else likes it or not. If you don’t like how an airline runs their business you are free to fly on someone else’s plane or take a bus. Don’t pretend that you have any right to demand space on their plane, and if you are asked to leave then you must, or you are trespassing just as you would be trespassing in any other establishment. This is the same principle as being ejected from a movie theater without a refund for causing a disruption.

    Furthermore, I am tired of people complaining about the TSA and security measures. Pointing out flaws in security does not justify removing security altogether any more than pointing out that cars may be hot-wired justifies leaving your keys in the ignition. If you don’t like going through the screening process stay home, it’ll make a shorter wait for those of us sane enough to understand that sometimes compromises have to be made in this world.

    1. Cep Rast: “…you are free to fly on someone else’s plane…

      That’s basically the dismissive “let them eat cake” argument.

      Most if not all US domestic airlines operate the same scam. And that’s even supposing a passenger affected DOES have a choice. Some airports are served by only a single carrier.

      BTW, how many people in first or business class get asked to give up their seat? It’s always some pleb in economy class.

    2. Cep Rast: “Don’t pretend that you have any right to demand space on their plane, and if you are asked to leave then you must, or you are trespassing just as you would be trespassing in any other establishment. ”

      So in other words what you’re saying is that airline passengers have no more rights vis-a-vis an airline than a herd of cattle. Airline rights trump passengers’ rights every single time. They have an absolute right to toss a passenger off for NO reason at all. Or even for some truly abominable one like the colour of your skin or the fact you speak Arabic.

      Cep Rast: “This is the same principle as being ejected from a movie theater without a refund for causing a disruption.

      That’s a poor analogy. The parallel only applies if the disruption was the CAUSE of their being tossed off the plane. Here the airline essentially kicked four people off arbitrarily and one of them objected to leaving.

      A better analogy would be the real estate practice called “gazumping”. That’s where a buyer has paid a deposit for a house, apartment, or block of land, but while the buyer is out arranging a loan with a bank somebody else comes in, offers MORE money, and agent sells to them instead,

      That called being cheated.

    3. Well, the obligation is right there in that contract. It says you MAY be “denied boarding” die to overbooking, and offered etc etc. Once you get past the gate you are supposed to be home free. Contractually that is. He did not demand space on the plane, he was given space on the plane in accordance with the contract. He did not cause a disruption; he just said no. The airline caused a disruption by choosing to end the offers before reaching the mandated maximum value of the voucher, and by not monitoring the police actions.
      WHERE WAS THE CAPTAIN? he does not show up in any of the videos, and I have not heard a single report where he attempted the persuade the victim to deplane, or to instruct the crew to increase the offer for volunteers.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.